Non Violent Movements example essay topic

Nationalism as a concept is defined by the formation of a distinct identity for a certain population in terms of their religion, ethnicity or class differences. This term was used to describe the rise of movements along these distinct lines. Since then the connotations of the word may have changed over time but its essential meaning has remained unchanged. The term in essence refers to two varying sentiments. Broadly speaking, the first of these is a sense of identification with a certain nation based on ethnic, cultural or religious bounds. The second is a sentiment of loyalty to the nation as defined by these ethnic, cultural and religious bound.

While the first only serves as a unifying factor in most cases, the second also serves as a rallying call for mass political mobilization. This has been obvious especially in the years immediately after the Second World War during the time of the disintegration of Colonial power structures and the subsequent creation of a bipolar world. The concept of the non-violent movement was introduced to these anti-colonial movements early enough. Gandhi, the tiny, old man of Indian politics came up with the idea of a non-violent independence struggle. This was a struggle which initially rooted itself in a secular context but gradually became known as essentially being a Hindu Nationalist movement.

Gandhi's initial thrust had been towards unifying Indian natives under this banner of non-violence in order to garner support for an ouster of the British from India and an overhaul of the Indian government structure. What this meant was that Gandhi was looking for a! yen fundamental change! | in the structure and hierarchies of the Indian state. This is highlighted in his writings: ! SSThe state after withdrawal (of the Colonizers) will depend largely upon the manner of it. If, as you assume, they (the Colonizers) retire, it seems to me we shall still keep their constitution and shall carry on the government. !" Gandhi was then visibly looking for a structural uprooting of the British / Colonial system and aimed to replace it with one more contributory to the state and, hence, less extractor y in nature.

This for him was the fundamental change in the system that was required for a successful transformation from a colonized to an independent state. Gandhi's method of achieving this change was through the practice of nonviolent passive resistance.! SS Passive resistance is a method of securing rights by the personal suffering; it is the reverse of resistance by arms. !" !

SSThe force of arms is powerless when matched against the force of love or the soul. !" Passive resistance then was to be followed at all times in order to achieve the goal of independence, and more importantly of fundamental change. However, even though Gandhi gave great lip-service to his non-violent nationalism, even this peaceful movement eventually descended into excessive amounts of violence and bloodshed which even the calming influence of Gandhi could not control. His appeals for nonviolence were met with bubbling enthusiasm but normally translated into an extreme disregard for the! SS force of love or the soul!" as mentioned above. Even when Gandhi preached the unity of the Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs in one united India, mass murders were conducted on the basis of religious and Muslims and Sikhs were not the only perpetrators of this hatred.

The weakness of Gandhi's nationalism lay in his assumption that the religious identities of the people were assimilatory. He failed to recognize that his own philosophy was so deeply based in Hindu tradition that it appeared overtly Hindu Nationalist on close observation. This basis in Hindu tradition allowed it to become an easy target fro detractors. A similar pattern was also visible in the South African movement against Apartheid. The intellectual leaders of the movement preached the very ideals that Gandhi espoused. They continued to preach the same concepts down to the time that the Black people of South Africa were given their rights.

They had started off as a party of intellectuals devoted to the non-violence cause. The coming to prominence of Nelson Mendel a and Oliver T ambo served only to solidify that position. The African National Congress, the voice of the African people in South Africa, attempted only one real armed struggle before 1980. This struggle, in 1963 was crushed by the government forces.

By and large however, the ANC's movement was a non-violent one. The ANC was representative of the people over the years to a great extent. However, the people the ANC represents were not the majority. They were only the politically active middle-class which was involved in political discussion in the country.

Over the years since its inception and with its increased political role, ! SS it remained faithful to the notion that peaceful pressure could persuade the government to yield. !" Between 1960 and 1990 the ANC was frozen out of free debate in South Africa, its survival was under constant threat, and its principle objectives were long-term. !" Once the apartheid rule ended in the early 1990's, South Africa started to move towards greater integration. However, the system of governance in South Africa remains the same today. The economic structures are also the same.

This means that the money is still controlled by a minority of Whites in the country. Although the ANC managed to build support on the basis of a n African Nationalist identity, the lack of a desire to change the system significantly does not qualify them for this discussion. They may have been non-violent, and to some degree nationalists, but they were unable! Even unwilling! To bring about real change. The ANC did not aim to implement any large-scale structural reform and accepted whatever system was left behind by the apartheid rulers.

