In the history of national liberation struggle in the world, India led by Gandhi? Non-violent non-cooperative movement? Has an important position, right? Non-violent non-cooperative movement? An accurate and comprehensive understanding is helpful to improve our ability to understand history by using historical materialism and dialectical materialism. We can understand it from three aspects: militancy, strategy and weakness. Non-violent non-cooperative movement? .

First: enterprising and revolutionary. From the historical background, due to the long-term colonial oppression and exploitation by Britain, the development of Indian national capitalism has been suppressed in various ways, and there are sharp contradictions between national capitalism and British colonial rulers, and between Indian nation and suzerain Britain. Ever since the western colonists set foot in India, a beautiful land with a long history of civilization, the Indian people have waged various forms of anti-colonialism struggles. The Congress Party, which leads the non-violent and non-cooperative movement, and its leader Gandhi represent the interests of the Indian national bourgeoisie. Although the Indian national bourgeoisie is relatively weak, its position inevitably determines the strong revolutionary and combative nature of this movement. We should first see this when we understand this movement. Revolution and struggle came first, which was of positive significance at that time.

Second: strategic and realistic. First of all, what is the means of struggle? Nonviolence? In the face of powerful enemies, Gandhi's only weapon of struggle is to adhere to truth and non-violence. In Gandhi's words, truth is God, and non-violence is a means to pursue truth, that is, to know God. Gandhi believes that this is the weapon of the strong. This abstract and mysterious theory seems puzzling, but it contains important political content and has great practical value. Because in India, a colonial country with mixed races, multiple religious beliefs, caste segregation and British divide-and-rule policy, truth is God? In fact, it is to bring all kinds of religious beliefs in India? Are the gods one? Blend religious gods with realistic ideals, and use languages and forms that people are familiar with and understand to arouse people to unite under the banner of truth regardless of race, religion, sect and caste. This is undoubtedly an effective weapon for the Indian bourgeoisie to publicize, organize and attract the masses to participate in the anti-British struggle. At the same time, because it advocated non-violence, it not only adapted to the reality that people were deprived of their armed rights and suffered from religious prejudice under British colonial rule, but also was accepted by colonists with parliamentary democracy and rich ruling experience to a certain extent; It can not only mobilize the masses, but also always limit the mass movement within a certain range, so it is very suitable? World War I? After the October Revolution, India's national independence movement flourished and the proletarian world revolution came. The Indian national bourgeoisie not only hoped to use the masses' anti-imperialist struggle to achieve its political and economic goals, but also prevented the in-depth development of the workers and peasants movement from endangering its own interests. Although the national liberation movement in modern India suffered setbacks, it lasted for a long time and eventually forced the British colonists to withdraw from India. Should I say Gandhi's? Nonviolence? Thought has played an important role in this process.

Secondly, it is manifested in the goals put forward by the struggle. What's the first one? Future autonomy? Nonviolence? Gradually put forward in the movement? Independent? ; So-called? The national bourgeoisie exercised some powers under British rule. This cannot be simply understood as its compromise. Judging from the situation at that time, Britain colonized India for more than half a century, and the colonial institutions were basically stable. Moreover, India is the colonial center of the British Empire in the Far East, and its colonial rule is quite strong. Should it be realized immediately? Independent? Unrealistic, more easily opposed by the British colonial authorities. And then what? The reality of autonomy is relatively mild and easily accepted by Britain. With the decline of Britain's own strength and the growth of India's national bourgeoisie, in the second and third times? Nonviolence? In the movement, integrity is gradually put forward? Independent? Slogan. This reason? Autonomy comes? Independent? This strategy reflected the spirit of seeking truth from facts to a certain extent and played a positive role at that time.

?

Third, weakness and compromise. Of course, Gandhi regarded non-violence as a religious belief and an unchangeable principle, which obviously had various drawbacks and defects and had some negative effects on India's national liberation movement. For example, absolute non-violence cannot be achieved; Denying all violence, formulating rules and regulations for mass movements, and not crossing the line will inevitably constrain the enthusiasm of the masses; If we stop the movement as long as there is violence, it will inevitably dampen morale, lose the revolutionary opportunity and prolong the revolutionary process; The self-suffering and self-sacrifice of the public are always limited by time and environment; Under the suppression of counter-revolutionary violence, unarmed resistance can only be meaningless sacrifice; Non-violent religious color caters to the ignorance and backwardness of the masses, which is not conducive to the real awakening of the masses; Wait a minute.