The 1984 anti-Sikh riots, also referred to as the 1984 Sikh massacre or the 1984 Sikh genocide, were a series of planned pogroms against Sikhs in India that took place after Indira Gandhi was killed by her Sikh bodyguards. According to government estimates [1][2][3][4][5][6], approximately 2,800 Sikhs were killed in Delhi [7][8] and 3,350 across the country [9][10]. Other sources place the death toll between 8,000 and 17,000 people. [11][12][13][14].
Indira Gandhi was assassinated in June 1984 after she had directed Operation Blue Star, a military operation on the Golden Temple complex in Amritsar, Punjab. [21] The operation had killed numerous pilgrims and led to a bloody conflict with armed Sikh groups calling for more autonomy and rights for Punjab. Many Sikhs around the world viewed the army action as an attack on their identity and religion, and they had criticized it. Following the pogroms, the People's Union for Civil Liberties reported "at least" 1,000 displaced people, while the government reported 20,000 people had left the city [15][16][17][18] Delhi's Sikh neighborhoods were the areas most affected. In India, newspapers and human rights organizations thought the massacre was planned. [19][20][21] The Indian National Congress-affiliated political officials' complicity in the violence and the court's inability to punish the offenders polarized Sikhs.
According to the report prepared by People's Union for Civil Liberties, "at least" 10,000 people were displaced after the pogroms, while the government stated that 20,000 people had left the city. [18] Most impacted are as were of the the Sikh communities in Delhi. Newspapers throughout India and human rights organizations mentioned the massacre as planned. [19] [20][21] Sikhs were alienated and support for the Khalistan movement grew as a result of the Indian National Congress-affiliated political officials' cooperation in the violence and the court's failure to punish the offenders. [22] The killings were deemed genocide by the Sikh Supreme Religious Authority Akal Takht.
[23][24][25]
Human Rights Watch released a report in 2011 stating that the Indian government had "yet to prosecute those responsible for the mass killings." [26] The 2011 the WikiLeaks revealed that the United States was convinced that the Indian National Congress was involved in the riots and accused the Congress government of "hatred" and "opportunism" against Sikhs. [27] Although the USA recognized that there were "severe human rights violations," it did not declare the riots to be genocide. In 2011 Hondh-Chillar and Pataudi regions of Haryana were found to be places where several Sikh were murdered in 1984. [29] The Central Bureau of Investigation thinks that the Delhi police and some central government officials helped organize the violence. [30].
While the U.S. has acknowledged that there were "severe human rights violations" but it initially did not classified the riots as genocide. [28] In 2011, the burned sites of several Sikh murders from 1984 were found In the Hondh-Chillar and Pataudi regions of Haryana. [29] According to the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Delhi police and a few central government officials helped organize the violence. [30]
The first high-profile conviction for the 1984 anti-Sikh riots occurred in December 2018 when after a 34-year delay, Congress leader Sajjan Kumar was arrested. The Delhi High Court imposed a life sentence on him. [31] However, still in the 1984 cases very few convictions are still pending trial. Yashpal, an accused found guilty of killing Sikhs in the Mahipalpur neighborhood of Delhi, is the only one who has been given death penalty. [32, 33, 34].
For months, the government pursued no indictments or prosecutions of any individuals, including officials, accused of murder, rape, or arson in the months after the killings, despite a plethora of reliable eyewitness reports that named numerous participants in the violence, including politicians and police. India's poor or no attempts to stop communal violence are highlighted by the failure of successive Indian governments to bring charges against those primarily responsible for the killings and other atrocities during the 1984 anti-Sikh violence.
Law enforcement was brought to an administrative standstill by police-ruling Congress collusion. Organized armed mobs roamed the streets of Delhi freely forty one years ago, murdering Sikhs and robbing them of their belongings. The official death toll was2,733. Sikhs have never forgotten this. Silence of the Government confirmed involvement of the Government. Ir is inhuman to to turn eyes away from the historical records of the the murderers, rapists and looters.
