Introduction
The question of national identity has been crucial for many peoples in world history. It is so because many world powers tended to establish their colonies in third-world countries by bringing new rules to the native population. The British Empire has a significant impact on South Asia since the European state utilized a centralization policy in that region.
It could not but result in some disaffection among representatives of the local population. People from that region started opposing the centralization, which is known as resistance.
In South Asia, armed rebellion and nonviolent means were the most typical kinds of resistance. Even though they are common in opposing the centralization policy, these forms are different in the way how they influence society and its future. Thus, armed resistance implies a stricter colonialization policy, while nonviolent measures are only productive for the nation in the long run.
Forms of Resistance Explained
As has been mentioned, there are various forms of resistance. Armed rebellion implies simple principles, and it means that the local population is ready to have recurrence to brutality to defend national interests. At the same time, the term nonviolent resistance is broad, and it includes a few specific kinds of showing disagreement with the center.
They include insubordination, noncooperation, debates regarding political issues, and many others. These phenomena emerge depending on the level of people’s grievances against a ruling regime and what image this regime has. For example, when the center oppressively limits the rights of the native population, it is not a surprise that an armed rebellion is likely to happen. On the contrary, native people can utilize nonviolent resistance forms in those cases when they see that a ruling regime respects them and tries to meet their needs and requirements.
As for South Asia, this region has witnessed many forms of resistance since 1500. Considering that it is a large part of the world and an extended timeframe is reviewed, it is possible to find cases of both nonviolent resistance means and armed rebellion. On the one hand, the 1857 Uprising was one of the most significant examples of how the armed Indians fought against British rule.
On the other hand, Mahatma Gandhi is a symbol of a nonviolent opposing movement, and he tried to achieve the independence of India from Britain with the help of peaceful means. There is no doubt that the two resistance forms have led to particular results for Indian society, and these consequences will be described below.
Armed Rebellion in South Asia
The idea of an armed rebellion was acute in the given region over a long time. The independence of the state has always been a crucial topic for the local population, and this idea is proved by numerous films that demonstrated “an allegory for protest against British rule” (Bhatia 2019).
If one wants to understand the impact that the 1857 Uprising had on India, it is necessary to explain its preludes. To form its colonial troops, the British Raj recruited people from Bengal and promised to provide them with a decent salary and required equipment. However, these soldiers soon turned into gun fodder because the Empire did not want to send the British to invade dangerous territories. In addition to that, the policy of Europeanization took place, and the local population was not allowed to observe their traditions. Consequently, that situation made the Indians participate in the armed rebellion.
Even though the rebellion was suppressed, that form of resistance had a significant impact on the British Empire and its colonialism policy. Firstly, the Uprising indicated that people were dissatisfied with that state of affairs, and the regime decided to provide local citizens with the right to own or lease some land.
Secondly, the rebellion resulted in “the de-Bengalization and consequent Punjabization of the Colonial Indian Army” (Soherwordi 2010, 30). In other words, the British Empire punished Bengal for organizing the Uprising and rewarded Punjab for suppressing it, which resulted in a leading role of the Punjabis in the army.
Furthermore, that shift led to the fact that the British drew significant attention to this region. Even though it was the power center of Pakistan, it lacked a business class and industrial establishment (Soherwordi 2010). The Empire made it intentionally to avoid industrial development in the region because it could decrease the rates of military recruitment.
As a result, Pakistan turned into “a country with a weak political structure, feeble political parties, and politicians, but a strong feudal class and civil and military bureaucracy” (Soherwordi 2010, 32). Thus, one can conclude that the 1857 Uprising was the first step toward turning Pakistan into a military country. There is no doubt that this fact had a negative influence on the future development of the state. It means that the armed rebellion resulted in militarization that, in turn, implied its harmful consequences for society.
Nonviolent Resistance
In the early 20th century, India was both tired of armed conflicts and disappointed with constitutional debates. Ordinary people believed that the first option was destroying society, while the second one did not lead to any positive consequences. In that situation, it was evident that people needed a new way of showing resistance and defending their interests, and Mahatma Gandhi offered it. It refers to his idea of “conquering through love and ahimsa (nonviolence)” (“Mahatma Gandhi and Responses” 2014, 434).
The political activist insisted on the fact that it was possible to become independent from Britain without arms and violence. That is why nonviolent resistance in South Asia is associated with Gandhi and his activity. He opposed the partitioning of the state and tried to unite it by utilizing peaceful measures. The proposed unification addressed the issues of nationality, caste, racism, and others. Drawing attention to the background that allowed Gandhi to enter a political stage in India, one could suppose that his ideas would manage to result in significant benefits for the whole society.
It is necessary to mention that Gandhi made a crucial contribution to the political and social development of India with the help of his nonviolent actions. Firstly, he actively participated in the establishment of the Indian National Congress that plays an essential role now. Gandhi has made it possible that the given body “has its ramification in every town and village in India” (“Mahatma Gandhi and Responses” 2014, 435).
