Related to the posts on Chapter 1 of How Nonviolence Protects the State:
I wanted to separate this off because this sentence actually works against Peter's claims because he neglected his own phrasing to recognise what he had said.
From South End version:
Resistance to British colonialism included enough militancy that the Gandhian method can be viewed most accurately as one of several competing forms of popular resistance.
To the Active Distro:
Resistance to British colonialism was so militant that the Gandhian method can be viewed most accurately as just one of several competing forms of popular resistance.
The biggest issue is that he highlights it was “one of several competing forms of popular resistance.” But he doesn't stop to elaborate on why there would even be competing resistances. He occasionally points to these things (but doesn't tie them into that *competition) with regards to what was happening. He even points to there having been a “rival revolutionary.”
The thing he's overlooking, in favour of focusing on Gandhi's “nonviolence” movement is that he was engaging in a struggle for power. Even within the text of his book (like the email from “Gopal K”), he points to this very concept and seems to walk right by it in order to demonise all nonviolence.
All of this is still without elaborating on what that definition even is. He's never once outlined what “nonviolence” means, and he presumes that we agree with his understanding of “pacifist.”
Reading that bit between the lines actually weakens Peter's arguments because it makes me wonder what “nonviolent” action was supporting the “violent” action; the two can't coincide without the other, and this is also where I keep finding frustration with his inability to define terms, like “militancy.”
If you don't want to define terms, you're going to force me to use my understandings and that is going to undermine your argument because we don't share an understanding in this instance.
Peter also references Bhagat Singh's death sentence in a footnote. You would think this would've made it into his text to counter how Gandhi still supported some aspects of British rule, which doesn't mean that nonviolence supported British rule but that Gandhi found it useful for what he could become. From footnote 7 (South End)/footnote 8 (Active Distro):
Reeta Sharma, “What if Bhagat Singh Had Lived?” The Tribune of India, March 21, 2001. It is important to note that people across India beseeched Gandhi to ask for the commutation of Bhagat Singh’s death sentence, given for the assassination of a British official, but Gandhi strategically chose not to speak out against the state execution, which many believe he easily could have stopped. Thus was a rival revolutionary removed from the political landscape.
Note: Link included as hyperlink for the sake of both appearances and ease.
From the text that he references (this is from Reeta Sharma's writing), this paragraph exists that highlights exactly the frustrations that I've had with his presentation of “pacifists manipulate the history” when we know the history was manipulated otherwise by the powerful:
Historian Dr Rajiv Lochan whose major research work revolves around Mahatma Gandhi puts this whole historical perspective in the following observations: “From all events and records available it is quite obvious that Gandhiji perceived both Subhas Chander Bose and Bhagat Singh as potential threats to his own highly acclaimed position.”
So would this not prove that Gandhi was weaponising nonviolence for his own benefit? This isn't that all nonviolence is ineffective but that some people have ulterior motives, weaponising a specific understanding of nonviolence. To me, this feels like Peter failed to analyse the texts at his disposal in favour of continuing to argue with one guy.
(Tangent: The spelling of Subhas Chander Bose here makes me wonder why he changed the spelling in the updated text to 'Subhash'. Just a passing curiosity.)