tariqah:

Like do a lot of you know that it wasn’t actually non violent “Ghandian” protests that put one of the biggest dent on the British Raj in India, but corollary measures that focused on economic self reliance, which was a huge deal for the British since their treasury had weakened greatly, and the markets of their colonies were one of the only ways they could make up the losses. This was actually seen again and again, from East India Comapny’s rule to the British Raj, there was an intense focus on stopping and putting restrictions on what Indian manufacturers could make, along with the Raj stating that every manufactured god had to be sold to them first hand because Indian goods in general tended to be better and command greater prices.
Which is why the salt satyagraha and the swadeshi movement really were far more important than previously thought. And also, it really reveals the fact that non violent protest cannot work unless you have a system of economic self reliance that you can fall back on, which most countries and communities did not have due to different reasons, from geographic location, to the amount of trade and legal restrictions placed upon the colonised people of said country.

This is what actually irks me the most when people are like “"Ghandi said you need to be non violent uwu” like shut up, there is a context where you can be non violent and there’s a context where you simply can’t. And don’t use your half baked understandings of what happened in xyz country through non violence when you cannot understand what other factor contributed to their freedom. It was British economic incompetence, World War 2, and Indian self sufficiency rather than these non violent protests and petitions and what not that helped in getting rid of the British colonisers in India

• salt satyagraha on wikipedia
• the swadeshi movement on wikipedia