Rajiv Gandhi as the India's Prime Minister, PV Narasimha Rao, Krishnaswamy Rao, the cabinet secretary purposely slept on this allowing criminals remaining scot-free and ensuring no safety or justice to Sikhs. The S.C. Tandon, the Delhi police chief, acknowledged to a commission that he was unsure of the number of fire stations at his disposal. Six more commissioners and 35 deputy commissioners were part of the Delhi police when the massacre occurred. They mostly belonged to the Indian Police Service (IPS). Rajiv Gandhi once remarked, "When a big tree falls, the earth shakes," in response to a question concerning the planned killings. Then, he had served as prime minister for a single day. Such was the haughtiness and contempt fueled from the top.
Following the massacre, due to lot of hue and cry from the public, investigations were carried out by various civil societies. Several committees and commissions were established to determine the identity of the attackers.
Investigations by Civil Society
Numerous reports and investigations by civil society groups and eyewitness accounts have shown that such well-organized mass killings could not have happened without the complicity of the state. Shortly after the violence, a fact-finding team organized by two Indian human rights organizations, the People's Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) and the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), published a report ‘Who Are the Guilty?’ on its investigation into the cause of the Delhi riots. The groups concluded that the violence was the result of a “well-organized plan marked by acts of both deliberate commissions and omissions by important politicians of the Congress (I) at the top and by authorities in the administration.”
In January 1985, the nongovernmental organization Citizens for Democracy investigated the riots and concluded that the violence were not spontaneous but organized by members of the Congress Party. According to the report, the violence was “primarily meant to arouse passions of the majority community.”
In 2004, ENSAAF, a Sikh rights organization, released Twenty Years of Impunity, once again documenting how senior political leaders, most visibly of the Congress Party, “carefully orchestrated the violence, providing for details such as deployment of mobs, weapons, and kerosene, as well as for the larger support and participation of the police.” The Congress Party was also able to use state machinery to facilitate the massacres such as using government buses to transport the mobs to where Sikhs lived, the report said.
The Marwah Commission was set up in November 1984 to inquire into the role of the police in the killings. It was abruptly told by the central government to stop the probe and records were selectively passed on to the next commission. The Misra Commission was set up in May 1985 to probe if the violence was organised. Its August 1986 report recommended the formation of three new committees: Ahooja, Kapur-Mittal and Jain-Banerjee. The Dhillon Committee was set up in November 1985 to recommend rehabilitation for victims. It asked that insurance claims of attacked business establishments be paid, but the government of the day rejected all such claims. The Kapur-Mittal Committee, set up in February 1987, enquired again about the role of the police. Seventy-two policemen were identified for connivance or gross negligence, 30 were recommended for dismissal. No one was punished. The Jain-Banerjee Committee, established in February 1987, looked at cases against Congress leaders Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar, and recommended cases be registered against both. Later, the Delhi high court quashed the appointment of the committee. The Ahooja Committee, set up in February, 1987, was told by the Misra Commission to ascertain the number of people killed in the massacre in Delhi. In August 1987, Ahooja’s report put the figure at 2,733 Sikhs. The Potti-Rosha Committee was appointed in March 1990 as a successor to the Jain-Banerjee committee. Potti-Rosha also recommended registration of cases against Kumar and Tytler. The Jain-Aggarwal Committee was appointed as a successor to Potti-Rosha in December 1990, and also recommended cases against H.K.L. Bhagat, Tytler and Kumar. No cases were registered and the probe stopped in 1993. The Narula Committee, set up in December 1993, was the third committee in nine years to recommend registering cases against Bhagat, Tytler and Kumar. The May 2000 Nanavati Commission – a one-man commission appointed by the BJP-led government – found “credible evidence” against Tytler and Kumar. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) later tried to give them a clean chit.
Justice Ranganath Misra, son of a celebrated Odia poet and then the chief justice of India, who had headed an inquiry commission into the 1984 anti-Sikh massacre, after retiring, became a Congress MP in the Rajya Sabha. Ved Marwah went on to become the chief of Delhi police for three blissfully long years of 1985 to 1988. Marwah later became the governor of Manipur, Mizoram and Jharkhand, and wrote a book on terrorism. Between that fateful day in 1984 and today, India has had nine prime ministers, 14 home ministers, 16 cabinet secretaries and 16 Delhi police chiefs. The might of the Indian state has failed to bring justice to the doorsteps of the victims and their loved ones.
