decolonization, colonialism, violence, non-violence, resistance, revolution, Fanon, Gandhi, India
History | Political Science
In his paper “On Violence,” Frantz Fanon argues for the crucial role of violence in achieving decolonization and asserts that the notion of “non-violent resistance” is introduced and upheld by those who are ultimately interested in preserving the capitalist colonial structure (Fanon 1;22). Fanon argues for the necessity of violence, claiming only violence can dislodge a regime that is itself established and maintained through violence, and that violence grants a sense of agency to the colonized people (2; 4; 6; 22; 10; 21; 51). I open this paper with an exposition and defence of Fanon’s two arguments for the necessity of violence to anti-colonial efforts and an explanation of why insistence upon non-violent resistance protects the powers that be. In this paper, I will defend Fanon’s arguments from the objection that non-violent tactics have historically been successful in combatting colonialism, and to explicitly argue that upholding non-violence as the only legitimate form of resistance is an oppressive tactic. I will accomplish this by examining the role of violent resistance, both within and without Mahatma Gandhi’s Quit India movement, in advancing Indian liberation from British rule in 1947.
"The Colonial Violence of “Non-Violent” Resistance,"
Dialogues: Undergraduate Research in Philosophy, History, and Politics: Vol. 1
, Article 1.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.library.tru.ca/phpdialogues/vol1/iss1/1