Were nonviolent forms of resistance in Britsh India more effective than violent ones?

by razbil

Hi, I'm a college student who's tasked with writing an argumentative essay on a topic of my choosing. I was thinking of arguing that nonviolent forms of colonial resistance aren't as effective as violent forms. Of course, I am no historian, and that's why I wanted to ask this sub for advice. From my perspective, it just seems like the British wouldn't be very moved to liberate the crown jewel of their empire just because of nonviolent resistance alone. I am Bengali-American myself, so this topic hits pretty close to home for me, but I am severely lacking in historical knowledge. Thank you for any input.

freedmenspatrol

Hi - we as mods have approved this thread, because while this is a homework question, it is asking for clarification or resources, rather than the answer itself, which is fine according to our rules. This policy is further explained in this Rules Roundtable thread and this META Thread.

As a result, we'd also like to remind potential answerers to follow our rules on homework - please make sure that your answers focus appropriately on clarifications and detailing the resources that OP could be using.

Additionally, while users may be able to help you out with specifics relating to your question, we also have plenty of information on /r/AskHistorians on how to find and understand good sources in general. For instance, please check out our six-part series, "Finding and Understanding Sources", which has a wealth of information that may be useful for finding and understanding information for your essay.