In 2005, during a parliamentary debate regarding the Nanavati report, then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a member of the Congress Party and a Sikh himself, expressed remorse for the anti-Sikh violence of 1984. He stated: 'I have no hesitation in apologizing not only to the Sikh community but to the entire Indian nation, as the events of 1984 contradict the very essence of nationhood and the principles enshrined in our Constitution. Therefore, I do not cling to any false sense of pride. On behalf of our Government and the people of this country, I bow my head in shame for what occurred.' However, Singh simultaneously refrained from acknowledging the government's accountability for the atrocities, asserting: 'The Report is before us, and it clearly indicates that there is no evidence against the senior leadership of the Congress Party.'
Investigation by Committees and Commissions
After three days of violence that claimed 2,733 lives, the Delhi police only filed 587 First Information Reports (FIRs), or formal complaints. The police closed 241 of these cases without conducting an investigation, citing their inability to locate the evidence. after the government-appointed commission headed by retired Supreme Court Justice G. released its report. T. . Five of the closed cases in Nanavati in 2005 were reopened and reexamined. Following the spread of news about Indira Gandhi's death, the majority of investigations conducted by government-led commissions and civil society organizations concluded that the violence began on its own on October 31. But it manifested as a well-planned pogrom the next morning. According to the 2005 Nanavati commission, there was a consistent pattern of violence in various localities: the attacks were carried out methodically and with little fear of the police, almost as if they were given the assurance that they wouldn't be hurt during or even after the acts. Members of the Sikh community who were male were removed from their homes. They were methodically beaten before being burned alive. In certain instances, tires were placed around their necks and put on fire by dousing them in gasoline or kerosene. They were occasionally sprayed with white, flammable powder, which instantly caught fire. This was a typical pattern that the large mobs that caused havoc in some areas followed. They located and looted the stores.
There have been ten committees or commissions established to look into the riots. The most recent one, led by Justice G. T. Nanavati, presented its 185-page report to Home Minister Shivraj Patil on February 9, 2005; the report was introduced in Parliament on August 8 of the same year. The commissions are arranged chronologically below. Numerous of the defendants were found not guilty or were never formally charged.
Investigations
Ten commissions or committees were formed to investigate the genocide. The commissions below are listed in chronological order. Many of the accused were acquitted or never formally charged. The latest was headed by Justice G. T. Nanavati, which submitted its 185-page report to
Home Minister Shivraj Patil on 9 February 2005. The report was tabled in Parliament on 8 August of that year.
Marwah Commission
The Marwah Commission was appointed in November 1984.
Ved Marwah,
Additional Commissioner of Police, was tasked with enquiring into the role of the police during the riots. Many of the accused were Delhi Police Officers whp were tried in the
Delhi High Court. As Marwah was completing his inquiry in mid-1985, he was abruptly directed by the
Home Ministry not to proceed further. [35] The Marwah Commission records were appropriated by the government, and most (except for Marwah's handwritten notes) were later given to the Misra Commission.
Misra Commission
The Misra Commission was established in May 1985 under the direction of Justice Rangnath Misra, a judge of the Supreme Court of India. Misra delivered his study in August 1986, and its findings were made public in February 1987. In his report, he stated that naming of any individual was not within his terms of reference and that three committees should be established for the same purpose.
The People's Union for Civil Liberties and Human Rights Watch denounced the commission and its report as prejudiced. A Human Rights Watch report about the commission states that:
It exonerated all senior officials of directing the pogroms and did not call for any individual to be prosecuted criminally. The commission did admit in its findings that a lot of the victims who appeared before it had been threatened by the neighborhood cops. Although the commission observed "widespread lapses" on the part of the police, it came to the conclusion that "the allegations before the commission about the conduct of the police are more of indifference and negligence during the riots than of any wrongful overt act." [35]
The Misra Commission was also criticized by the People's Union for Civil Liberties for releasing the names and addresses of victims while withholding information about the accused.