Secondly, he developed the Congress Constitution, and this document was required for creating an equal and united society. Finally, Gandhi’s activity was necessary for the whole state because he managed to show that it was possible to achieve some positive results with the help of nonviolent measures. Consequently, this activist inspired his followers to fight for their rights and independence without the necessity to harm others.
Analyzing the Resistance Forms
The resistance forms described above prove that the native people of South Asia have exercised various approaches to defend their rights over a long history. Even though armed rebellion and nonviolent resistance are entirely different in the way how they interpret the use of force for achieving some results, they imply a few similarities.
On the one hand, the two emerge as the desire of the whole nation to become independent of the British Empire. It demonstrates that every colonial state will finally witness resistance of the local population since it is a typical phenomenon in world history. On the other hand, any kind of counteraction indicates that aboriginal people are not satisfied with the manner of their living. It implies political, social, and economic spheres, where the local population can be oppressed.
Consequently, they are ready to express their disaffection explicitly by using multiple and even contradictory means. Thus, the natural desire to be an independent nation and harmful living conditions are shared features of armed rebellion and nonviolent resistance in South Asia.
At the same time, the use of arms is not the only aspect that represents the difference between the resistance forms under consideration. In addition to that, they vary in the issue of who plays a crucial role. For example, nonviolent opposition requires an influential leader who can consolidate the dissatisfied citizens and help them express their claims to the ruling regime.
In many cases, the success of this resistance form depends on the reputation of this leader, their ability to control like-minded persons, and their communication skills. On the contrary, a rebellion involves masses of armed people who usually exercise violence without a precise plan of action. Furthermore, it is necessary to investigate the impact of these forms of resistance on society to understand the entire differences between them.
Because the armed rebellion showed that the local population was aggressive toward the British policy, the Empire could not but respond to it appropriately. Once the 1857 Uprising was suppressed, the rebels were given some economic, social, and cultural benefits to prevent such civil unrest from happening again in the future. For this reason, the ruling state decided to punish those citizens who organized the rebellion, which had a few negative consequences.
As a result, the British Empire shifted its focus to representatives of Punjab when it came to recruiting soldiers to its army. In an attempt to achieve a constant intake of soldiers, the ruling state did not contribute to the economic and social development of the given region. It means that the armed rebellion resulted in harsh living conditions for a particular area of South Asia, irrespective of the fact that there were some positive outcomes shortly after the Uprising.
Nonviolent resistance forms, however, seem to be more productive for society. They do not imply any immediate changes, either positive or negative, but they promise to generate some positive outcomes for the community in the future. For example, Gandhi’s initiatives concerning the Indian National Congress and the Congress Constitution were gradually implemented without any violence. Even though they did not make a significant difference in that society, modern India benefits from them.
It relates to the fact that this political establishment is now a living organization that defends the national interests of the whole country. Thus, this situation demonstrates that nonviolent measures are productive in the long run.
Based on the information above, it is possible to evaluate the impact that the two resistance forms had on the Empire and South Asia. As has been mentioned, the armed rebellion had uncertain outcomes. In addition to some advantages, it resulted in a more sophisticated colonialization policy, which was harmful to the local population. Thus, preventing the region from developing was an evident example of stricter colonialism exercised by the British Empire in South Asia after the 1857 Uprising.
At the same time, nonviolent resistance measures were associated with the rise of national movements in India. Mahatma Gandhi helped people recall their identity, which would result in significant benefits. It is vital that he managed to achieve this essential result with the help of love and a nonviolent approach.
Conclusion
South Asia was suffering from colonialization policy for a long time, which made the local population occasionally express its attitude against this policy. Such situations are called resistance, and this phenomenon implies multiple manifestations that mainly differ according to the use of brutal force. In South Asia, an armed rebellion and nonviolent measures were the most popular forms of showing resistance.
Even though they are similar in the way that they are responses of the aboriginal people to harsh living conditions, the two resistance forms imply significant differences. While an armed rebellion results in immediate benefits, it also has harmful consequences represented by a stricter colonialization policy for a particular region. At the same time, nonviolent opposition implies slow changes, but they are productive in the long run.
References
Bhatia, Uday. 2019. “How Bollywood is Rewriting History.” Livemint. Web.
“Mahatma Gandhi and Responses.” 2014. In Sources of Indian Tradition: Modern India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, 3rd ed., edited by Rachel F. McDermott, Leonard A. Gordon, Ainslie T. Embree, Frances W. Pritchett, and Dennis Dalton, 338-452. New York: Columbia University Press.
Soherwordi, Syed H. S. 2010. “‘Punjabization’ in the British Indian Army 1857-1947 and the Advent of Military Rule in Pakistan.” Edinburgh Papers in South Asian Studies, no. 24, 1-33.