Prof. Sanjoy Roy
Department of Social Work, University of Delhi – INDIA

The evolution of human society has been shaped by cooperation and social balances, allowing individuals to find their place even amidst ideological diversity. It is not just the similarities among people that have contributed to the development of society; rather, „resistance“ has also played a crucial role since the existence of mankind. This resistance has been significant in nurturing and advancing society as a whole.

The right to resist is considered to be a fundamental human right and is recognized in the French Declaration and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) etc. It is also considered to be the basis for other collective rights, such as self-determination and freedom from genocide. In political science, the right to resist is the right to challenge the authority of a government or foreign occupation through actions other than those permitted by the state’s constitution. It’s also known as the right of self-preservation or self-defense. In this regard, John Locke’s argument that citizens can overthrow their government if it violates the social contract is one of the most prominent arguments in favor of the right to resist. The right to resist can take the form of civil disobedience or armed resistance. It can be applied against tyrannical governments or foreign occupations, but whether it applies to non-tyrannical governments is disputed. In legal concept, the right to resist refers to the right to take action to effect social, political, or economic change. It can be exercised individually or collectively, and can range from civil disobedience to violent resistance. The right to resist is often framed as a right against the state, and can be used to validate rebellion. It can also be exercised against non-state actors, such as international organizations, if they threaten human rights for any individual, group or state. The right to resist is conditional on being necessary and proportionate to achieve an aim compatible with international human rights law and it cannot justify infringing others‘ rights.

So, sometimes the right to resist is a contentious and debatable concept with varying definitions and scope. Some may say it’s a fundamental human right that justifies rebellions, access to justice, and defending against unlawful violence, others may argue that it’s justified only in the face of oppression, which is defined as unjust domination, harm, and discrimination.

The right to resist can also be exercised in the following ways in different countries:

• Self-defense: The common law right to resist an unlawful arrest
• Right to bear arms: In the US, the right to bear arms is a form of resistance
• Civil disobedience: Henry Thoreau recognized the right to resist in
civil disobedience
• Elections: The right to resist is institutionalized in regular elections
• Political opposition: The right to resist is institutionalized in a loyal political opposition.

When people’s environments and human rights are threatened, they have the right to safely express their dissatisfaction through protest. The right to freedom of opinion and expression is a well-established civil and political right in both national and international law, and is fundamental to the concept of democracy and the respect of human dignity. Article 19 of the UDHR states that:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinion without interference and to seek, receive and impart information through any media and regardless of frontiers,”

Even if, we see in the ‘international arena’, the right to resist in international law is connected to the principle of self-determination. It is generally acknowledged that the right to self-determination exists in situations where a segment of the population is denied political participation due to foreign occupation, colonial domination, or racist regimes.

Some thoughts about the right to resist in international law include:
• Resistance is a legitimate right in all its forms.
• The weapons used in resistance are legally legitimate and cannot be removed.
• Resistance is a moral, legitimate, and civilized response to occupation.
• Resistance is the scientific method for expelling the remnants of the occupation.
• Resistance reclaims usurped land, property, wealth, and rights to their rightful owners.

International humanitarian law acknowledges armed resistance against an occupying power, even if it is conducted by civilians. However, it does not provide a „right“ to participate in armed resistance.

The right to resist is recognized in many documents, including:
• The Bill of Rights 1689
• The French Declaration
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
• The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
• Clause 61 of Magna Carta
• The American Declaration of Independence

So, resist/resistance is a vital aspect of human interactions, shaping the course of society. The right to resist has a rich history, linked to the emergence of various religions around the world. Throughout time, people have established fundamental principles to govern society, and some have resisted these norms, offering alternative ideas that eventually evolved into different religions. Buddha, for instance, was a pivotal figure in human history who challenged the social injustices prevalent in Indian society, which were perpetuated by various groups operating on principles of inequality and discrimination. He proposed a path of equality, justice, and liberty.

In the Western world, the philosophy of resistance was championed by notable thinkers such as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who introduced concepts of natural rights and justice for all individuals within society.

