Introduction
Apartheid, the Afrikaans word for "separateness", was a system of institutionalised racial segregation and discrimination that existed in South Africa from 1948 until the early 1990s. This system enforced the segregation of racial groups, with the white minority holding power and privileges denied to the black African majority. The Sharpeville Massacre, which took place on March 21, 1961, marked a turning point in the struggle against apartheid. When police opened fire on a peaceful protest against pass laws, killing 69 unarmed people, it shattered any illusion of peaceful coexistence and pushed many to believe that violence was the only language the apartheid regime understood. This essay will explore the argument that after Sharpeville, violence became seemingly unavoidable as a means to oppose apartheid from within South Africa, while acknowledging the continued presence and impact of non-violent resistance.

Argument 1: Violence as the Only Effective Option
Sharpeville and the Banning of Political Organisations
The Sharpeville Massacre sent shock waves throughout South Africa and the world. The brutality of the event, where even those fleeing were shot in the back, exposed the true nature of the apartheid state. The massacre led to international condemnation and economic sanctions against South Africa, demonstrating the global impact of the event. Internally, the government responded not with conciliation, but with increased repression. The African National Congress (ANC) and the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC), the leading black liberation movements, were banned, forcing them to operate underground.
The banning of these organisations, coupled with the massacre, convinced many that peaceful protest was futile. It was in this atmosphere that Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), the armed wing of the ANC, was formed in 1961. Nelson Mandela, a key figure in MK, argued that the government's violence left them no choice but to respond in kind. MK aimed to sabotage economic infrastructure – power lines, railway lines, and government buildings – to cripple the economy and pressure the government without directly targeting civilians.

The Consequences of Armed Resistance
The South African government responded to MK's sabotage campaign with even harsher repression. Mandela and other prominent leaders were arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment in the Rivonia Trial of 1964. The government passed further legislation that allowed for indefinite detention without trial, effectively silencing any form of dissent. The state's security apparatus expanded, employing torture, intimidation, and assassination to suppress opposition. The message was clear: any resistance, whether violent or non-violent, would be met with ruthless force.
The imprisonment of key leaders, the detention of activists, and the constant threat of violence created an environment of fear and intimidation. The government's actions seemed to confirm the belief that peaceful opposition was impossible within this climate. The space for dialogue and negotiation was effectively closed, seemingly leaving violence as the only viable option.

Argument 2: The Viability of Non-Violent Resistance
The Rise of Black Consciousness
Despite the climate of fear and repression, non-violent resistance to apartheid did not disappear. The emergence of the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM) in the 1970s, under the leadership of Steve Biko, offered an alternative approach. Rejecting the idea that black liberation depended on white allies as some in the ANC believed, the BCM promoted black pride, self-reliance, and psychological liberation from the shackles of apartheid ideology.
The BCM engaged in various non-violent activities, including establishing community health clinics, organizing student groups, and promoting black literature and culture. They focused on empowering black South Africans to see their own value and potential, fostering a sense of unity and resistance through education and consciousness-raising. The Soweto Uprising of 1976, where students protested against the enforced use of Afrikaans in schools, was heavily influenced by BCM ideals, demonstrating the movement's impact.

The Impact and Limitations of Non-Violence
The BCM played a crucial role in reigniting resistance to apartheid, particularly among South African youth. Their emphasis on black pride and self-reliance resonated deeply, challenging the very foundations of apartheid ideology. While not directly advocating for violence, their activities were seen as a threat by the government, highlighting the regime's intolerance for any form of dissent.
The BCM's impact was significant but ultimately limited by the state's brutal response. Steve Biko's death in police custody in 1977, after enduring horrific torture, illustrated the dangers faced by even those advocating for peaceful resistance. The government's willingness to silence dissent with such brutality served as a stark reminder of the limitations of non-violence in the face of such a ruthless regime.

Conclusion
The Sharpeville Massacre was a turning point in the fight against apartheid. It shattered any remaining illusions of peaceful co-existence and forced many to confront the harsh reality of the apartheid state. While non-violent resistance movements like the BCM continued to emerge, demonstrating courage and resilience, the South African government's brutal and consistent repression made violence seem like the only effective option for many within South Africa. The banning of political parties, the imprisonment of leaders, and the constant threat of violence created an environment where armed struggle appeared to be the only language the regime understood.
However, it is important to acknowledge that even within the anti-apartheid movement, there were always differing opinions on the use of violence. The legacy of the struggle against apartheid is complex, and reducing it to a simple question of violence versus non-violence would be a disservice to the sacrifices made and the diverse approaches taken. Ultimately, it was the combination of internal resistance, both violent and non-violent, coupled with international pressure and changing global dynamics, that eventually brought an end to apartheid.
While acknowledging the limitations and dangers of armed struggle, it is difficult to argue against the sentiment that violence, for many, became tragically unavoidable after Sharpeville. The South African government's response to peaceful protest left a generation feeling as though they had no other option but to meet violence with violence in a desperate bid for freedom and equality.