Which independence movement effectively combined both violent and non-violent tactics?

The Indian independence movement effectively combined both violent and non-violent tactics.

The Indian independence movement, which spanned from 1857 to 1947, was a complex and multifaceted struggle for freedom from British colonial rule. It was characterised by a combination of both violent and non-violent tactics, making it a unique case study in the history of independence movements.

The non-violent aspect of the movement is most famously associated with Mahatma Gandhi, who advocated for civil disobedience and peaceful protests. Gandhi's philosophy of Satyagraha, or truth-force, was based on the principle of non-violence and non-cooperation. This was manifested in various forms of peaceful protests such as the Salt March in 1930, where thousands of Indians marched to the Arabian Sea to make their own salt, defying the British salt laws. Similarly, the Quit India Movement in 1942 called for mass civil disobedience against British rule.

However, alongside these non-violent tactics, there were also violent methods employed by certain factions within the movement. The revolutionary activities, particularly in Bengal, were marked by acts of violence against the British. Groups like the Ghadar Party and the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA) were involved in bombings, assassinations and armed robberies as a means to end British rule. The Chittagong armoury raid in 1930, led by Surya Sen, is a notable example of such violent resistance.

The Indian National Army (INA), led by Subhas Chandra Bose, also adopted a violent approach. Bose sought help from the Axis Powers during World War II to wage a military campaign against the British. The INA fought alongside Japanese forces in the Burma Campaign and later in the Imphal and Kohima fronts.

Thus, the Indian independence movement effectively combined both violent and non-violent tactics. The peaceful protests led by Gandhi and the violent resistance by revolutionaries and the INA were two sides of the same coin, both aiming for the same goal - India's independence. This combination of tactics not only highlights the diversity within the movement but also the complexity of the struggle for independence.