There are many theories in the world which exclusively touched upon the right to resist and how it works. They are as follows:

• Contractarianism: John Locke’s argument that citizens can overthrow their government if it violates the social contract.
• Self-determination: The right to resist is closely related to self determination, which is recognized in situations of foreign occupation, colonial domination, or racist regimes.
• Neo-Kantianism: The right to resist is a neo-Kantian expression of autonomy, and a universal maxim that unjustified threats against another’s sovereignty should be met with force.
• Right of Resistance against Global Injustice: This right can be understood as the right to take direct action to secure rights, or to transform the social, economic, and political structures that perpetuate injustice.
• Catholic resistance theory: In France, Catholic resistance theory developed through controversy and political alignment.
• Hobbesian resistance: Hobbes‘ theory that the sovereign’s interpretation of natural law is the only authoritative interpretation in civil society.

If we see the Indian history, several poets acted as activists, using their writings to resist social evils. Figures like Sant Ravidas, Sant Kabir Das, Sant Tukaram, and Chokhamela spoke out against issues such as the caste system, gender inequality, and access to education. This movement was later advanced by Periyar in South India and the Phule couple in central India, who continued to challenge social inequalities. They initiated the first ever school for the girls in the country. They constructed maternity centre for the women who became mother in unwanted situations. Raja Ram Mohan Roy came out as a pioneer in destroying the old social evil of “Sati” in India. Dayanand Saraswati resisted against the social evil of “Child Marriage” and legally made it an punishable offence in the rule of law.

In pre-independence India, Mahatma Gandhi introduced concepts of civil disobedience and satyagraha to resist British rule. At the same time, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar fought against both British colonialism and the discrimination practiced by upper-caste Hindus, opposing the caste system in India. Most of them used the following methods of non-violent resistance to raise their voice against the government and malpractices in the society:
1) Civil Disobedience
2) Acts of civil disobedience
3) Satyagraha’s various tactics
a) Failure to cooperate
b) Strikes
c) Boycott
d) Nonviolent picketing
e) Fasting
f) Attempting to avoid arrest
g) Protests, Rallies, and Petition

The Gandhian school of thought is fundamentally based on the principle of non-violent resistance. Mahatma Gandhi believed that the British colonial rulers in India were actively working to divide the population along lines of identity, such as religion and caste, to serve their own interests. By fostering such divisions, the British aimed to maintain control over the country, preventing a unified front against their rule.

Gandhi was particularly critical of practices such as separate electorates and dual voting rights for marginalized communities. He argued that these strategies were not only unjust but also intentionally designed to fragment Indian society. By encouraging divisions among different groups, the British were undermining the potential for collective resistance and national unity. Gandhi warned that these tactics could lead to chaos and further societal strife, as they pitted communities against one another instead of fostering cooperation and solidarity.

In response to these challenges, Gandhi advocated for a non-violent approach to resistance, which he believed was both ethical and effective. He encouraged individuals and groups to engage in peaceful protests, civil disobedience, and other forms of non-violent action to challenge unjust laws and practices. This approach was rooted in his deep commitment to truth (Satyagraha) and the belief that moral strength could ultimately overcome oppression.

Gandhi’s method of non-violent resistance was not about immediate confrontation but rather about gradual change. He understood that social transformation takes time and requires the active participation of the masses. By promoting dialogue, understanding, and empathy among different communities, he aimed to create a more inclusive and equitable society. The Gandhian approach emphasized the importance of addressing underlying social issues, such as poverty, inequality, and injustice, through collective action and self-sacrifice.

While some critics have described the Gandhian method as slow and cautious, many recognize its effectiveness in mobilizing large segments of the population. Gandhi’s ability to inspire and galvanize people from various backgrounds was instrumental in the Indian independence movement. His emphasis on non-violence attracted a wide range of supporters, including those who might not have engaged in more aggressive forms of resistance. By appealing to the moral conscience of both oppressors and the oppressed, Gandhi sought to create a shared vision of freedom and justice.

