What if Gandhi was violent?

As we all know, Mahatma Gandhi was committed to civil disobedience and non-violence, even in extreme situations.

Yet, what if that was different? What if Gandhi was actively violent, aggressive, and willing to do anything to get his way? What would the Indian independence movement under his leadership look like? What effects would this have caused throughout India? How would it affect the British Empire? Would India have gained its independence?
 
Last edited:
This is like that "WI Pelley was not racist" thread. You are basically writing fiction.

EDIT: Looking at that thread someone made a post where "WI Gandhi was violent" to compare with the stupidity of "WI Pelley was not racist".
 

Thanoslives

Banned
He would of failed in his endeavor. Ghandi wasn't opposed to violence he just realized you couldn't fight the empire with violence as they were better at it at that time
 
This is like that "WI Pelley was not racist" thread. You are basically writing fiction.

EDIT: Looking at that thread someone made a post where "WI Gandhi was violent" to compare with the stupidity of "WI Pelley was not racist".

Perhaps implausible but not impossible that Gandhi would be violent person instead pacifist.

Gandhi's absolutely non-violent resistanse was that which brough him and his followers sympathy around the world and got Brits looking bad when they answered with violence and threw poor Gandhi whom had bad health to prison where was quiet bad conditions. So definitely violent Gandhi wouldn't get much of sympathy and India would got independence more violently. This would affect to American civil rights movement whan Gandhi had big influence to many famous civil rights leaders.
 
Was this inspired by a recent game of Civilization you played by any chance? :p

For peak Civ 1 accuracy, he would be a completely peaceful protestor just as IOTL during the Raj. Upon assuming independence, he would immediately embark on an aggressive nuclear weapons development program and bomb Pakistan as soon as the bombs were proven viable.
 
Violence would mean authorities could toss him into prison or kill him while resisting arrest, supressing his movement with Amritsar level of violence while blaming him for starting it. India still gets independence, but it could mean civil war between those who supported the colonial rule (army, police, bureucracy) and National Congress. Certainly it would not be as cool as this:
 
Sounds like this is based on Civilisation II where there was a glitch in the artificial intelligence (A.I.) settings for Gandhi's aggression level. Starting with the lowest level of aggression to reflect Gandhi's historical legacy of pacifism, as the game progresses towards the Modern Era the Indian civilization would often become more hostile and confrontational towards other leaders as a result of a coding error. At that point in the game Gandhi's already low aggression value would lower into a negative value in the game's code, at which point the error caused Gandhi's aggression to underflow into the highest setting just as the level of military aggression begins to wane across the world in the game, going from 0 to 255. With the advents of strategic nuclear weaponry in the Atomic Era, Gandhi's hyperaggression typically leads to rampant threats and use of nuclear bombs on other civilizations.

807.jpg
 
It's difficult to say what happens specifically to Gandhi. Without becoming a notable figure for his role in peaceful protests in South Africa he may never have become an important name in the push for Indian Independence.

If Gandhi does become a notable violent revolutionary I disagree that he is doomed to fail, I think if an armed independence movement emerged and was popular enough it could have the numbers to make British rule very difficult, especially during the Great Depression and WW2 (if these events still happen). It would be interesting to see how Gandhi could shape India after a violent revolution if he was to hold onto his anti-materialist views and his rural romanticism (assuming he still holds these views)
 
I heard suggestions that he was having his followers go into situations there would be violence, but I that wasn't exactly from an academic source. You can easily have him go violent in his own way, by having him do just that, though. Make thousands of martyrs by sending them into situations where there would be beating or massacres, and then either wait for the British to be shamed out or for th epopulace to riot, all while keeping his own hands clean. Or you have him move to support Hindu nationalists, and have him as a semi-official Dali Lama figure. Who, until maybe this one, was the head of a feudal theocracy. Just have him be the one to to talk about liberation of Junagadh, Hyderabad, Sikkim, Jammu and Kashmir, and the French and Portuguese areas, possibly also invading Ceylon. Really though, if you don't get him like a wise old man, spinning clothing, starving himself, etc you won't have a Ghandi with nearly as much sway. He was seen as practically a holy figure.
 
This is like that "WI Pelley was not racist" thread. You are basically writing fiction.

EDIT: Looking at that thread someone made a post where "WI Gandhi was violent" to compare with the stupidity of "WI Pelley was not racist".
How so? What makes this improbable to the point of it being written like fiction?

Was this inspired by a recent game of Civilization you played by any chance? :p
Wait, what? Nope, haven't played that game.
 
What would he be? nationalist? Communist?. There are a lot of ways Gandhi could be violent and there are more ways he would be crushed.
 
Top