You're talking about pacifism, I'm talking about strategic non-violence. Ravi was talking about non-violence. What is this "pacifism" and what has it got to do with it?
>Democracy only really makes sense if one assumes that there are
>substantial differences to be argued out, so a pacific society would
>have no need of it.
I no idea what you are trying to convey here.
>Ravi is right to say that Gandhi achieved a great deal with
>non-violent direct action, but it ought to be said that though that
>was Congress' official policy there was in fact quite a lot of
>violent protests in the Quit India campaign.
What is your point exactly?
>More problematically, Britain succeeded in dividing India, which
>engendered a great deal of violence that Congress was not able to
>contain.
I don't see how people adopting an opposing strategy invalidates the strategy of non-violence. Yes, there was a great deal of violence and many people were killed. Are you suggesting that this is the fault of those who called for non-violence. Or are you suggesting that they should have forseen this and meekly accepted remaining part of the British Empire?
You have to understand that strategic non-violence doesn't necessitate meek compliance. It means you won't use violence. It doesn't follow that others won't use violence, merely that it will be much harder for the enemy to justify violence and incredibly costly for them to do so.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas