Why Do People Remain Silent in the Face of Injustice?
Dr. Santosh Kumar Mohapatra
Injustice does not always survive because people support it. Often, it survives because those who recognise it remain silent—especially when they believe they can personally benefit from it.
The recently enacted MMDR Amendment Act, 2026 illustrates how self-interest can influence responses to public policy. Mineral-rich states such as Odisha and Jharkhand have strongly opposed provisions that curtail the powers of states regarding certain taxes and levies on mineral-bearing lands and mineral rights. But states that are less dependent on mineral revenues may have little reason to oppose such measures and may even see themselves as beneficiaries.
This reflects a broader truth about human behaviour: people often judge decisions not by whether they are right or wrong, fair or unfair, but by whether they benefit or harm them.
The same tendency exists in politics, administration, workplaces, social organisations and trade unions. When a decision favours someone, they may praise it—and even praise the person responsible—regardless of its fairness. Conversely, when a deserving person is denied an opportunity, many who recognise the injustice remain silent to protect their own interests. Silence, in such circumstances, becomes a form of indirect approval.
This is how the psychology of “divide and rule” can continue in different forms. People may be divided by position, privilege, personal loyalty, institutional interests, ideology, region or material benefits. Injustice can then be sustained not merely by force, but through selective benefits and calculated silence.
A just society requires more than opposing injustice when it affects us personally. The real test of character is whether we speak when others are wronged—especially when doing so may cost us something.
We must learn to distinguish interest from principle, loyalty from sycophancy, consensus from silence, and benefit from justice.
Justice demands consistency. What we oppose when it harms us should also be opposed when it harms others. What is wrong for others does not become right merely because it benefits us.
The greatest danger to justice is sometimes not the presence of injustice, but the silence of those who recognise it and remain quiet because they are comfortable with its consequences.
