Gupta|1

9.2/10
Dear Sumedha,
Thank you for your paper, which I really enjoyed reading. I am very happy to see the
immense progress you have made from your RD to your FD! Your structure is in place, your
own voice is loud and clear, and your claims are also largely text-driven. Very well done!
You have again demonstrated real potential for close reading and that is the area where I
would urge you to keep pushing yourself further (see comments for detailed guidelines).
While you make promising starts to close reading your sources, but you move on too quickly.
Stay with your quotes a bit longer and explicitly connect your analysis to your claims.
Considering how far you have come in this draft, I’m confident you will only grow more and
more! Good work!
Best,
Neha

Sumedha

KCCS101: WOC(A)

Essay 1 Fair Draft

Professor Neha Mishra

18 October 2022

Power and Violence

Violence, very simply put, is an expression of aggression that causes severe harm to

someone or some people. There can be various reasons, ranging from an individual’s

personal situation to cultural factors, that cause this kind of behaviour and usually, it’s an

outcome of unfavourable social circumstances that affect an individual or a group of

individuals. Daily, across the globe, there are numerous reports of violence committed by

humanity. However, some acts of violence aren’t heeded as much as others because in most

instances, the individuals against whom violence is inflicted are a victim of pre-existing
 Gupta|2

social issues such as discrimination and the divide, caused by powerful individuals, between

people based on their gender, race, class, caste, ethnicity etc and hence, these narratives do

not get reported. Therefore, certain acts of violence, particularly the ones perpetrated against

these ‘inferiors’, have somewhat started to take on the form of legitimate violence. In this

essay, I will be using Kimberlé Crenshaw’s ted talk, “The Urgency of Intersectionality”

which talks about the combination of gender and race discrimination-based violence against

women, Charles Siebert’s essay, “The Elephant Crackup” which discusses elephant trauma as

a result of violence perpetrated on elephants by humans, Gail Omvedt’s “The Construction

of Hinduism” which discusses the integration of Hinduism, accomplished by various

authorities of power, in the identification of the people of India and Kavita Philip’s “The

Internet Will Be Decolonized” where she talks about how the Global South is constantly

misrepresented on the internet by the authoritarian Western World. Through the lenses of

these texts, I intend to explore how certain acts of violence have been legitimised due to the

presence of certain authorities in the society.

Violence is legitimised when inferior sections of the society resist ideologies, beliefs

and actions of certain authorities because in most instances, these authorities have the power

to dictate what is ultimate. In “The Construction of Hinduism” Gail Omvedt talks about how

the authoritarian concept of a nation was closely tied with Hinduism since all attempts to

unify people of India were through commemorating either Hindu gods or Hindu rulers and

how there was resistance against “the identification of India or Hindustan…, with a particular

religion known as Hinduism…” (8-9). In the light of that she says “…[h]indu conservatives

were mounting a full-scale attack on their upper caste reformist rivals with charges that the

latter were “anti-national,” …” (9). Here, violence and attacks against those who resisted to

conform to this ideology was considered admissible because they were regarded as “anti-
 Gupta|3

national” by the ones in power. Not only is violence legitimised through physical violence

against those who resist what is considered to be supreme but also through epistemic violence

and exclusionary practices perpetrated by authorities against the ones living under their

shadows. In Kavita Philip’s essay “The Internet Will be Decolonized” the beliefs of the

dominating power, the Western World, are reflected in their act of misrepresenting the Global

South on the internet which distorts the judgment of the consumer of the information and

consequently leads to epistemic violence. She states, “[d]espite the shifts in technological

expertise, ownership, and markets, and the undeniable force of the former colonial world in

the technological economy, Western representations of global information and

telecommunications systems repeatedly get stuck in an anachronistic discursive regime”

(104). Here, just like the authorities in nineteenth century India, there is a superior power (the

Western world) that is dictating and shaping our opinions on the technological state of the

world. These powers are excluding the information which represent the technological

proficiency of the Global South from the narratives of technological advancement in the

world because of their archaic beliefs regarding the Global South and in this process, they

perpetrate epistemic violence against the inferior countries of the world. Thus, violence

against inferiors or minorities is legitimised through misrepresentation and by disciplining the

ones who resist the authoritarian point of view.

