Introduction The question of national identity has been crucial for many peoples in world history. It is so because many world powers tended to establish their colonies in third-world countries by bringing new rules to the native population. The British Empire has a significant impact on South Asia since the European state utilized a centralization policy in that region. It could not but result in some disaffection among representatives of the local population. People from that region started opposing the centralization, which is known as resistance. In South Asia, armed rebellion and nonviolent means were the most typical kinds of resistance. Even though they are common in opposing the centralization policy, these forms are different in the way how they influence society and its future. Thus, armed resistance implies a stricter colonialization policy, while nonviolent measures are only productive for the nation in the long run. Forms of Resistance Explained As has been mentioned, there are various forms of resistance. Armed rebellion implies simple principles, and it means that the local population is ready to have recurrence to brutality to defend national interests. At the same time, the term nonviolent resistance is broad, and it includes a few specific kinds of showing disagreement with the center. They include insubordination, noncooperation, debates regarding political issues, and many others. These phenomena emerge depending on the level of people’s grievances against a ruling regime and what image this regime has. For example, when the center oppressively limits the rights of the native population, it is not a surprise that an armed rebellion is likely to happen. On the contrary, native people can utilize nonviolent resistance forms in those cases when they see that a ruling regime respects them and tries to meet their needs and requirements. As for South Asia, this region has witnessed many forms of resistance since 1500. Considering that it is a large part of the world and an extended timeframe is reviewed, it is possible to find cases of both nonviolent resistance means and armed rebellion. On the one hand, the 1857 Uprising was one of the most significant examples of how the armed Indians fought against British rule. On the other hand, Mahatma Gandhi is a symbol of a nonviolent opposing movement, and he tried to achieve the independence of India from Britain with the help of peaceful means. There is no doubt that the two resistance forms have led to particular results for Indian society, and these consequences will be described below. Armed Rebellion in South Asia The idea of an armed rebellion was acute in the given region over a long time. The independence of the state has always been a crucial topic for the local population, and this idea is proved by numerous films that demonstrated “an allegory for protest against British rule” (Bhatia 2019). If one wants to understand the impact that the 1857 Uprising had on India, it is necessary to explain its preludes. To form its colonial troops, the British Raj recruited people from Bengal and promised to provide them with a decent salary and required equipment. However, these soldiers soon turned into gun fodder because the Empire did not want to send the British to invade dangerous territories. In addition to that, the policy of Europeanization took place, and the local population was not allowed to observe their traditions. Consequently, that situation made the Indians participate in the armed rebellion. Even though the rebellion was suppressed, that form of resistance had a significa