Violent protests tore an already hurting country a new one. Despite this low point, non-violent figures such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi would end up saving a broken India many years later. Comparing violent resistance against British rule to non-violent resistance of British rule, I argue that a non-violent approach proved to be much more successful in establishing back a free state. I suggest that the adoption of non-violent tendencies helped India launch its movement. In this essay, I demonstrate how The Indian Rebellion of 1857 differs from movements around the time of Gandhi. During British rule, there were many people upset with the new …show more content…
A matter a fact, in response to the rebellion, British Parliament passed an act abolishing the East India Company. India became a crown colony to be governed by the British Parliament directly. In the following year, the title of Viceroy was bestowed upon the governor-general by Queen Victoria. She introduced a policy of divide and rule which prevented Indians from uniting to rebel against her. The Indian Rebellion of 1857 proved to be very violent and carried with it a lot of death, and with that arises the question as to how Gandhi could end British rule through zero violence. Gandhi was internally upset that his people were oppressed, and he overall ended up leading the fight for Indian independence from the British. He carried out several nonviolent civil disobedience campaigns. These campaigns were special though, for not a violent hand was raised by an Indian. Large groups of Indian citizens would do things like, sitting in the streets, boycotting the courts, refusing to work and more. Yes, a single