Moreover, in the name of protecting those authorities, violence is legitimised against

those who are not a part of this authority. We see this in play when Kimberlé Crenshaw in her

ted talk, “The Urgency of Intersectionality” states “Police violence against black women is

very real… Why don’t we know these stories?” (11:42-13:42). Police hold a prestigious post

in the society, they are respected and are vested with tremendous amounts of power by the

state and everyone assumes legality to be an innate part of their actions. This phenomenon of
 Gupta|4

legitimising violence transcends intra-species and extends to inter-species as well. Protection

of the human species, the ones in control of the society, against animals seems more

imperative than the lives of animals and hence, violence against them is legitimized. For

example, Charles Siebert, in his essay “An Elephant Crackup” mentions the incident of an

elephant named “Mary” who, in self-defence, stomped a janitor’s face when he “poked her

behind the left ear with a metal hook” (9). This incident invited a frenzy of villagers

advocating to kill “Mary” so as to avoid a similar incident where another human could get

killed by her. Therefore, to satiate the “blood lust” of the people, the owner of the circus

“decided to have Mary hanged” (9). According to the Penal Code, self-defence is not a crime

but when it came to the safety and protection of humans, Mary’s self-defence was rendered

useless and unacceptable. Therefore, as proven by the given examples, people do not question

an authority whose job is to instil a sense of security or who construct orders about the ways

of society, making the violence perpetrated by them legal and legitimised.

Additionally, legitimisation of violence also occurs due to the fact that no one is there

to confront these authorities and stand up against violence being executed against the

minorities of the society. Silence surrounding a certain act of violence has undertones of

legitimisation of violence because if people don’t stand up against it, the violence will

continue to persist as though it is okay for it to exist. Crenshaw brings to light the absence of

“communal outcry” (13:42) in the cases of violence inflicted against African-American

women. This “communal outcry” is extremely necessary because only when the public

decides to accost against this violence, will people begin to see the aspect of iniquitousness

and illegitimacy in it. But, along with people’s silence, their act of rejoicing violence further

legitimises violence. This is seen in Omvedt’s text when she discusses the scriptures written

by the Aryans that include the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilisation. She says that their
 Gupta|5

scriptures “celebrated its downfall, with the rain god Indra claiming to be the “destroyer of

the cities” …” (7). Celebrating something entails the aspect of a joyful occasion and if

violence is celebrated, it implies that violence is an act worth revelling in which consequently

makes it permissible and unobjectionable. Therefore, our subconscious actions and what we

do in response to certain acts of violence can play a vital role in the legitimisation of

violence.

Through the lenses of the various texts used, I have explored how certain people in

authority, through exertion of power over the minorities, uphold their superiority which paves

the way for legitimising violence. The power and sense of authority that rests in the hands of

humans, and in some instances a certain group of people, results in intolerance towards

reforming certain ideologies that are enforced by authorities, neglection, misrepresentation

and blind faith in authorities, all of which are instrumental in legitimising violence. We have

also noticed how violence is permitted and legitimised when the inferior sections of the

society are at the receiving end. Understanding the above discussed dynamics of power,

authority and superiority in the society and their use in the legitimisation of violence, along

with recognizing which segment of society is at the receiving end leads us to ponder if

violence perpetrated against minorities even remains a crime. If the aspect of crime ceases to

exist from violence against minorities, the pre-existing conditions of the minorities will

worsen and hence it is essential for people to take accountability of their actions. It is

necessary for people to understand that irrespective of who the perpetrator and the victim is,

all acts of violence are acts of destroying, killing and causing harm.
 Gupta|6

Works Cited

Crenshaw, Kimberlé. “The Urgency of Intersectionality.” YouTube, uploaded by TED, 7th

December 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=akOe5-UsQ2o.

Omvedt, Gail. “The Construction of Hinduism.” Dalit Visions: The Anti-caste Movement and

the Construction of an Indian Identity, Orient Longman, 1995

Philip, Kavita. “The Internet Will Be Decolonized.” Your Computer Is on Fire, Thomas S.

Mullaney, Benjamin Peters, Mar Hicks, The MIT Press, 9th March 2021

Siebert, Charles. “An Elephant Crackup.” The New York Times Magazine, A.G Sulzberger,

8th October 2006

Gupta|7