On the contrary, resistance is “a reflection of the potential for subversion and contestation” within the premises “of established order” (Jacobs, Jacobson and Marchbank, 2000, p.3). This is to suggest that resistance is more concerned with opposing the undemocratic exercise of power, which is often part of the establishment, rather than the simple or violent exercise of power.
War has been the greatest exercise of power in human history. As the ethics of war has changed from protecting civilians to deliberately targeting them, the most vulnerable groups, which have lost their “personal security” are women, children and the ethnic minorities (Jacobs, Jacobson and Marchbank, 2000, p.5). There is a continuation of this situation in non-war conditions as well in the form of domestic violence, as far as women are concerned. On the other hand, it has also been argued, “women have been central in democratizing processes” (Jacobs, Jacobson and Marchbank, 2000, p.9). This doubled role of being the victims and the menders of the existing system is what makes women a key factor in all resistance movements (Jacobs, Jacobson and Marchbank, 2000, p.9). Women have a long history of resistance to violence that has happened “within their communities, sometimes in the name of their protection” (Jacobs, Jacobson and Marchbank, 2000, p.15). But this resistance has been largely personal and cultural rather than taking on an organized form. It is in and around this aspect that pacifism is viewed as a useful strategy, by a section of the society. Resistance shown by women’s collective actions, on the contrary, never was totally pacifistic (Jacobs, Jacobson and Marchbank, 2000, p.195). But the approaches like the “maternalistic approach” regarding violence have ruled out the role of violence in resisting crime.
The ethnicity of violence is yet another less explored side. Globalization has merged international boundaries and