Why Has India Forgotten The Violence In Its Struggle For Freedom?
Words by Zara Flavia Dmello
Welcome to the Brown History Newsletter. If you’re enjoying this labor of love, please do consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your contribution would help pay the writers and illustrators and support this weekly publication. If you like to submit a writing piece, please send me a pitch by email at brownhistory1947@gmail.com.
Don’t forget to check out our SHOP and our Podcast.
Recommended Reads:
Why Has India Forgotten The Violence In Its Struggle For Freedom?
In the wake of modern movements against colonialism and apartheid, many countries—governments and masses alike—have adopted a neutral and sometimes negative response towards resistance. It feels understandable, albeit unnerving, that many white Western countries, which have never experienced imperialism, struggle to grasp the meaning of the phrase “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.”, often writing it off as a crude justification for violence.
It is perplexing, however, to see India—a nation that endured 200 years of British colonial rule and employed violence to secure its independence—fail to understand the dissent of indigenous and oppressed peoples across the world and in its own backyard. Despite the multifaceted answers we may receive when asking, “Why does India oppose modern anti-colonial resistance and violence?”, a close examination reveals a primary root cause.