Reframing Scholarship of Pain and Resistance: Praxis and the Politics of Voice

Someone recently asked me why my writing style differs from that of scholars who focus on gender, law, human rights, or governance. The answer lies in the perspective I bring to my work. As both an activist and a practicing lawyer, my writing is grounded in the lived realities of survivors, victims, and their families, with whom I engage directly. These are not abstract issues for me; they are deeply personal and urgent.

I didn’t begin with theory. I began by listening to stories of pain, injustice, resilience, and survival. I began by documenting what I witnessed and what was shared with me in spaces far removed from academic institutions or policy think tanks. These narratives became the foundation of my writing. From there, I started to reflect, analyze, and develop theoretical frameworks rooted in those experiences. This method, which I sometimes describe as a “bubble-based” approach, allows for theory to emerge organically from real-life contexts, rather than imposing pre-existing frameworks onto them.

In contrast, I have encountered several academic scholars—though certainly not all—who adopt what might be described as an “armchair” approach to theory. They produce work that is intellectually sophisticated and methodologically rigorous, yet remains curiously detached from the lived realities of the very communities they analyze or claim to represent. This disconnection between scholarship and the social worlds it purports to understand, in my view, reflects a troubling contradiction. It is a form of academic abstraction that, while cloaked in the language of neutrality, effectively sidelines the voices and struggles of those most impacted by the issues under study. The politics of divorcing research from on-the-ground realities is not just an epistemological choice—it is, I would argue, a hypocritical stance that sustains the very structures of inequality many scholars claim to critique.

The academic establishment often valorizes objectivity and neutrality, holding them up as hallmarks of legitimate scholarship. But in a world structured by systemic oppression, neutrality becomes complicit. As historian Howard Zinn aptly observed,

“Indeed, it is impossible to be neutral. In a world already moving in certain directions, where wealth and power are already distributed in certain ways, neutrality means accepting the way things are now.”

Neutrality, in this sense, is not a position of distance but of alignment—with the status quo. Zinn further argues that “objectivity is not desirable because if we want to have an effect on the world, we need to emphasize those things which will make students more active citizens and more moral people.” His call is a reminder that knowledge production is never apolitical.

Another important point is that laws and policies are often written by those in positions of power who benefit from privilege. As a result, the language used can be complex and inaccessible, creating barriers for ordinary people. To ensure fair access to justice, the public must simplify and decode this language. When academic or legal discussions rely on overly technical or elitist language, they alienate the very people they claim to serve. In this way, the language of the privileged becomes a tool of exclusion. This is why demystifying the law is not just helpful—it is necessary.

For me, research must be a practice rooted in both theory and praxis—it is a deeply engaged practice that must be rooted in both critical theory and lived experience, in both analysis and action. It should not only analyze the world but also engage with it—intervening where possible, proposing policy alternatives, and informing legal or structural change.

Scholarship should not be a passive enterprise, limited to the distant observation or interpretation of societal phenomena. Rather, it must be an active force that engages with the world—immersing itself in the urgent realities faced by individuals and communities. True scholarship carries a responsibility not only to understand and explain injustice but also to intervene where such injustice persists. This involves more than critique; it demands the courage to challenge entrenched power structures, to offer visionary alternatives to systems of oppression, and to contribute meaningfully to legal, policy, and institutional reforms.

Such engagement is not optional—it is central to the ethical mission of scholarship. It is about righting historical and present wrongs, advocating for those who have been systematically marginalized, and working toward the emancipation and liberation of all people. This kind of transformative scholarship recognizes that knowledge is not neutral. It can be a tool of domination or a vehicle for justice. Therefore, scholars must use their intellectual labor to advance equity, dignity, and freedom, both within and beyond the academy.

I believe in a mode of research that is grounded, participatory, and accountable—one that is developed in conversation with, and in service to, the communities it seeks to understand and uplift. This kind of intellectual work does not treat suffering as an object of curiosity but engages it as a site of resistance and possibility. Writing about pain and struggle is not an act of voyeurism—it is a weapon of theorization, a means of narrating survival, defiance, and hope. It stands in stark contrast to armchair scholarship that maintains the illusion of objectivity while remaining complicit in the status quo.

