Gandhi led one of the only successful non-violent revolutions to date. Through non-violence he was able to ratify the injustice that was overt, and he remained this tactic throughout the revolution. In the movie we watched in class when asked how he would react to violence being inflicted upon him he said that he would react by offering his other cheek and not by striking at the inflicter. On the other hand, many other revolutions have been successful with violence. For example, the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution would not have been successful if violence was not present. Many of the leaders of these revolutions would not have had the same outlook on violence that Gandhi had instead they would remark that violence was necessary to keep the rebels from rebelling. My question is whether or not violence is necessary for a revolution to succeed? Can you have a successful revolution without every laying a hand on your enemy? Violence is necessary to have your cause heard against the enemy?