Blog 8: Political Violence

Kiana Stewart

Political Science 150

Professor Hawkins

9 November 2012

Blog 8: Political Violence

                  In Comparative Politics the author David J. Samuels identifies four types of political violence. The state of India has had a tumultuous history since separating from its mother country Great Britain in 1947 and some might argue that it has experienced all of the types of political violence covered. One in particular is genocide that the textbook describes as “a coordinated plan seeking to eliminate all members of particular ethnic, religious, or national groups, through mass murder” (204). In 1984 India experienced the Anti-Sikh massacre that fits into this category. Earlier that June the Prime Minister, Indira Ghandi ordered a march against Sikh separatists at a sacred temple during Operation Blue Star. During this event an estimated 492 Sikh civilians were killed which caused deeper tensions and prompted retaliatory measures. Some members of the army mutinied, resigned or protested the actions taken but bodyguards to Ghandi made the greatest vengeful act by assassinating her. This reactive strike ultimately escalated the violence and caused the Anti-Sikh riots, also called the 1984 Sikh Genocide (Wikipedia). The genocide was organized and spurred on by the government in Delhi being run by the new Prime Minister, Ghandi’s son Rajiv Ghandi. Members of Congress have been clearly implicated in aiding and urging on the violence by distributing weapons and giving hate speeches to riots during which they promised money for the death of Sikhs. The police force was previously notified of the impending pogrom and not only ignored the open violence but also joined in or arrested Sikhs who fought back.

Although the textbook provides a fairly adequate description of genocide, the United Nations created an official definition that is better because it provides greater specifics. The United Nations defined genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” (BBC News). This definition is much more detailed and more importantly differentiates from the book’s definition by requiring that action must be taken and not simply just the creation of a plan. Furthermore, the UN’s definition recognizes the other actions that can make up genocide besides total elimination. The textbook definition suffers from lack of clarity and focus. Neither definition however establishes any parameters for the number of people killed or the amount of time necessary to qualify genocide. Therefore while the 1984 Sikh massacre was over a very short period of time it fulfills the requirements of both definitions since during that time the government sought to destroy the Sikh group by murder and strategic planning. It is officially estimated that 2,700 Sikhs were murdered however it is believed that up to 20,000 died with at least another 50,000 being displaced. While definitions for political science are difficult to create due to the circumstantial nature of their subjects, each action has different history and conditions, the UN’s definition of genocide provides a more focused and exclusive view than Samuel’s.