My writing often resists conventional academic norms, and this resistance is intentional. I write in ways that center the voices of those who have been ignored, silenced, or erased by dominant systems of knowledge production. I strive to amplify marginalized perspectives and construct knowledge from below—starting with lived realities, not imposed frameworks.

This approach to scholarship is unapologetically political. It acknowledges that all knowledge is produced within power relations and that choosing how and what to write is itself a political act. In doing so, I hope to contribute to a more just and engaged form of scholarship—one that does not shy away from the moral and political dimensions of intellectual work.

In that sense, my work is a form of rebellion—a refusal to conform to depoliticized intellectual traditions, and a commitment to using research as a tool for justice, resistance, and transformation. I see research not just as a way to understand the world, but as a step toward changing it.

 

 Zinn Howard (1990) Declaration of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology, Harper's Collins

Zinn Howard (2008) A People’s History for the Classroom

 

Violence Against Women: Backlash and Resistance

 Violence Against Women: Backlash and Resistance

This post is based on my speech in the Webinar held on 25 November 24, organized by PUCL

By Dr Shalu Nigam, Vice President, Delhi PUCL

 

Good evening to all of you. Today we have gathered here to celebrate 16 Days of Activism on Gender Based Violence, which commenced every year on 25 November, the International Day of Violence Against Women, and ends on 10 December, Human Rights Day. This campaign was launched globally during the 1990s to highlight the centuries of oppression against women and that violence is the most pervasive breach of human rights worldwide. It advocates for the rights of women and demands the elimination of violence against women and girls (VAWG). The theme for the year 2024 is “Every 10 Minutes, a woman is killed. #NoExcuse. UNiTE to End Violence against Women”.

This year is also special because the world is approaching to celebrate the 30^th anniversary of the Beijing Platform for Action in 2025. This is the blueprint for achieving gender equality and women’s rights everywhere.  

The reports say that Nearly one in three women experience violence in their lifetime. Girls are at particular risk of violence—1 in 4 adolescent girls is abused by their partners.

In 2023 at least 51,100 women were murdered by their partners and family members.

16% to 58% of women globally experience technology-facilitated gender-based violence. Young people are the most affected.

70% of women in conflict, war, and humanitarian crisis, experience gender-based violence. In Gaza, the world has witnessed how women and children are specifically targeted and deprived of basic necessities such as food and medical aid. Historically, sexual violence is a common factor in all wars. The war machines work in a way to destroy women and children the most.

The data on the crime against women in India, as recorded by the NCRB, shows that India recorded 51 cases of crimes against women every hour, and these are the reported cases.

And when I say VAW, it entails not only physical, economic, sexual, or psychological violence but also denial and discrimination of the rights of women everywhere. For example, the women in the tribal areas are being forcibly denied their rights to land and forests. We should also take these forms of violence into account. Rather, New India is every day witnessing severe forms of violence and simultaneously fierce resistance by women. These images (women resisting the demolition by bulldozer and the policeman holding a pistol towards the women voters in UP during the election in November 2024) of women’s resistance are etched in the history and memories of India of the 21^st century and will remind future generations of the stories of oppression and resistance.

Moreover, globally with the rise in authoritarianism, women are facing severe backlash where misogyny pervades not only in the language and actions of political leaders but also among common men on the street and online. We have seen how sexism is threatening women in digital spaces.

We know that in recent years, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the decision in Roe and Wade to deprive women of their abortion rights when Trump came into power.  Also, in 2024, a few hours after Donald Trump’s victory in the elections in the USA, the far-right slogan “Your body, my choice” spread around, sparking the misogynist trend[1]. Messages such as “You no longer have rights” were sent to women users of social media. This violent onslaught, unchecked misogyny, and resentment reveal that men do not treat women with dignity as equals. Rather, these men view women as inferior.