Kapur Mittal Committee
On the advice of the Misra Commission, the Kapur Mittal Committee was formed in February 1987 to investigate the role of the police. The Marwah Commission had almost finished its inquiry into the police in 1985 when the government requested that it should not continue. Kusum Mittal, the former Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, and Justice Dalip Kapur were the members of this committee. In 1990, in its report, it named 72 police officers for conspiracy or significant negligence. Despite the committee's recommendation that 30 of the 72 officers be fired, no action was taken against them.
Jain Banerjee Committee
The Misra Commission suggested that cases be registered with the Jain Banerjee Committee. Former Delhi High Court Justice M. L. Jain and retired Inspector General of Police A. K. Banerjee were members of the committee.
The Misra Commission's report noted that a large number of instances, particularly those involving police officers or politicians, were not recorded. Despite the Jain Banerjee Committee's suggestion in August 1987 that charges be brought against Sajjan Kumar, no such charges were filed.
Despite the committee's advice, press reports blasted the government in November 1987 for failing to record instances. In the Delhi High Court, Brahmanand Gupta (who was charged along with Sajjan Kumar) filed a writ petition the next month and was granted a stay of proceedings against the committee, which the government did not challenge. The Citizen Justice Committee made a request to have the stay overturned. The high court disbanded the committee in August 1989 after ruling on the writ petition. In the Supreme Court of India, the Citizen's Justice Committee lodged an appeal.
Potti Rosha Committee
V. P Singh administration replaced the Jain Banerjee Committee in March 1990, appointing the Potti Rosha Committee. Based on affidavits provided by victims of the violence, the committee recommended filing cases against Sajjan Kumar in August 1990. When a CBI team arrived at Kumar's house to issue charge sheet to Sajjan Kumar, his supporters resisted and threatened CBI to stop pursuing him. Potti and Rosha made the decision to conclude their investigation in September 1990, when the committee's term came to an end.
Jain Aggarwal Committee
The Jain Aggarwal Committees set up in December 1990 replacing the Potti Rosha Committee. . It consisted of Justice J. D. Jain and retired Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police D. K. Aggarwal. The Committee suggested filing cases/FIRs against well-known members of Congress, such as H. K. L. Bhagat, Dharamdas Shastri, Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar. Police however, did not register these cases [36]. Under the direction of a deputy commissioner of police, it recommended creating two or three special investigative teams within the Delhi Police. These teams were to be overseen by a second commissioner of police who would report to the CID. Additionally, the workload of the three special courts established to handle riot cases would be reviewed. It was also discussed whether special prosecutors should be appointed to handle the cases. The police did not register the the committee recommended cases when it was disbanded in August 1993.
Ahuja Committee
The third committee suggested by the Misra Commission to ascertain the overall death toll in Delhi was the Ahuja Committee. The committee's report, in August 1987, stated that 2,733 Sikhs had perished in the riots.
Dhillon Committee,
Gurdial Singh Dhillon led the Dhillon Committee was established in 1985 to suggest actions for victims' rehabilitation. By year's end, the committee gave its report. One major recommendation was that businesses with insurance coverage whose claims were denied should receive compensation as directed by the government. The committee suggested that the government should order the nationalized insurance companies to pay the claims, but the government rejected this suggestion, so the claims remained unpaid.
Narula Committee
The Madan Lal Khurana-led BJP government in Delhi appointed the Narula Committee in December 1993. One recommendation of the committee was to convince the central government to impose sanctions Khurana brought up the issue with the central government, which in mid-1994 determined that it was outside its jurisdiction and forwarded the case to Delhi's lieutenant governor. It took two years to the P.V. Narasimha Rao administration to determine that it was outside of its jurisdiction. The Narasimha Rao Government further delayed the case. The committee submitted its report in January 1994, recommending the registration of cases against H. K. L. Bhagat and Sajjan Kumar. Despite the central-government delay, the CBI filed the charge sheet in December 1994.