The Whites still controlled most business and land and the resultant international investment only served to increase income disparities in South Africa. Fundamental change as being considered in this situation was never truly aimed at or achieved. If looking at non-violent movements does not satisfy our criteria for Fundamental Change, then the next logical step is examining situations where this change was visible. Upon this examination, it becomes clear that this change was a direct result of a violent mass upheaval which demolished all existing structures in order to erect new ones in their place. These new structures were mostly better suited for the purpose of that particular society and were thus a more basic requirement. These revolutionary movements then did result in fundamental chance.

The two obvious examples contiguous to those discussed under the non-violent paradigm are Cuba and Iran. The Cuban revolution started out with an attempt to! S Sallow a perfect identification between the government and the community as a whole, adapted to the special conditions of the building of socialism and avoiding to the utmost the commonplaces of bourgeois democracy transplanted to the society in formation (such as legislative houses, for example). !" Fundamental change was thus an explicitly stated aim of the revolution from the beginning. However, unlike India, where the British colonizers were transplanted by! SSthe commonplace of bourgeois democracy!" as Guevara calls it, Cuba and its revolutionaries managed to retain the sense of change that was essential to their measurement of success.

Similarly, the Cuban revolution also espoused the idea of violence as the means to the end. From the initial 26th July, 1953 initiative at Mon cada! And the repercussions of it on the insurgents! The movement was always actively violent. The revolutionaries understood that violence was their only means to get their demands across to the rulers and to implement large-scale long-lasting change. Also unlike India, the nationalism generated and the movement that ensued were both based on economic rather then ethno-cultural ideologies.

This united the people under the banner of the revolutionary movement rather then dividing them along cultural, ethnic or religious lines. Cuba, thus, becomes our prime example of struggle against resisting colonial or semi-colonial rule. In effect, Cuba's was a nationalist revolutionary movement which set out with the aim of instituting! yenfundamental change! | and achieved this to a significantly successful degree. Castro and his revolutionary forces were able to create a post-revolutionary system which was based on the needs of the people and was fundamentally different from the extractive system in place previously. Our next examination will be of a country with a relatively stable government which employed radical means to over-throw the existing system and implement successful change across the spectrum.!

SSThe Iranian Revolution has been one of the epic events og post-war history, involving remarkable levels of political mobilization, international crisis, and political brutality. !" Some people question if this movement deserves to be called a revolution but! SS defined in terms of levels of mass mobilization, destruction of existing political and social order, and the establishment of a distinctly new order, !" are all signs that the movement was not only revolutionary, but in our case was also an instrument of! yenFundamental Change! |. However, the most interesting aspect of this movement was that it did not take place in a declining, backward economy but in one which was on the rise. Iran under the ancien regime was prospering and moving towards development.

Yet the trend towards capitalism and modernization was largely unacceptable to the people and certain established religious institutions. Another interesting aspect is that the ancien regime was not weak in any way, or had not weakened apparently in the recent past. This meant that the people actually moved towards bringing down a strong, prosperous system which should have been acceptable to them. The sense of nationalism built up for this movement was then contrary to the demands of any other in the world before it. There was economic disparity and corruption, but this was offset by the modernization rapidly taking place. This movement was very organic in nature yet it was largely formed by the urban population.

Rural populations were not a force in this revolution which was another trend that Iran went against. All in all, this movement of national interest took on an established regime and over-threw it. It was then able to implement a regime which was, at least at that time, more acceptable to the people. The revolution was not religious in origin! It had been initiated mostly by students!

Yet it turned into a religious movement due to the prevalent circumstances. The result was the setting up of a system more acceptable to the public at the time. After the old government was thrown out, before a new system could be set up, the different factions involved fell into dispute. Ayatollah Khomeini had greater support and mobilization and he physically crushed all those who opposed him. This resulted in great violence before the formation of the state could take place. Thus, yet another difference in this movement was that violence was not a tool in disposing of the old system but it was essential in the formation of the new one.

After an examination of the different aspects and possibilities of movements around the world, it can be seen that the only way to reach the goal of! yenFundamental Change! | is first to establish a national identity devoid of the major religious differences. Even in Iran, the differences in religion caused the major problems after the Shah was deposed. Once a uniform national spirit can be generated though, a certain amount of violence is necessary in order to bring about the necessary transformation from the existing system to the new one. Violence thus, becomes an integral part of all movements simple because without violence the existing system cannot be brought down.

For the Fundamental Change to take place, a national identity must be fostered which acts as a unifying force before the violent upheaval can take place. List of