 In response, the 4B or 4 No’s digital movement started trending in the USA. This radical movement was initiated in South Korea earlier and propagates no sex, no dating, no marriage, and no procreation, with men gaining a trend to combat the patriarchal state and conservative society[2]. It was started to combat the patriarchal state and the conservative society. This movement rejected the heteronormative expectations of state and society around women’s bodies and articulated the concerns around patriarchy, precarity, consumerism, and capitalism[3].

In Afghanistan, we all know how the Taliban is denying women their right to education. The reports say that in their rules for three years, the Taliban has deliberately deprived 1.4 million girls of their right to education, putting the future of the entire generation in danger[4]. 

In Iran, a few days back, the world witnessed how a student was harassed for hijab by the dress code enforcers, and she protested uniquely. She was later arrested. The Iranian government later declared that the girl was mentally unstable. Several reports later say that Iran is planning to send women revolting against the hijab to mandatory psychiatric facilities. Rather, the hijab removal treatment clinics have been specifically set up to defend and forcibly enforce a piece of clothing on women[5].

Meanwhile, multiple women political prisoners are facing the risk of execution in Iran based on false charges. The Center for Human Rights in Iran said that four women have been accused of manufacturing charges of armed rebellion, a charge often used by authorities against dissenters, and sentenced to death in July 2024[6]

After decades of deliberations on human rights and raising slogans such as Women’s Rights are Human Rights, a handful of men are deciding what women should wear, when they should marry, and even controlling the wombs of women. India has also imposed such a ban when young Muslim girls were denied entry into educational institutions because they insisted on wearing the hijab. So the question that arises here is that in a democracy, how come a few men are deciding what women should do or not do? The women’s movement globally and locally is demanding various freedoms, but the handful of men in power are doing exactly the opposite.

In recent years, within homes, digital spaces, or public spaces, violence is ever expanding not only in terms of numbers but also in its severity, scope, and outreach. Over the past few decades, the UN and other agencies have been generating literature and developing indices to measure progress and empowerment, demanding safety and determining rights at the same time extreme form of violence is being normalized and legitimized.

Resistance and oppression continued simultaneously. With brutal violence, resistance becomes fierce, leading to further violence, and this spiral of violence against women continues.

In France, the case of Gisele Pelicot, a 72-year-old woman who was sedated, drugged, and raped by her husband and fifty other men for nine years, shows how women are deceived by the systems and institutions, which promise them safety, comfort, and justice. The trial of this case is still going on. However, the video records and the documents found during investigations presented before the court indicate the terrible nature of violence. This case has raised questions about consent, betrayal in marriage, digital violence against women, toxic masculinity, pornography, and pervasive rape culture. It shows how the masculine code operates, where none of the men invited to rape her complained against it. This case shows that any man can be a predator, or as Ms Pelicot says, he can be any man in the family, among our friends.”

Important in this case is Gisele Pelicot’s reaction, her courage and determination to speak for all women victims and survivors of violence, despite being hurt, and her zeal to support the cause of survivors of violence are empowering. In her response to her ordeal, she said that she felt betrayed, broken, and completely destroyed. She precisely stated that the `shame should change sides’. She rightly challenged the system to ascertain that all men who stayed silent should be shamed for their violent acts.

The world has also witnessed how women in the Parliament of New Zealand resisted the anti-people law.

Globally, governments are paying lip service to the issue of women’s empowerment, but they have failed to stop the culture of violence with impunity. The backlash is evident from the fact that when women become vocal in the public domain, in politics, in journalism, or as women human rights defenders are targeted intentionally both online and offline. With increasing digitalization, videos of horrific crimes are being circulated around in social media without any restriction or control.  The spectacle of brutal violence evokes sadistic pleasure, and not only are the bodies of women objectified or commoditized, but repeated pleasure is obtained in sharing such dreadful images while normalizing and legitimizing violence.