Moreover, the Gandhian approach also called for self-reliance and empowerment among communities. Gandhi believed that individuals should take responsibility for their own lives and actively participate in the transformation of society. This included promoting local industries, education, and social reform to uplift marginalized groups and create a more equitable society.

Gandhian school of thought offers a compelling framework for understanding resistance in the face of oppression. By emphasizing non-violence and the importance of social cohesion, Gandhi sought to counter the divisive tactics of colonial rulers. His approach remains relevant today, serving as a reminder that meaningful change often requires patience, moral conviction, and the collective efforts of individuals working together for a common cause. Through non-violent resistance, Gandhi aimed not only to challenge colonial rule but also to build a more just and harmonious society for all.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar held a perspective that sharply contrasted with that of Mahatma Gandhi. He criticized Gandhi for misleading the people of India by donning traditional attire, such as the dhoti, while being sufficiently anglicized to benefit from British rule. Ambedkar argued that Gandhi had taken advantage of the British presence in India while advocating for independence. He viewed Gandhi as a staunch supporter of the Hindu caste system, wanting the British to leave the country but intending for the caste system to remain intact.

Ambedkar contended that Gandhi failed to grasp the destructive impact of the caste system, which had ruined millions of lives over the past thousand years. By emphasizing the preservation of caste, Gandhi seemed to be advocating for the dominance of upper castes over lower castes after the British departed. Ambedkar believed that Gandhi’s approach would not lead to genuine liberation for all Indians, particularly those from marginalized communities.

In contrast to Gandhi’s reformative vision, Ambedkar championed a complete transformation of society. He envisioned a social order that promoted mobility and interaction among various groups, fostering a sense of endosmosis—an exchange and integration between different sections of society. For Ambedkar, true independence would mean dismantling the oppressive structures of caste that had long confined and degraded the lives of millions.

Ambedkar further questioned the implications of independence. He acknowledged that if the British were to leave, those who had been subjugated by colonial rule would gain freedom. However, he raised a critical concern: what about the people who had been enslaved by those previously oppressed? Would they achieve freedom from the torturous caste system that had marred their existence for generations? This question was central to Ambedkar’s vision of social justice, as he believed that the fight against colonialism should not overshadow the struggle against caste oppression.

Ambedkar’s critique of Gandhi highlighted a fundamental disagreement on the nature of freedom and equality in Indian society. While Gandhi sought to unite the country through non-violent resistance and moral persuasion, Ambedkar emphasized the necessity of addressing systemic inequalities that affected the lives of millions. He believed that any movement for independence must also include a commitment to dismantling the caste system, which he viewed as a significant barrier to true social justice.

Ambedkar’s perspective was rooted in the need for a radical rethinking of Indian society. He sought a future where all individuals could enjoy equality and freedom, free from the constraints of caste. His vision was one of social transformation rather than mere political independence, advocating for a society where mobility and mutual respect among different groups could flourish. Through this lens, he argued that achieving genuine liberation meant addressing the injustices that had long persisted within the fabric of Indian society.

The Hindu Mahasabha (which later evolved into the RSS) and the Communist Party of India each developed their own methods of resistance during the freedom struggle. The Hindu Mahasabha adhered to a conservative ideology, while the Communist Party embraced a more liberal approach, drawing heavily from Western ideas. The Communist Party aimed to bridge the intellectual divide between the “aware” and “unaware” segments of the population.

The RSS played a significant role in the freedom movement, contributing numerous freedom fighters to the cause. While their methods of resistance differed from those of other groups, their impact on the movement was substantial. The Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS focused on cultural nationalism, emphasizing the importance of Hindu identity and unity in the struggle against colonial rule.

In contrast, the Communist Party sought to address issues of class struggle and social justice, advocating for the rights of the working class and marginalized communities. Their emphasis on collective action and revolutionary change resonated with many, particularly among the lower strata of society. Despite their differing ideologies and methods, both organizations made important contributions to India’s fight for independence. The diverse approaches they represented reflect the complexity of the freedom movement, which encompassed a wide range of philosophies and strategies aimed at achieving the common goal of liberation from colonial rule.

