Many people around the world live in countries that have been directly affected by nonviolent struggles. Nonviolence has a long and successful track record of creating political change around the world; recent studies have shown it to be twice as effective at achieving its goals than violent resistance. In the 20th century, nonviolent campaigns have successfully resisted oppressive regimes in India, China, Brazil, the Philippines, Guatemala, Nigeria, South Africa, Iran, Denmark, Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Serbia, Romania, the United States, and many other nations.

And yet nonviolence remains overlooked and misunderstood despite its prevalence and success. Gandhi will be the first COIN game, and one of the first published board games, to include nonviolent resistance. Not only are historical nonviolent struggles underrepresented in gaming, existing games on violent resistance movements tend to cherry pick the most successful examples as models despite the limited successes of violent insurrections.

One of the challenges of designing Gandhi has been to provide an accurate portrayal of nonviolent resistance. Doing so is particularly difficult with this topic, because there are many myths and misconceptions concerning nonviolence that have gained traction. Perhaps the most common myth is that nonviolence is just passive resistance, akin to submission. But nothing could be further from the truth: nonviolence is an active force for change. Another myth is that only committed pacifists can adopt nonviolent methods. Gandhi himself helped to spread this myth, at times speaking of nonviolence as though it had near mystical powers of persuasion against even the most brutal oppressors. But nonviolence is not limited to saints; its methods are open to nearly everyone and are much more accessible than forms of violent resistance. Lastly, it is often claimed that nonviolence is much less effective than violence. Yet the historical record shows that nonviolence is actually twice as effective as violence. Identifying and countering these myths are important for understanding the full range of resistance available to people fighting oppression.

Three Myths of Nonviolence

#1 – Nonviolence is just passive resistance. It is just the absence of violence. It is submission to oppression through inaction.

Nonviolence is not passive, it is not the mere philosophical rejection of violence, it is not submission. Nonviolent resistance movements are organized for provocative action to directly confront oppression. It goes beyond the regular, institutionalized forms of political participation, such as lobbying, voting, or passing laws. Although these actions may accompany nonviolent resistance, not everything that is not violent should be considered nonviolence.

Instead, as scholars Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan have noted, nonviolent resistance “is a form of active conflict, where unarmed civilians use a variety of nonviolent tactics like strikes, boycotts, protests, and demonstrations to effect political change without using violence.” Nonviolent movements work through leveraging the power of large numbers of participants to strip away the political, economic, social, and even military support a regime requires to maintain its power and authority. As Jamila Raqib, executive director of the Albert Einstein Institute puts it, “nonviolent struggle works by destroying an opponent, not violently but by identifying the institutions that an opponent needs to survive, and denying them those sources of power.” Public protests and demonstrations bring unwanted attention to corrupt institutions and unjust laws. Strikes and boycott disrupt the economy. This resistance is active, not passive.

“Never has anything been done on this earth without direct action,” wrote Gandhi in 1920. He strongly rejected the idea that the movement to free India was similar to historical passive resistance movements. Instead, he called for direct action to challenge British control over India: civil disobedience and non-cooperation. With civil disobedience, Indians deliberately broke unjust laws to provoke a British response and demonstrate the limits of British power. They marched when marching was prohibited, they called for the end of colonial rule when such talk was seditious, they collected salt when it was illegal. Indians also engaged in non-cooperation by withdrawing their support for the British regime. Strikes, boycotts, marches, and other active forms of resistance made it increasingly difficult for the British to rule over subjects who refused to submit.

#2 — Nonviolence is only for committed pacifists who adopt nonviolence solely for principled or moral reasons.

Our familiarity with prominent nonviolent leaders is perhaps responsible for this myth. Gandhi and King have become mythic figures with national holidays and epic films that feature moving depictions of nonviolent resistance. Gandhi himself cultivated a saintly image and preached nonviolence as a way of life: he lived on a communal ashram farm, wore only what the poorest Indians wore, spun his own cloth, refused to travel first class. Similarly, Dr. King saw in nonviolence an alternative to the three evils of racism, poverty, and war, going far beyond the struggle for due process that had characterized the civil rights movement. Both Gandhi and King conceived of nonviolence as a powerful spiritual force; their martyrdom guaranteed their saintly status.

And yet, far from being practiced by a select few, nonviolent resistance is in fact a tool for change available to a wide range of participants. Indeed, it is the very accessibility of nonviolence that makes it effective. While many adopt nonviolence because of its moral superiority, far more adopt nonviolence because it is a pragmatic approach. For many people seeking political change, nonviolence is simply a better option than taking up arms. Because entry barriers to participation in nonviolent resistance campaigns are much lower than for violent campaigns, nonviolent movements have historically been much larger than violent ones. Of the 25 largest resistance movements of the 20th century, nonviolent movements had on average 200,000 members, four times the average size of violent movements.

Think of all the obstacles facing a guerrilla movement. Armed fighters need to be physically fit, tend to be young and male, and require extensive training. It’s a heavy commitment to join a violent movement. Guerrillas often need to leave home and family behind, and violent operations are very risky. Violent movements operate from the shadows; large numbers become a liability, not an asset. There are moral prohibitions against violence built into every culture; guerrilla fighters need to be trained to kill. And once the conflict is over, it is very difficult to transition back to normal, civilian life.

