Do you think the Indian independence movement would have been successful if Gandhi and his followers had used violence against British authorities? Explain why or why not. Was nonviolent protest a good approach? Why or why not?

No it would not have been successful because Gandhi and everyone else who started to create big movements never used force to convey the bigger message. The king in Britain would send troops to stop the uprising if he saw things were getting out of control. Nonviolence was a good approach because this allowed everyone's voices to be heard and prevent unwanted anger if something were to happen to the people that were trying to protest violently. This also effectively brought change to the world because the king really wanted peace in his territories. He only wanted them to be ruled by him and wanted no unrest. He didn't care what they talked about as long as the people didn't over throw him.

in an absolute  monarchy, the  monarchrules as an autocrat, with absolutepower  over the state and government — for example, the right to rule by decree, promulgate laws, and impose punishments. the  monarch isnominally sovereign but the electorate, through their legislature, exercise political sovereignty.

answer; the civil right act of 1964;