What distinguishes the violence committed by the oppressed from that of the oppressors? Could we equate the violence committed by the oppressed with the violence perpetrated by the oppressor? If not, why should we not treat both types of violence equally? I have been contemplating such questions on the ethics of violence for a considerable amount of time. I have consistently sought answers to this question by engaging in conversations with my peers, friends, and seniors. This essay represents my concluded perspective on the issue of violence.

Firstly, I aim to clarify the distinction between "violence from oppressor" and "violence from oppressed" by providing some contextual examples. By “violence from oppressor,” I mean any form of violence that inflicts severe physical and mental harm on the victim using both online and offline spaces. The term "violence from oppressed" here refers to any symbolic violence that the victim inflicts as part of their resistance. I will elucidate my arguments using two primary examples: the sanitation workers' indefinite strike on my campus, and what is widely called the "Israel-Palestine conflict." In order to understand the complex aspects of reality, the discussion has placed a special emphasis on the violence carried out by the victim.

Case of Strike Called by Sanitation Workers in JNU

On my campus, recently, contractual sanitation workers went on an indefinite strike due to several challenges they faced, which included overwork resulting from not recruiting enough workers, not providing bonuses, not paying salary on time, and the absence of necessary accessories to clean the hostel and campus premises. They initiated their strikes in front of the administration building, but their peaceful sit-in protest did not yield any demands. Consequently, they began to mobilize students, and numerous student organizations joined them, demonstrating their solidarity with the protest. With a significant number of protestors, they embarked on a march throughout the campus and threw out the waste accumulated in the waste baskets into the common pathways, which caused mobility issues and an intolerable foul smell for a day.

Depending on our socio-temporal context, many of us may condemn the actions of sanitation workers as "violent." After all, what you eat, what you see, and where you come from greatly influence what you think. Some may even argue that sanitation workers have inflicted significant violence on innocent individuals, despite the fact that we, as students, are not their opponents. Such opinions are highly problematic and stem from a conceptual map that assumes everyone has the privilege of a cozy life. Why can you not even tolerate a day with a bunch of waste scattered in your pathways while they are the ones who every day keep your toilets clean and the surrounding area neat and clean? Why are you expecting sanitation workers to be silent to the extent that they simply allow administration to exploit their labour and work like a slave? Are they not humans like you with blood and sweat?

However, I believe there is a significant distinction between oppressor-initiated violence and oppressed-initiated violence. The former's violence reinforces existing oppression against workers and is often accompanied by administrative apathy, whereas the latter's violence is a manifestation of resilience. Therefore, I firmly believe that rather than nitpicking on trivial things, we as an educated student community should support the larger cause. I would not say, we should strongly show our solidarity with the violence coming from an oppressed community itself. Rather, my contention is to support them if it serves a benign goal and ultimately fulfill the demands of poor sanitation workers who, on a day-to-day basis, fight with a lot of issues to take care of their daily house expenses.

Case of “Israel-Palestine Conflict”

The second example I wanted to present in this essay is the case of Palestinian genocide. Recently, a student-led reading circle on campus conducted an insightful seminar on the "Gendered Impacts of War in the Ukraine-Russia War and Palestine-Hamas Conflict". Interestingly, one of the questions that came up after the discussion was, “Don’t you think highlighting the number of deaths of women and children in war on Palestine is wrong?” It once again sparked my curiosity about the ethics of violence committed by victims in view of a larger common cause. Yes, I have also found my answer to the question. In this context, Israel is the occupier or oppressor. If Israel, an occupying state that controls the land, water, and territory of Palestine, is committing cultural genocide and ecocide, indiscriminately bombing its critical infrastructure, and consistently dehumanizing the Palestinians through privileging Jewish settlers by laws and rights in the occupied territory and algorithmic governmentality, why are you expecting Palestinians (oppressed) to behave neatly? Why are you expecting them to follow the Gandhian path of non-violence? They have exhausted all options for peaceful protests, petitions, public non-violent gatherings, discussions, pleas, and engaging in negotiation through the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). It is crucial to understand the power asymmetry that exists between the oppressor and the oppressed. The United States, the world's most powerful state, provides Israel with economic support and necessary military assistance. Palestinians are indigenous inhabitants of the land who are aspiring for a foreign-occupation-free, and independent state of their own. Returning to the seminar's question, it is evident that the number of deaths reported by proponents of the Palestinian cause is not a fabrication. Secondly, I did not find any issue with "pro-Palestinian protestors" highlighting the number of deaths of women in particular, because we are all aware of the fact that in any war, women and children are the most affected, facing persistent threats to their human dignity, encountering malnutrition, dehydration, sanitation issues, and subsequent diseases, and even to the extent of rape. If “Pro-Israeli” supporters could preach for their cause, portraying their country as most progressive and liberating through highlighting high standards of living of the women military personnel in the Israeli Defence Forces, showing equal rights enjoyed by LGBTQI+ individuals (pinkwashing), and showing off development in technology, and so on, trying to valorise the violence, Why are you questioning even Palestinian supporters for merely pointing out the fact of the number of deaths of women and children? why are you expecting the victim to not even raise their voice against the oppression? Why are you expecting a victim to be so innocent that they should simply shut their mouth and keep calm?

