In the history of self determination and independence, the role of non-violent struggle has always been seen as the reason behind its success. However if we truly look at how these nations truly were able to be free you will realise that the biggest catalyst to its success was the violent struggle. Take the example of South Africa, the ANC and the Blacks began by using peaceful methods of public disobedience, but after so long it proved to account for nothing. Only when they were radicalized, and started committing acts of violence did people really start listening to them. Then only when they returned back to the idea of non-violent struggle, did the world go "hey, they used to be violent, but now they're being non-violent, so lets rally behind them". My point is the idea of non-violent struggle is always credited for helping nations achieve self-determination and independence but no one ever stops to think about the main catalyst, violence.
Even in India during its struggle for independence, Mahatma Gandhi was very adamant about keeping to non-violence, however not many people see that behind the scenes, the violence from the radicalized followers of Mahatma Gandhi, played a large part in securing the Independence. This brings me to the idea of how this is similar to how we celebrate ex-drug addicts who managed to rehabilitate themselves. For those of us who have never taken drugs, when we say we have never taken drugs society is like okay whatever, but suddenly a ex-drug addict says he has been off the pipe and clean for three months we celebrate him and congratulate him.
We humans as a society are a complicated bunch, when a group that deviates chooses to return to the norms we celebrate them, but when we ourselves have stuck to the norm for most of our lives it is seen as "oh okay, thats normal". The moral of the story is nonviolent struggle will only succeed if there is a period of violence that predates it.
Assalamualaikum, Heshalom Aleichem, Namaste, and Peace be upon you my readers.
Ashli Burton Bin Amir