RADICAL VIOLENT WING Theme 4 – Priya Rane and Amy Cleaves

Violence and nonviolence How do nonviolent movements coexist with groups that are fighting for the same cause in a violent manner? To what extent – of at all – does this compromise the movement and hinder its chances of success? > Indian nationalist cause, American civil rights.

Violence and nonviolence in the Indian nationalism movements  Gandhi’s attempt at being nonviolent played to the supposedly liberal nature of the British colonial mission.  There was little international support for the violence of Indian nationalists early in the 20 th century, compared to the international awareness and growing admiration for Gandhi and his methods.  Gandhi built on the failure of violent movements before 1920, to demonstrate how his alternative philosophy to gain freedom was a viable political action.  The Gandhi-Irwin Pact, 1929, demonstrates that Gandhi used the philosophy of compromising with his enemies to good political effect.

Violence and nonviolence in the Indian nationalism movements  Violence ensured divisive and exclusive movements, often drawn along religious boundaries. Gandhi’s belief in unification and an inner spirituality that transcended organised religions meant that people from all religious backgrounds could join the movement.  Violence movements were fractured, geographically isolated and exclusive to certain demographics.  Whereas nonviolence demonstrated a constructive and positive philosophy, its practicality was appealing (Salt Satyagraha, 1930), the violence in India tended only to capture the attention of the nation at times of desperation, for example at state executions of nationalists throughout the 1930s. Kumar Gupta argues that martyrdom may have temporarily rallied the nation into a fervor of revolutionary nationalist spirit, but the violence lacked potential to develop an cohesive alternative power structure to successfully overthrow the British.

Violence and nonviolence in the Indian nationalism movements  When violence did erupt it temporarily hindered the ideological purity of the cause, but Gandhi’s quick response of damnation and his fasting furthered the movement.  For example, in the early 1920s the ‘non-cooperation’ movement was gaining momentum under the name of Swaraj. However, after a violent clash in the town of Chauri Chaura in 1922, Gandhi was forced to call off all future demonstrations, boycotts and campaigns of mass civil disobedience.  The failure of non-cooperation meant violent action resumed, although the success of the Gandhian movement demonstrated to the activists the necessity of wide, public support.  Loving your enemy and complete nonviolence of action and spirit were essential to the Gandhian idea of nonviolence. The violence of other nationalists appeared to mirror the violence of the British state, and reinforced stereotypes held by the British public about the savagery of the Indian nation (often related back to the uprising of 1857).

Violence and nonviolence in the Indian nationalism movements  The violent wing was inherently masculine, but Gandhi incorporation of women strengthened the nationalist cause.  Violent struggles were influenced by the success of the Russian Revolution and Leninist ideas about the role of violence in destroying state structures, and the I.R.A’s attempts to overthrow British control in Ireland.  Interestingly, the violent campaigns were beginning to be shaped by the nonviolent mission. The Hindustan Socialist Republican Army began to accept young Muslims into the cause during the 1930s, and women became increasingly difficult to ignore in their plight for revolution.

Conclusions  Violence often threatens to undermine the principles and values of nonviolent campaigns. However, if nonviolent movements can build on the frustration of failed violent attempts to overthrow power and demonstrate a viable, constructive alternative, the nonviolent movement will grow.  The contrast between the inflexibility and divisions of violent movements, and the often more constructive and unifying nonviolent campaigns often means that governments are more likely to listen to their demands.  Nonviolence often unifies across religious, social and gender boundaries. This makes it a more compelling force, whereas violent rebellions tend to remain as the arena for young males.  No movement we have studied can be seen as completely nonviolent. Although violence pervades all attempts to overthrow a power base, nonviolence uses mass support, political ju-jitsu and moral high-ground to remain a potent force which must be addressed by the governmental authorities.

The Civil Rights Movement and Violence  The civil rights movement is often characterized as a nonviolent struggle. However, the use of armed resistance also played a role – with particular endorsement from the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE).  The June 1966 March Against Fear from Memphis to Jackson represented a shift in the character of the southern civil rights movement.

The Civil Rights Movement and Violence  The Deacons for Defence and Justice provided the outlet for armed resistance. In the face of intimidation campaigns by the Ku Klux Klan against the black communities of the south, the Deacons were to provide valuable protection that the city authorities would not.  Contemporary activists viewed the Deacons as an essential part of the movements’ endurance locally. Equally historians have attributed the armed resistance movement as one which was complimentary to the struggle.

The Civil Rights Movement and Violence  Due to the development of armed resistance in the civil rights movement, frictions came to the fore over the non-violent philosophy that had been purported to be at the heart of the movement.  In spite of King’s concessions to Carmichael in the March Against Fear, he and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference were still staunch adherents to the non-violent cause.  Writing in 1966, shortly after the March Against Fear, Rustin said that Black Power “not only lacks any real value for the civil rights movement, but [...] its propagation is positively harmful. It diverts the movement from a meaningful debate over strategy and tactics, it isolates the Negro community, and it encourages the growth of anti-Negro forces.”

The Civil Rights Movement and Violence  In spite of the misgivings of some of the main men of the Civil Rights movement, seemingly the ‘violence’ of armed resistance only served to strengthen the movement.  Historian Akinyele Umoja in ‘The Ballot and the Bullet’ argues that the more secular and democratic movements of CORE and SNCC saw more regional input into the decision making processes.  Therefore, as the civil rights movement grew in popularity, it had to cater to regional demands which ultimately led to CORE and SNCC embracing limited violence.

The Civil Rights Movement and Violence  Armed resistance was only a limited form of violence. It was the ‘last resort’ – but it ensured that numbers came out to support the civil rights movement marches in confidence.  The Deacons’ never considered their actions to be an alternative to non-violent action, it merely constituted pragmatic strategy and must be distinguished from the radicalised Black Power movement that came later.

Conclusions  The violence employed in this case provided ‘small’ victories regionally. It should be important not to overplay the significance of violence in the Civil Rights Movement.  Martin Luther King still remained the inspirational leader and figurehead for civil rights, and his philosophy was purely non-violent.