The misogyny is so deeply permeated that last week in India, a huge crowd gathered in Patna to see the film trailer of the movie Pushpa 2, which was deemed as a deeply misogynistic movie by the critics. However, no such crowd gathered to demand justice against violence in Manipur.

The incidents of VAW that took place in Unnao, Hathras, Karnataka, the wrestlers’ case, and various other cases show how justice remains elusive. The complaints or FIRs are not registered. The police and the administration stand with perpetrators of violence, rather women victims are being compelled to bow down to the demands of perpetrators and their families. The voices of women are being forcefully silenced. Women, in many cases, are penalized for demanding justice.

Not only in the case of Bilkis Bano but in many other cases we have witnessed how the rapists and murderers have welcome and garland after being released on bail. The society that still prefers sons is complicit in the crime when it takes pride in such violent, toxic masculinity. The political parties that weaponize VAW to target their opponents are as guilty of the crime as the criminals themselves. The institutions, such as the courts, police, and the national commissions, are much part of a larger network that silences women complainants and therefore are guilty of crime.

Humanity is doomed when, during the pandemic, the political leaders decided to play Twitter Antakshari, and those in their ivory towers clapped when thousands of women and children walked down the road for thousands of miles with no support or facilities, and several women were forced to give birth to children on roads.

When women demanded Beqhauf Azadi, as we have witnessed during the Nirbhaya protest, the state denied autonomy to women by giving the law of love jihad.

Tragically, we are living in a country where the judges rely on the divinity and not on the constitutional values while pronouncing judgements. More so, in the matters of women, religion, superstitions, myths, and misogyny all work together to deny justice. From the Mathura to the Manorama and Hathras cases, we have witnessed how justice is denied to women. Women in police stations, courts, and communities are chasing justice, but the more they chase farther it goes. The apathy, indifference, and hostility exist within public spaces, in courtrooms, police stations, creating a disillusionment with justice.

The more we women demand rights, the more the misogynist forces suppress our voices. And to counter such violence, in several cases, women have deployed diverse and unique methods as we have witnessed in the case of protests by Naga mothers or in the case of Akku Yadav, where the accused person was protected by the police and judiciary and yet he was murdered in the courtrooms by the survivors who were frustrated by the indifference of the system.

In India, generally, we assume that once the law is made, justice will follow. However, this is not happening. 

Ironically, in the contemporary situation, we are living in a society where the pain and suffering are categorized into hierarchies based on the caste, sex, or religion of the victim. Frequently, women’s issues are sidelined. The pain of a woman who is raped in home day in and day out by her so-called protectors in no way receive sympathy or empathy from the state or society. Hence, all the institutions that silence the voices of women are complicit in crime because they embolden men and create a culture of impunity where men feel entitled to violate the mind, body, and soul of women as per their whims and fancies.

Lastly, I will end with the point that there is debate on social media regarding `#Not All Men’ to depict that not all men are violent. It is in response to discussions regarding misogyny or abuse, which blame men as perpetrators. The proponents of this phrase ignored the feminist voices, which have been highlighting that violence is not a man versus a woman issue. Violence against women is about patriarchal oppression and the culture of impunity, which harms society at large. This is depicted from the responses of women who initiated the hashtag #YesAllWomen and #MeToo movement. In both these online movements, women shared their experiences of sexism, harassment, and discrimination they faced because of persistent misogyny in some way or the other.

More specifically, in India, it is the culture that tolerates and promotes practices such as dowry violence, female foeticide, son-preference, honour killing, forced marriages, child marriages, witch hunting, widow discrimination, and girl-child discrimination that is guilty of perpetuating violence with impunity.  All men and women who stay silent in situations of VAW are complicit in the crime. A few days back, a video was circulated on social media where a woman was raped on the road in the day light and no one came to rescue her. Hence, a society that tolerates misogynist speeches and sexist jokes every day is guilty of perpetuating the culture of violence with impunity. `Not all men,’ but `Yes, all men and women who stay silent’ propagate the culture of violence with impunity, and this should end.

