By Devirupa Mitra
Three countries scored higher than India. Myanmar holds the top spot, followed by Chad and Sudan. However, many high-ranking nations including Myanmar and Sudan are already dealing with ongoing mass killings, making India’s position particularly noteworthy as a potential new flashpoint.
India could be at serious risk of mass violence against civilians in the coming two years, according to an annual global study published by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
The country is placed fourth out of 168 nations assessed for the likelihood of what researchers call intrastate mass killings. More significantly, India topped the list of countries facing such danger that are not already experiencing large-scale violence.
The December 2025 report from the museum’s Early Warning Project estimates India has a 7.5% chance of seeing deliberate mass violence against civilians before the end of 2026. The researchers define such violence as armed groups killing at least 1000 non-combatants within a year based on their group identity, which could include ethnicity, religion, politics or geography.
Three countries scored higher than India. Myanmar holds the top spot, followed by Chad and Sudan. However, many high-ranking nations including Myanmar and Sudan are already dealing with ongoing mass killings, making India’s position particularly noteworthy as a potential new flashpoint.
Researchers at the museum and Dartmouth College analysed decades of historical data to identify patterns. They look at which characteristics countries shared in the years before mass violence erupted, then search for similar warning signs today.
“Which countries today look most similar to countries that experienced mass killings in the past, in the year or two before those mass killings began?” the report asks.
The model examines more than 30 factors, from population size and economic indicators to measures of political freedom and armed conflict. Historically, roughly one or two countries experience new episodes of mass killing each year.
Lawrence Woocher, research director at the museum’s Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, wrote in the report’s foreword that the project aims to help officials and organisations decide where to focus resources for prevention. Pointing out that the Holocaust was preventable, Woocher wrote, “By heeding warning signs and taking early action, individuals and governments can save lives”.
The assessment looks only at future outbreaks, not whether existing violence might worsen. This approach helps fill what researchers see as a gap in prevention efforts, since ongoing crises often dominate attention.
The researchers caution against viewing their findings as predictions. The statistical model identifies risk factors that historically appeared before mass violence, but these factors do not necessarily cause such events.
“Readers should keep in mind that our model is not causal,” the report states. “The variables identified as predicting higher or lower risk of mass killings in a country are not necessarily the factors that drive or trigger atrocities.”
A country’s large population, for instance, does not trigger violence. But nations with bigger populations have historically been more likely to experience mass killings, making it a useful indicator when combined with other data.
The model relies on publicly available information from 2024, which means events from 2025 are not reflected in the current rankings. Data limitations also mean the assessment may not fully capture conditions in places where governments restrict access to observers. “This assessment is just one tool,” the report underlined. “It is meant to be a starting point for discussion and further research, not a definitive conclusion.”
For countries in the top tier, the report lays out specific concerns.
“For every country in the top 30, we recommend that policy makers consider whether they are devoting sufficient attention to addressing the risks of mass atrocities occurring within that country,” the authors recommended.
The report suggests several lines of inquiry. Are governments paying enough attention to the danger of systematic attacks on civilians? What specific triggers, whether elections, political upheaval or protests, could spark widespread violence?
The authors recommend that international bodies and national governments conduct their own detailed assessments of high-risk countries. Such reviews should examine what drives the risk, what scenarios seem plausible, and what existing strengths in a society could be reinforced to prevent violence.
“Strategies and tools to address atrocity risks should, of course, be tailored to each country’s context,” the report noted.
The Early Warning Project has released annual assessments since 2014. In that time, mass atrocities have occurred in multiple countries, including genocide against the Rohingya in Burma and mass civilian deaths in South Sudan and Ethiopia. “Even in cases like these where warnings have been issued, they have simply not prompted enough early action,” Woocher stated.
Also Read: Food, Faith and Fascism in New India https://www.vibesofindia.com/food-faith-and-fascism-in-new-india/
