Op-Ed: BY Sara Hassan, currently an NDU Student.
The peaceful resistance and protests are legitimate ways of expressing dissent with the State’s policies in a modern democratic society. The non-violent protests are usually an attempt to exert pressure on ruling regime to address the public grievances on social, political and economic issues. The moral superiority and public support are the core strength of resistance movements, when it builds momentum to expose the weakness of the State.
During the past decades, the success ratio of non-violent resistance had been much higher in toppling the authoritative regimes as compared to armed struggles. However, in the current polarized world, the effectiveness of non-violence as a strategy has been observed cautiously by the critics. It is rightly argued that large peaceful protests are generally acceptable only in the democratic states, which are sensitive to their global reputation and positive image among the people. Such states provide space for freedom of expression and due weightage to public sentiments to keep their vote bank intact.
On the contrary, peaceful resistance is a dangerous path in an authoritarian state, which are least concerned about their repute and public opinion. Arundhati Roy has used the term “corporate feudalism’ for tyrant states, which are capable of imposing restrictions on the media, shutting down the internet, criminalizing dissent, and isolating affected regions from the rest of the world. Roy argues that when there is no one left to witness the oppression, this political “theater” of non-violence loses its greatest strength—the capacity to exert public and moral pressure.
 This raises an important question; does non-violence remain sustainable when governments respond with violence? In fact, the States have always been more resourceful and better equipped to counter the protestors with their legitimate authority. The security states and monarchies of present time have more capacity to anticipate the threats and to break the momentum of protests with surveillance techniques. On the other hand, merely the higher ethical stance of peaceful resistance proves insufficient sometimes to face the coercive measures and oppression of the authoritarian state.
Therefore, in the absence of a strong clear narrative and large public gathering, the non-violence not only remains ineffective but also carries threatening consequences for the safety of peaceful protestors. In such unfavorable environment, the momentum of protests is usually crushed with brutal force without showing any flexibility. For instance, we witness huge public gatherings and protests rallies in Western democratic countries on issues like Gaza and complete public silence in the authoritarian states.
Nevertheless, an unarmed resistance has the capacity to gain public sympathies and to expose the weaker aspects of the ruling regimes successfully. Moreover, its narrative is promoted whenever the States respond with hard retaliatory measures such as violent crackdowns, forced disappearance, censorships and oppressive regulations.
From an optimistic perspective, the global level of acceptance for non-violence resistance is much higher than the violent struggle. The majority of global community believe in dialogue to resolve conflicts. The two key principles of Martin Luther King would always remain the source of inspiration for the promoters of peace in the world. He emphasized non-violent resisters to win friendship rather than humiliate opponents and must refuse both external physical violence and internal hatred. Though non-violence is not a universal solution for every problem but it would remain the most viable option to resolve conflicts with massive public support and sympathies.
(12-11-26)
