The Hindu: Published on 17th July 2025:
Why in News?
The term “genocide” is once again in international spotlight due to the allegations against Israel for its actions in Gaza.
UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese has accused Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians as part of a long-term settler colonial project.
This has revived global attention on the origin, definition, codification, and moral implications of genocide.
It is also significant in 2025 due to Human Rights Watch reports on ongoing structural violence against Aboriginal people in Australia — showing that genocidal practices persist beyond warfare.
Historical Background:
Raphael Lemkin and the Origin of the Term-
Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish lawyer, coined the term "genocide" in his 1944 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe.
Motivated by the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust, Lemkin saw a legal vacuum in holding states accountable for mass atrocities.
He created the term from:
Greek: genos (race or tribe)
Latin: cide (killing)
Post-War Developments:
Lemkin pushed for international legal recognition.
Despite being advisor at the Nuremberg Trials, his term was not fully adopted due to political hesitancy from the US and USSR.
The UN Genocide Convention (1948) partially fulfilled his vision.
Legal Dimensions:
UN Genocide Convention (1948)
Genocide legally defined as acts committed with intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
Five key acts:
Killing members
Inflicting serious bodily/mental harm
Conditions leading to physical destruction
Preventing births
Forcible transfer of children
Rome Statute (2002):
Gave the International Criminal Court (ICC) authority to try genocide cases.
Critiques:
Excludes political and social groups (e.g., communists).
“Intent” is hard to prove — no state declares genocidal intent.
Structural and colonial violence often escapes the definition.
Contemporary Relevance:
Gaza Crisis (2024–25):
Ongoing attacks on Palestinian civilians have led to accusations of genocide, triggering debate about the limits and enforcement of international law.
Australia (2025 HRW Report):
Forced transfer of Aboriginal children is cited as a genocide-like practice — showing that genocidal mechanisms can be systemic and institutional rather than overtly violent.
Philosophical and Ethical Dimensions:
Hannah Arendt’s Concept: The Banality of Evil
From Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963), Arendt argued that evil doesn’t require monstrous intentions — it flourishes when people stop thinking and simply follow orders.
Eichmann, a key Holocaust organizer, wasn’t uniquely evil but terrifyingly ordinary — emblematic of a bureaucratic system that normalizes atrocities.
Judith Butler’s View:
Butler expanded Arendt’s critique:
The erosion of critical thinking makes crimes against humanity “thinkable”.
When society stops reflecting morally, even genocide can appear normal or justified.
Implications for India and the World:
The definition and prosecution of genocide remain legally limited and politically contested.
There’s a moral and civic obligation on states and citizens to speak out against unfolding genocides, including those normalized by state propaganda or digital apathy.
Genocidal tactics must also be recognised in colonial, carceral, or structural contexts — not just during wars.
India, while not directly involved, must navigate its foreign policy in alignment with its commitment to international law and human rights.
Key Takeaways:
- Genocide is not just mass killing, but the intentional destruction of identity and existence of a group.
- Its legal codification emerged post-Holocaust but remains contested and selective in enforcement.
- Thinking, reflection, and civic courage are necessary to prevent genocide from being normalized in modern societies.
- Historical amnesia and institutional indifference allow atrocities to continue under the guise of normalcy.