So, what is the solution to stop violence? It is to speak out against violence. We women refused to be silenced till the VAW ends. While a multi-pronged approach is desirable and may go a long way to rethink laws and policies, we need to stop the culture of violence with impunity. Speaking out against violence is as important as supporting the survivors, their agency, and resilience.  We don’t need false promises or lip service from the state. We demand concrete and collaborative actions to end violence against women. I will end with the slogan Leave no one behind by the UN.

In Solidarity and support to end violence against women, I end this session here. We can take further questions.

 

Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUBpNjGSgBU&ab_channel=IMPRIImpactandPolicyResearchInstitute

https://www.youtube.com/@dissentingvoices-r3v

---

[1] Ramos Andrew (2024) Misogynistic Social Posts, bullying of women and girls have spiked since election, CBS News, November 13, https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/misogynistic-phrases-bullying-women-girls-since-election/

[2] Lee, J., and E. Jeong, (2021). The 4B movement: envisioning a feminist future with/in a non-reproductive future in Korea. Journal of Gender Studies, 30(5) 633–644. 

[3] Shamim Sarah (2024) What is the 4B Feminist movement from S Korea that’s taking off in the US? Aljazeera.com, November 9, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/9/what-is-the-4b-feminist-movement-from-s-korea-thats-taking-off-in-the-us

[4] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/15/taliban-deliberately-deprived-1-4-million-girls-of-schooling-un

[5] https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/iran-plans-to-send-women-revolting-hijab-mandate-to-psychiatric-facilities-7020639

[6] https://iranhumanrights.org/2024/07/women-activists-increasingly-sentenced-to-death-as-political-executions-in-iran-surge/

Learning the Practical Application of Human Rights

 Memories 

June 2017 at Gandhi Peace Foundation, Delhi 

with PUCL Interns 

The journey of understanding and applying human rights in real-world scenarios is a continuous one. Every case of a human rights violation brings with it unique circumstances and challenges, demanding a tailored approach. In the context of India, where the socio-political dynamics are complex and evolving, these violations are becoming increasingly frequent and, at times, more severe. Navigating this landscape requires more than just theoretical knowledge—it calls for hands-on experience, critical thinking, and empathy.

As a human rights professional, one is constantly learning—each day brings new insights, challenges, and perspectives. The field of human rights is dynamic and deeply intertwined with evolving political, social, and cultural realities. No two cases are ever truly alike; each presents its own set of complexities, requiring critical thinking, contextual understanding, and adaptability. Whether it's understanding emerging forms of discrimination, navigating legal frameworks, or responding to shifting public sentiments, the learning never stops. Engaging with diverse communities, listening to survivors, and collaborating with colleagues across disciplines further enriches this ongoing process. Ultimately, this continuous learning is not just a professional necessity—it is a moral imperative that strengthens one’s ability to advocate effectively and compassionately for justice and dignity.

I consider myself fortunate to have had the opportunity to work alongside some of the most respected figures in the field of human rights. Their experience, commitment, and strategic thinking have been invaluable learning resources for me. Collaborating with them allowed me to observe the importance of detail-oriented analysis in every case. Whether it’s a minor infraction or a major abuse, every incident demands a nuanced understanding of the law, the context, and the people involved.

From these experiences, I’ve come to appreciate the necessity of building thoughtful, well-informed strategies to resist oppression and advocate for justice effectively. Human rights work is not just about standing up against injustice—it’s about doing so with clarity, compassion, and a clear plan of action. This practical learning has not only deepened my commitment to the cause but also sharpened my ability to contribute meaningfully to it.

Some of the important learnings for this session are:

Human Rights are not abstract concepts. For the subjugated, the language of rights is essential for articulating everyday oppression, including the denial of basic entitlements such as education, health care, housing, employment opportunities, erosion of livelihoods, land alienation, displacement, and all forms of violence.

Against this complex hierarchy of unspeakable suffering, the rights discourse holds the state accountable and compels it to recognize the rights of the marginalized for meaningful survival.