In both of the above-mentioned examples, my argument is not to negate the existence of violence coming from the side of the oppressed. I have no hesitation in acknowledging the actions of both sanitation workers and Hamas as acts of "violence." In the first case, the actions of the sanitation workers constitute a form of violence, as they have created mobility issues for visually impaired students and residents on campus by making the atmosphere on the roads intolerable. In the second case, Hamas clearly committed violence by raping women, which was followed by the October 7th attack on Israel. Therefore, I am unafraid to assert that the actions carried out by Hamas on those days unquestionably qualify as terrorist acts. My aim is not to assert that victims never engage in violence; rather, my concern lies in the tendency for people to conflate violence perpetrated by the powerful with violence committed by the powerless. Both are not the same. If one begins to compare both on an equal footing, then they are either knowingly or unknowingly aiding and abetting the oppressor.

Underlying Reasons for Such a Situation

I view this issue as a result of the abundance of information available in both offline and online spaces, making it difficult to distinguish between real and fake information, as well as between the truth and a false narrative. Hogan & Fisher (2006) call it “information overload.” Baudrillard (1994) refers to it by using the term 'simulacrum,' which has the potential to replace reality through its representation. In the current context, as readers of media and users of social media platforms, we have reached a point where we are unable to distinguish original media from fake ones, nor are we able to discern the "real" reality from the multitude of representations of reality that exist in the media. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as the "death of real." Media narratives and advertisements lead us to believe in the authenticity of certain narratives while dismissing others. Globalization, increased interconnectedness, simple access to technology, and the widespread use of smartphones have created a situation that Aviv Ovadya, CEO of AI & Democracy Foundation, calls “reality apathy” and "infocalypse." Unfortunately, it led to an information accumulation wherein our brains are confused to such an extent that we are becoming depoliticized and skeptical about even reality, resulting in a gradual deterioration of trust. States, non-state actors, and individuals have weaponized emerging technologies like deepfake and artificial intelligence in online spaces, especially social media platforms, to spread technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV), blasphemy, and xenophobia; reinforce gendered stereotypes; destroy the social reputation of an individual; manipulate elections; and run disinformation campaigns. This has systematically led to confusion about reality, even among educated citizens.

What We Need to Do?

Those who equate two different types of violence discussed in the essay fall into the fallacy of equating two unequal kinds of violence as equal. Such instances underscore the importance of increasing awareness of our surroundings, demonstrating empathy for others, and developing political consciousness. An apolitical campus would undoubtedly weaken the overall momentum of student and worker movements. Likewise, the perplexity of being unable to take a stance on any issue will lead to the reinforcement of all forms of oppression, like casteism, sexism, classism, ableism, homophobia, patriarchy, settler colonialism, capitalism, and so on. We must adhere to a form of what once post-colonial scholar, Gayatri Spivak (1996) termed "strategic essentialism," where we support the marginalized, powerless, and oppressed victim, regardless of our theoretical differences and disagreements. Your philosophical differences should not stop you from being a helping hand to the needy. What we need is a better university campus where we transform into better citizens, become aware of our rights, show solidarity to the lived experiences, and support common causes that prioritize the social good over mere self-interests. Let’s build a better future by standing with the truth, showing no hesitancy in acknowledging your mistakes, and overcoming what is purportedly a dystopian future. Let’s translate the values we learn through education into practice; let’s maintain coherency both in our thought and in our action.

.    .    .

References:

1. Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and Simulation (S. Glaser, Trans.). University of Michigan Press.
2. Spivak, Gayatri. 1996. “Subaltern Studies: Deconstructing Historiography?” In The Spivak Reader, edited by Donna Landry and Gerald MacLean, 203–237. London: Routledge.
3. Hogan, Bernie & Fisher, Danyel. (2006). A Scale for Measuring Email Overload. Microsoft Research.
4. UN Women and World Health Organization. (2023). “Technology-facilitated Violence against Women: Towards a common definition. Report of the meeting of the Expert Group”. Expert Group Meeting report: Technology-facilitated violence against women: Towards a common definition | Publications | UN Women – Headquarters