Words: 1603
The event launched, named ‘Operation Baluster’, a full-scale assault on dozens of guarders (temples) around the Sikh homeland of Punjab. The disappearances and the killings evinced a strong genocidal component, with younger Sikh men overwhelmingly targeted. Simultaneous to this, the violence spilled over the remains of Sikh communities, with the Delhi anti-Sikh massacre of 1984 being the most notable. It is considered one of the the worst genocidal slaughters of modern times.
In this paper, I will summarize and discuss my personal views on the conflicting events in the Sikh community following 1 984 and the recesses I believe should have taken place to solve the disputes and to obtain justice in a time where human rights were severely violated and sacred boundaries of religion were crossed. The excuse given by Mrs.. Gandhi for the assault was that a “band of extremists had taken refuge within the Golden Temple”. Tally, 151) ‘Operation Baluster’ set the tone for a destructive conflict. When the military entered the temples, they used “power over, meaning they were exercising control over the Sikhs through the use of designated authority and power. Sikhs were murdered inside their places of worship. There are problems that arise when a temple is taken over, when there are guns pointed to the “historic and seminal buildings”, including the most holy scriptures which were desecrated.
Anthropologist Joyce Pettier explains the purpose of the invasion as: “The Army went into Durbar Sahib’s not to eliminate a political figure or a political movement but to suppress the culture of a people, to attack their heart, to strike a blow at their spirit and self-confidence”. (Gaur, Sings) Threatening the Sikhs by invading the temple Koura 2 would lead to stonewalling and contempt in the future. According to the four horsemen of the apocalypse approach, it can be said that Sikhs responded to the threat with defense and anger.
When defense becomes the central topic goal for a conflict, the only events that follow are destructive kinds, where power is imbalanced, goals are not clarified, and face-saving can impede the process of conflict resolution. It creates an environment of emotional trauma, violence, and a strong urge to retaliate, which leads to an aggressive approach at conflict resolution. After violently suppressing a Sikh insurgency, the Prime Minister of India was assassinated on October 31 SST, 1984 by her two Sikh bodyguards. Immediately after, Delhi became a seriously dangerous place for members of the Sikh community.
Instead of the problem being attacked, it was the people. Violent mobs assembled in an unabated and organized effort to take vengeance on those they felt responsible for the M’s death. Sandhog’s killing prompted antiskid rioting which resulted in more than 4,000 Sikhs dead, some burned in kerosene alive in front of their families. The authorities exploited their high power which led to corruption in a haste manner. Survivors, One of them eyeing my own father, Imagination, recall “seeing dead men, women and children on the ground as an army and tanks entered Sikh communities”.
The imbalance of power was a central topic in these events. Sikhs were supposedly corrupted by powerlessness. Stated in the text, Interpersonal Conflict, “if lower-power people [Sikhs] are continually subjected to harsh treatment or lack of goal attainment, they are likely to produce some organized resistance to the higher-power people” [authorities]. (Rocker, Willow 125) Feeling as if you’re powerless and weak can make it seem as if “nothing taters”, this ideology leads individuals to extreme aggressive approaches.
When the Sikh families were attacked, they were powerless because their opponent was their own government Some Sikhs played the role of Devil’s Advocate, to which I frown upon. If one party takes the same destructive approach as the other party, there is no difference between the two. War can be fought without weapons. Negotiations can be approached in peace. But governments are expected to make tough decisions Koura 3 in times like these. Sometimes the use of “power off is required to implement national change. To carry this responsibility through, the leader may lose credibility and effectiveness.
In many ways, “power over” is merely an illusion. Through the mobs’ worldview, they had alienated themselves from the Sikh community. Their view had become distorted due to their perception of exceeding power. They believed they were better than the Sikhs. Additionally, their use of mass violence increased their illusion of power. As argued by Hockey and Willow in Interpersonal Conflict, unrestrained power can distort views of the self, views of the other, and it can et the stage for continued unproductive relationship interaction.
