Today in class we had a long discussion about the pros and cons of practicing nonviolence. Sarah brought up a typical example of a kid physically bullying another kid, and whether or not the victim should respond by punching his bully back. The class was surprisingly split almost right down the middle, with some saying that refusing to fight back is a sign of strength because you are not giving into your temptations, while others, including myself, felt that fighting back was necessary in circumstances of self defense. In the case of the Indian Revolution, Ghandi encouraged his supporters to practice nonviolence and to hold back from violently responding to Britain’s actions. To some extent, I agree with Ghandi that self-control and nonviolence is a sing of morality and strength; however, I believe that had the Indians attempted to fight back, the British militia would not have belittled them so much. In fact, had the Indians rebelled, Britain might have listened to them, and given them if not complete self-government, at least some rights. Furthermore, had India defended themselves by attacking back, they could have saved hundreds of lives in the Amritsar Massacre. Though we had this discussion in class, I was interested in it, so I wanted to hear some further opinions. Do you think that Britain was able to so successfully belittle India because of their giving in and nonviolence, or was it for other reasons? Thoughts?