In some ways, nonviolent movements are also organized like military units, with trained members prepared to directly confront the regime at great risk. But nonviolence movements are not burdened by the entry barriers that tend to keep violent insurrections small. Almost anyone can participate in a nonviolent movement, regardless of age, gender, or background. Participation does not require a massive commitment forcing the participant to leave normal life. Unlike in violent movements, such casual commitments are welcomed. There are many ways to participate in nonviolent resistance and many methods are low-risk; nonviolence activist Gene Sharp identified 198 different methods of nonviolent action (http://bit.ly/198nvacts). Nonviolent resistance is public and attracts new members as it draws attention. By rejecting violence, participants do not need to overcome deeply held moral convictions that prohibit harming others. And afterward, it is much easier to transition to civilian life because joining a nonviolent movement does not mean leaving that life in the first place.

#3 — Nonviolence only rarely works. Although nonviolent movements may have been successful in a few, highly visible examples, only violence can defeat a brutal oppressor.

Yet historically, nonviolence has a much better track record than violence. During the 20th century there were 325 resistance campaigns waged across the world, in a wide variety of systems and circumstances. As discovered by Chenoweth and Stephan, nonviolent movements succeeded 50% of the time, whereas violent movements only succeeded in 25% of cases. Nonviolence works.

Nonviolence is more effective because it is better able to achieve two important advantages over violent resistance: it attracts more participants and it is better at generating domestic support. Because nonviolent movements are more visible and easier to join, they are able to generate more members. And more members means a greater likelihood of success. Numbers matter. The tipping point for success identified by Chenoweth and Stephan seems to be about 5%. If a resistance campaign, violent or nonviolent, can mobilize just 5% of the population, it becomes difficult for regimes to hold onto power. At 7% to 10%, the regime is doomed. Reprisals against nonviolent activists often backfire, bringing unwanted global attention and putting pressure on loyalist supporters to defect. As popular resistance grows, the regime finds itself unable to respond; its tools of violence and intimidation are rendered useless. Nonviolence succeeds in part because it can more easily meet this threshold. Violent movements attract fewer people, and their acts of violence (terrorism, assassinations, kidnappings) tend to strengthen regime resolve. The more violent they are, the less successful the insurgency becomes. For example, Max Abrams estimates that violent insurgencies that employ terrorism succeed less than 10% of the time. Such violence alienates domestic supporters; violent insurgencies often are forced to rely on foreign support for success. Moreover, reprisals against insurgents do not generate the kind of opposition seen when governments assault nonviolent civilians. Indeed, targeting and killing guerrillas can actually strengthen a regime’s political support.

Some well known violent insurgencies have been successful. In Cuba, Algeria, and Vietnam for example, insurgents were able to mobilize large numbers of participants, insurgent attacks on collaborators and government infrastructure made it difficult for the government regime to rule effectively, and violence by the government and its foreign allies only strengthened the resolve of the insurgents. In other words, they succeeded by co-opting many of the advantages of nonviolent campaigns! Yet the similarities with nonviolent resistance ends there—once victorious, violent insurgencies very often create brutal new governments that can be as oppressive as the defeated regime. Nonviolent resistance, on the other hand, when successful typically results in stable, democratic systems.

In India, hundreds of thousands participated in the many campaigns of the nonviolent movement against British rule. Some 50,000 marched with Gandhi during the Salt Satyagraha of 1930 and some 60,000 were arrested during the campaign. During the Quit India Campaign in 1942, 100,000 activists were jailed by the British! In the end, nonviolence scholar Kurt Schock argues, Gandhi’s movement succeeded because it “undermined the power of British rule, showed that Great Britain’s rule in India was based on force rather than legitimacy, reduced the justification for violent repression, influenced reference publics in Great Britain, and illuminated the futility of trying to violently repress a nationwide movement of nonviolent action with military force.”

Nonviolence in Gandhi

In Gandhi, the two nonviolent factions were designed from the ground up to be a new type of faction in addition to familiar government and insurgent factions. They do not use violent operations and special activities—no assault, attack, ambush, or terror. These factions use methods of active nonviolent resistance to frustrate British rule in India. Protests disrupt local transportation and communication networks, locking Raj cubes in place. Strikes on railway lines keep Indian resources out of British hands. Unlike insurgent guerrilla cells that operate individually, nonviolent forces automatically become Active in protest spaces, resisting Raj control and threatening to build opposition to colonial rule. Because they can mobilize and organize large numbers of participants, nonviolent factions do not spend resources. Instead, their actions are limited by the level of unity between Hindu and Muslim groups as well as the level of restraint shown by all sides. And, because their forces are not guerrilla fighters but ordinary people, nonviolent activists may not be targeted by the Raj until engaged in direct protest.

The nonviolent factions model the power of nonviolence discussed here, and have the tools needed to determine the fate of India. These are just a few examples of the ways that active, nonviolent resistance has been incorporated into Gandhi.

In the next installment of The Gandhi Chronicles, we’ll explore why a game about the Indian Independence Movement is important.

---

Next Article in this Series: The Gandhi Chronicles Issue #2: An Overview of Nonviolent Operations in Gandhi

---

Links to Sources

Erica Chenoweth, https://www.ericachenoweth.com/

Maria Stephan, https://www.usip.org/people/maria-j-stephan

Jamila Raqib, https://www.aeinstein.org/about/people/jamila-raqib/

Kurth Schock, http://dga.rutgers.edu/faculty/member/kurt-schock

Gene Sharp, https://www.aeinstein.org/

Max Abrams, https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.31.2.42

Links to Images (licenced for reused)

Gandhi on Salt March, 1930, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Gandhi_during_the_Salt_March.jpg

Quit India March, 1942, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/QUITIN2.JPG

Qissa Khwani Massacre, 1930, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Qissakhwanibazaarmassacre.jpg

---