That number keeps getting thrown around but this admin dgaf. That number only works when the admin believes in human rights and when the admin cares about it’s popularity.
Only once violent resistance had forced the Brits away they went “oh by the way it was totally the guy who would have laid down in the street to be flattened by our tanks, in case anyone else wants to try it”
Edit, for those interested, there hadn’t been violent mass resistance in India since the uprisings in 1857. While terrorism and assassinations continued, the Imperial intelligence services (which were one of the largest and most sophisticated in the world) effectively neutered and public opinion in Britain wasn’t affected at all.
The Indian National Army which grew in WW2 with Japanese support certainly worried the Imperial governors but it had been obliterated during the botched invasion of India in 1944 and was never able to fully recover, despite strong support in some regions.
The now hugely powerful and well armed British Indian Army was another source of concern but there was no appetite among the officers for revolution and the ordinary soldiers had mixed loyalties.
Most of the violence within India at the time was actually between the Hindu majority and Muslim minority and not directed against British occupation in any large degree.
It was the non-violent passive opposition of Gandhi and the Quit India Movement, and crucially, the British violent crackdown of it, that shifted public opinion within Britain. Once Churchill was ousted, there was neither the public support, or the political desire for further defense of British rule in India and forced them to the negotiating table.
To say violence was what caused the British to pull out is factually incorrect and that the non violent resistance totalled “jack shit” is ignorant beyond belief.
It only works when you are near an election, and the election are coming. This administration is working on a different path: at least one year before the next election and is actively working to make sure (fair) elections might not happen anymore
The cited scenarios were rarely democratic in nature.
Of course, in all the scenarios cited, there was no one telling them “get to 3.5% and things will happen”, so with everyone saying “if we get to 3.5%, things will happen”, that could itself break the “rule”, as a sort of self-denying prophecy.
That number keeps getting thrown around but this admin dgaf. That number only works when the admin believes in human rights and when the admin cares about it’s popularity.
Turns out someone who looks like Luigi but is definitely not Luigi proved it takes only one death certificate to initiate change for scores of people
British India didn’t care about human rights
And Gandhi didn’t do jack shit.
Only once violent resistance had forced the Brits away they went “oh by the way it was totally the guy who would have laid down in the street to be flattened by our tanks, in case anyone else wants to try it”
Gross over simplification and also false.
Edit, for those interested, there hadn’t been violent mass resistance in India since the uprisings in 1857. While terrorism and assassinations continued, the Imperial intelligence services (which were one of the largest and most sophisticated in the world) effectively neutered and public opinion in Britain wasn’t affected at all.
The Indian National Army which grew in WW2 with Japanese support certainly worried the Imperial governors but it had been obliterated during the botched invasion of India in 1944 and was never able to fully recover, despite strong support in some regions.
The now hugely powerful and well armed British Indian Army was another source of concern but there was no appetite among the officers for revolution and the ordinary soldiers had mixed loyalties.
Most of the violence within India at the time was actually between the Hindu majority and Muslim minority and not directed against British occupation in any large degree.
It was the non-violent passive opposition of Gandhi and the Quit India Movement, and crucially, the British violent crackdown of it, that shifted public opinion within Britain. Once Churchill was ousted, there was neither the public support, or the political desire for further defense of British rule in India and forced them to the negotiating table.
To say violence was what caused the British to pull out is factually incorrect and that the non violent resistance totalled “jack shit” is ignorant beyond belief.
They cared about their public image.
It only works when you are near an election, and the election are coming. This administration is working on a different path: at least one year before the next election and is actively working to make sure (fair) elections might not happen anymore
The cited scenarios were rarely democratic in nature.
Of course, in all the scenarios cited, there was no one telling them “get to 3.5% and things will happen”, so with everyone saying “if we get to 3.5%, things will happen”, that could itself break the “rule”, as a sort of self-denying prophecy.
Would you say that Ferdinand Marcos believed in human rights and did not care for his popularity?