The Nanavati Commission
After some discontent with earlier reports, the Nanavati Commission was formed in 2000. [37] The Rajya Sabha unanimously approved the appointment of the Nanavati Commission. This commission was headed by Justice G.T. Nanavati, retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India. The Justice G.T. Nanavati a retired Supreme Court of India headed this commission. In February 2004, the commission gave its report. The commission reported that recorded accounts from victims and witnesses "indicate that local Congress leaders and workers had either incited or helped the mobs in attacking the Sikhs". [37] The report also discovered evidence accusing Jagdish Tytler of "probably having a hand in organizing attacks on Sikhs." It also said that P.V. Narasimha Rao was asked to send the army to stop the violence. Rao responded with saying that he would look into it. [38] It also recommended that Sajjan Kumar's involvement in the rioting required a closer look. The commission's report also cleared Rajiv Gandhi and other high ranking Congress (I) party members of any involvement in organizing riots against Sikhs. It did find, however, that the Delhi Police fired about 392 rounds of bullets, arrested approximately 372 persons, and "remained passive and did not provide protection to the people" throughout the rioting. [37], [39]
Convictions
In 1995, Madan Lal Khurana, the Chief Minister of Delhi, announced that 46 individuals had been prosecuted for their involvement in the riots. [39] By 2012, a total of 442 rioters had been convicted in Delhi, with 49 received life sentences and three others sentenced to over ten years in prison. Additionally, six police officers from Delhi faced disciplinary action for their negligence during the riots. [44] In April 2013, the Supreme Court of India rejected the appeals of three individuals contesting their life sentences. [45] That same month, the Karkardooma district court in Delhi found five individuals – Balwan Khokkar (a former councilor), Mahender Yadav (a former MLA), Kishan Khokkar, Girdhari Lal, and Captain Bhagmal – guilty of inciting a mob against Sikhs in Delhi Cantonment. The court's decision to acquit Congress leader Sajjan Kumar sparked protests. [46]
In a landmark ruling, Yashpal Singh received the death penalty for his role in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, where he was found guilty of murdering two individuals, Hardev Singh, aged 24, and Avtar Singh, aged 26, in the Mahipal Pur area of Delhi on November 1, 1984. The judgment was delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Ajay Pandey on November 20, 34 years post the incident. The second defendant, Naresh Sehrawat, was sentenced to life imprisonment, taking into account his deteriorating health at the age of 68. This conviction stemmed from a complaint lodged by Santokh Singh, the elder brother of the deceased Hardev Singh. Although an FIR was registered on the day of the incident, the case stagnated due to the acquittal of Congress leader JP Singh, who had led the mob. A new FIR was filed on April 29, 1993, following the Ranganath Commission's recommendations, but the police deemed the case untraceable despite testimonies from the deceased's four brothers. The Special Investigation Team (SIT), established by the BJP-led NDA government, reopened the case on February 12, 2015, and concluded its investigation swiftly. The first conviction resulting from the SIT's efforts occurred on November 15, 2018, with the sentencing of both Naresh Sehrawat and Yashpal Singh. [47] In December 2018, former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Delhi High Court, marking one of the initial high-profile convictions stemming from the SIT's reopened investigation. [48] However, on September 20, 2023, Kumar was acquitted in one murder case related to the riots. [48]
Role of Jagdish Tytler
The Central Bureau of Investigation closed all of its cases against Jagdish Tytler in November 2007 because of his alleged involvement in a criminal conspiracy to incite Sikh riots following the attack of Indira Gandhi. No witnesses or evidence were found to support claims that Tytler led murderous mobs in 1984, according to a report the bureau submitted to the Delhi court. [49] Tytler, an MP at the time, was accused in court of complaining to his supporters about the comparatively "small" number of Sikhs killed in Delhi Sadar, his constituency, believing that this had damaged his standing within the Congress Party. [50] In December 2007, a witness named Dushyant Singh, who was then residing in California, made an appearance on a number of Indian private television news channels, claiming that the CBI never contacted him. The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) called on the CBI's head, Minister of State for Personnel Suresh Pachouri, to provide an explanation in Parliament. Even though he was there, Pachouri declined to comment. [51] Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of the Delhi Court Sanjeev Jain, who had dismissed the case against Tytler after the CBI submitted a false report ordered CBI to reopen cases against Tytler in connection with the riots on December 18, 2007, by. [52].