The Indian independence movement is a prominent example of the resistance the British faced from the Indian populace. Thousands of people united to drive the British out of the country, expressing their outrage against daily oppression. Non-violence emerged as a crucial weapon for those who bravely stood up against injustice. The movement relied on peaceful methods rather than armed conflict to bring about change.

In today’s world, things are markedly different from the past. The rapid flow of information across the globe has made every phenomenon more dynamic, reflecting the swiftly changing social landscape. Historically, resistance movements were primarily people-centered, relying on the physical presence of individuals to drive change. However, in the contemporary context, we face new challenges, including authoritarianism, systemic racism, climate change, and economic inequality. Social movements like Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion, and the Arab Spring have emerged as various forms of resistance aimed at addressing these ongoing injustices.

In the Indian subcontinent, we continue to grapple with issues that have historical roots but remain prevalent throughout the country. Caste-based discrimination is one of the most significant challenges we face, along with a notable presence of racism. Although the Indian Constitution provides safeguards for all citizens, ensuring equality and opportunities while prohibiting discrimination, these principles are not always fully realized. The Constitution grants individuals the rights to freedom of speech and expression, movement, assembly, and the ability to print and publish, yet many still encounter barriers in exercising these rights.

In contemporary times, new arguments and platforms have emerged to address current needs. For instance, social media has become a vital tool for expressing resistance against various social issues. Movements such as those sparked by the Nirbhaya rape case, the Aarushi murder case, anti-corruption campaigns, farmers‘ protests, the CAA protests, and the 13 Point Roaster Movement serve as significant examples of social resistance against state actions. Additionally, social movements like the #MeToo campaign have gained traction, further illustrating society’s engagement in advocating for change.

Legal structures have played a significant role in advancing the concept of resistance. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) process has been utilized by countless individuals seeking justice within the legal framework when their voices have gone unheard by other institutions. Through judicial activism, the judiciary has delivered numerous landmark judgments in favour of ordinary citizens, effectively countering state interventions and upholding the rights of the common people.

Resistance takes on various meanings over time and in different contexts. People with diverse perspectives have expressed their views on various social phenomena that have evolved over the years. They have opposed the social evils perpetuated by the ruling classes, who constructed these injustices to protect their social and political privileges derived from their positions in society.

The right to resist is often not considered a fundamental natural right, even though it stems from our inherent connection to nature. Resisting social norms can lead to positive change, making society more people-centred. Throughout history, resistance has played a crucial role in societal development and improvement. Whether examining the future of Indian society or looking at a global context, it’s clear that the right to resist will be vital for maintaining a healthy society.

The right to resist is based on the idea that constitutional institutions. Few more examples of ‘right to resist’ in India:
• Farazi Movement: From 1838–1848, Shariatullah Khan and Dadu Mian led a no-tax campaign against the British government.
• Wahabi Movement: From the 1830s–1860s, peasants united against their landlords.
• Chipko Movement: In 1973, people, especially women, protested deforestation by embracing trees.
• Narmada Bachao Andolan: In 1985, people protested the construction of dams along the Narmada River.
• Lokpal (Jan Lokpal) Bill: In 2011, people rallied behind Anna Hazare, an anti-corruption campaigner, who went on hunger strike at Jantar Mantar.
• Nirbhaya Movement: In 2012, people protested the Delhi Gang Rape and new legislation was enacted.
• Farmers‘ Protest: In 2020, farmers protested the three farm acts for a year. The government withdrew the bills and formed a committee to review the MSP.
• R.G.Kar Hospital Case: in September 2024, the gang rape of a female doctor at R. G. Kar Hospital in Kolkata, West Bengal showed the resistance in a non-violence way more than a month by young doctors against the brutal gang rape.

Many more incidents can be found in different countries as well to show their resistance against inequality, human rights violation, against selfrespect and dignity etc. Right to resist is a useful technique and medium to raise voices against the system, against the government or malpractices by any authority to get their justice and human rights.