Leaders often find that this kind of power over members only succeeds to the extent that members agree to its use. Rather, governments should use “power with”, which is an alternative way of thinking about power. “Power with” satisfies natural justice because it recognizes that leaders can contribute to creating results by developing relations with members based on negotiations and cooperation. In the long term, it is more valuable to hear both perspectives and choose a verdict based on mutual gains, which ensures a win-win agreement.
In any conflict, there are two fundamental aspects; the communications of behaviors, being verbal and body language, and the perception of those behaviors. Each individual holds a view of themselves, view of the other, and a view of their relationship. According to the lens model, we see our world through a lens, a perspective, and we all believe that our perspective is real. Our gender and culture can influence how we perceive others’ behavior and how We behave with others. Relating to the lens model is the attribution theory which demonstrates how a filter exists on our lens.
People’s views are always distorted because we all filter our perspectives and experiences. Our filter is influenced by our cultural influences, our gender, our personality, etc. The attribution theory explains that we carry fundamentally different views of ourselves and others. The act of attributing means to relate to a particular cause or source, to ascribe. When we attribute causes of others’ negative behaviors or actions, we tend to list internal causes. On the other hand, when we attribute causes of our negative behavior or actions, we typically search for external causes.
The fact is, our self-perception strongly influences how we interpret success/failure of current efforts and this contain ally influences our Koura 4 future effort to either repeat or terminate our behavior. (Rocker, Willow 61 ) When referring 1 984, both parties had distorted views while feeling dangerously high levels of contempt towards each other and according to the four horsemen of apocalypse, “contempt calls for quick, effective action”. (Hockey, Willow 27) From the beginning, Nadir Gandhi and the administration had treated the Sikh community with prejudice and bias.
The administration used their designated and military power to threaten Sikhs. The authorities attributed their assaults to false internal causes such as falsely accusing the Sikhs for ‘allegedly storing guns and other forms of terror in The Golden Temple’. As the conflict exceeded, perspectives from opposing sides only worsened due to the effect Of stonewalling and hostility. The disputants avoided the core conflict and instead attacked each other, falling into the conflict spiral. At this time, sorting out what was perceived and what was interpersonally accurate could have formed the correct basis for conflict solution.
We walk this Earth with filtered perceptions of our world and incorrectly assume that our one single perception is dependable. To gain insight on a complex conflict, taking massacres of 1 984 for example, we must gain multiple perspective checks, and ensure we are not carrying a single- vision/distorted view of ourselves, of the other, or of the relationship. This way, we can avoid or carefully analyze and resolve interpersonal conflict. By November 3rd, the national Army and local police units worked together to subdue the violence.
After adjudicated intervention, violence turned mild. In the following weeks, Human Rights Associations and third party interventions took place, trying to aid the Sikh community with obtaining justice. Over 4,000 people were massacred in the world’s largest democracy. Children were left orphaned, women were left widowed, and the cultural landscape of India was changed forever. One aspect of the terrible attacks of 1984 that still looms large is the question of responsibility and influence over the mobs. Where, if at all, can the blame be placed?
How can such a efficient and large crowd ether in such a short period of time with ready resources to attack? And why were they able to execute their vengeance without police and military interference? To what extent do state agencies or political parties themselves stimulate the mob? What if the political leaders had taken the slightest action towards simple tasks such as negotiation or open communication? These questions remain unanswered today. Koura 5 My views on interpersonal conflict continue to develop daily as I observe and take part in different types of conflict.
The processes of resolving conflict is here lack knowledge and experience. From this course, plan to develop the skills needed to analyze disputes ranging from interpersonal conflict between peers to nations all in objective ways. To be able to observe objectively without judgment and evaluation, to seek all perspectives, to not exaggerate frequency, or start conversations with negative complaints such as “you never” or “you always”. To negotiate effectively, how should one effectively carry out an argument without destroying relational or identity dimensions?