Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit with (non)Violence

In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi claims that goals and the means of achieving them are inextricably linked. One reason he advocates for non-violence is because he believes a violent response will not eliminate British society but will instead help perpetuate it. Instead he calls for Indians to abandon British civilization in favor of the better but oppressed Indian civilization. Applying the same theory of the interconnection of outcome and process to Battle of Algiers maintains the possibility for violence. The goal for the Algerians is very similar to that of the Indians: self-rule. However, the methods supported by Gandhi are quite different from those used by the FLN. For the FLN freedom for Algerians must come at any cost. For Gandhi, freedom from the British only comes if the people achieve it together. Though he does not directly address the value of life in regards to means and ends, Gandhi’s view puts significant value on life.  If someone dies for the cause of self-rule, they have no opportunity for self-rule. Because Gandhi believes that self-rule begins with the individual, as discussed in class, death of the individual does nothing to achieve self-rule.

            In contrast, the FLN places a different value on human life. For the FLN, freedom comes first, people second. This is clearly shown through the escalation of violence in Battle of Algiers. Rather than use a strike or other non-violent method in the quest for self-rule, the FLN murders police officers and bombs civilians. They know that the French will react with violence against the Casbah. The FLN sacrifices innocent Algerians, as well as its own members, for the sake of self-rule. This is a top down strategy, where self-rule begins with a select few, rather than each individual. Though the goal is to spread the idea of self-rule to the Algerian people, the loss of a few Algerians is considered insignificant, and even a necessary inspiration. Perhaps it comes from the pre French culture in Algeria, or more sense of desperation, but the FLN does not value human life, even the life of its own people in the same way Gandhi values the lives of the British and Indians.

In addition the FLN has ambitions to stay in power once Algeria is free, as shown when the FLN leaders discuss life after the French. This goes against Gandhi’s view of self-rule. Only if the people of Algeria want to be under the rule of the FLN, and only if the FLN acts in the interests of Algerians should they continue to hold power in Algeria once the French are gone. This reminds me of a common theme in revolutions, where one unwanted system is merely replaced by another.

Questions: How can we justify the FLN’s sacrifice of innocent Algerians to rile up the rest of the population?

What makes the situation in Algeria different such that Gandhi’s philosophy doesn’t apply? Or, should the Algerians have used non-violence?