,
6 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
@Niharb101 @NishkaK at some level every fight is won with violence, or threat of violence. Sometimes it reduces relative violence: to whoever is threatened with the least violence - wins over those threatened with more violence.
@Niharb101 @NishkaK Gandhians won over revolutionaries because the decisive violent relevant power - Brit state - chose to threaten them with much less violence than revolutionaries, not just because Gandhians urged selective non-violence by Hindus only ag Brits+Muslims, but also that Gandhians
@Niharb101 @NishkaK Gandhians wdnt threaten a dissolution of the colonial state machinery as shaped by Brits, and wdnt jeopardize direct or indirect leverages of control in the functioning of the state after formal "hand-over" of power to selected Gandhians.
@Niharb101 @NishkaK Israel cd form, because the globally most violence capable force at the time - USA strongly favoured its formation. The latent anti-Jew forces of "Europe/ME" were too weak, and "anti-Jew" Russia was overstretched.
@Niharb101 @NishkaK for any ethnicity to successfully protect its basic rights ag the full might of a modern state, needs either internal, or external backing of a superior force of violence-actually executed or threatened. Bengali Hindus/NE non-Muslim/non-Xtians hv zero violent support.
@Niharb101 @NishkaK its not only unfair, but a dangerously false political understanding of the reality of power - to demand a non-violent entirely self-sourced move by Bengali Hindus/NE non-Muslim/Xtian tribes to succeed ag combined state powers of India/Pak/BD& global forces behind jihadis/EJ's.
