[Knitebane]

Ghandi isn't a very good reference for the power of non-violent action. He is quoted (though I can only paraphrase) as saying the of all of the tryanical acts perpetrated on a subjugated people that depriving them of arms was the blackest.

That particular quote indicates to me that Ghandi used non-violent means to acheive his ends as more of a recognition of reality and proceeding to work with what he had than the inherent non-violent person that modern thought tends to portray him as.

That is not to say that he wasn't courageous and brilliant. The Indian people had already been disarmed, so armed conflict simply wasn't an option. Ghandi recognized this and managed to sour the British on the idea of an occupied India anyway. If arms had been readily available, I suspect that the history of Indian freedom from British rule might be different.

Knitebane

[lentulusgracchus]

Very good point. The Congress Party didn't mind secretly conversing with the Japanese while the war was on, but Congress finally decided that Japan would lose the war.

You're probably right about Gandhi's resort to non-violence as being more practical than ideal. Some people who've tried to profile Gandhi psychologically think he really was an idealist, however.