In December 2008, a two-person CBI team travelled to New York to interview two eyewitnesses, Jasbir Singh and Surinder Singh. Despite seeing Tytler lead a mob during the riot, the witnesses claimed they were afraid for their safety and did not want to go back to India. [53] They accused the CBI of shielding Tytler and blamed the agency for failing to provide a fair trial. Sikhs and opposition parties protested when the CBI cleared Tytler in March 2009. On April 7, Jarnail Singh, a Sikh reporter for Dainik Jagran, threw his shoe at Home Minister P. Chidambaram to express disapproval of Tytler and Sajjan Kumar's clearance. [54] Due to the impending Lok Sabha elections, Chidambaram refrained from filing charges. [55] Two days later, more than five hundred demonstrators from Sikh groups across India assembled outside the court where the CBI was to present its request to end the Tytler case. Tytler later declared his intention to abstain from the Lok Sabha elections in order to spare his party embarrassment. As a result, Tytler and Sajjan Kumar's Lok Sabha tickets were revoked by the Congress Party. [55].
The Delhi court directed the CBI to reopen the 1984 case against Tytler on April 10, 2013. [56] Tytler was exonerated in the riot case, but the court ordered the bureau to look into the deaths of three people. [57] In order to bring Tytler to justice, the Delhi Court ordered the CBI to call billionaire arms dealer Abhishek Verma as the primary witness. The case was reopened after the CBI recorded Verma's testimony per the court's orders. After gaining their consent, the court ordered that witness Verma and witness Tytler undergo polygraph (lie-detector) tests. [58] Tytler refused to be tested, but Verma agreed. Verma began receiving threats in the form of letters and phone calls after that, stating that if he testified against Tytler, he would be blown up along with his family. The Delhi High Court ordered Delhi Police to provide Verma and his family with round-the-clock, three-by-three security coverage from nine armed police bodyguards. [59] [60].
Harvinder Singh Phoolka, a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of India, has been advocating for numerous victims since December 1984. In a recent interview, he described the events surrounding the 1984 killings and the subsequent judicial proceedings as 'shameful examples' of the inadequacies within the Indian judicial system and its investigative practices. Over the past four decades, he has participated in and argued numerous court hearings on behalf of the victims of 1984. Notably, he highlighted the case against Jagdish Tytler and the recent ruling by a CBI judge concerning his involvement in the riots, labeling it a disgraceful episode in the judicial process, which failed to meet public expectations. He criticized both the government and the investigative bodies for their shortcomings, emphasizing that the judiciary was anticipated to take action but did not. The case against Tytler was initiated following the recommendations of the Nanavati Commission in 2005. Phoolka further remarked, 'The investigation commenced 21 years after the crime occurred. Subsequently, the CBI submitted three closure reports in 2007, 2009, and 2014, exonerating him. This marks the first instance in Indian history where a court has dismissed three closure reports from the CBI. Following this, a court-monitored investigation ensued, leading to the filing of charges. This situation exemplifies how influential individuals can manipulate the system and investigations in India, demonstrating that a powerful figure can derail the entire process. In this instance, the government and intelligence agencies were complicit, indicating that a Deep State was intent on protecting Tytler and others. The victims of the 1984 riots have awaited justice for decades, and it is regrettable that this issue has not been prioritized by anyone. The media has consistently supported the victims and played a crucial role in keeping the matter alive. Our struggle for the victims over the past 40 years has been exceedingly challenging, and we never anticipated that the case would extend for such a prolonged period. Since December 1984, I have been managing these cases. Our efforts extend beyond advocating for the victims; we are also striving to affirm that this nation operates under the rule of law, which supersedes all individuals. There are those who believe they are exempt from legal accountability, a notion that must be eradicated. It is imperative to instill a sense of caution in those wielding power, reminding them that the law prevails over them. Should you find yourself in a position of authority today, be aware that any transgressions or egregious acts may ultimately lead to your own downfall. I am committed to fighting to the best of my capabilities. My sole desire is for individuals to remember that once a cause is embraced, it should not be abandoned due to the passage of time. A person who champions a cause must pursue it to its rightful conclusion. We will persist until the very end. On August 30, 2024, a Delhi court mandated the framing of charges against Congress leader Jagdish Tytler concerning the deaths of three individuals outside the Pul Bangash gurdwara during the anti-Sikh riots that erupted following the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984.
New York civil case
On March 14, 2011, a U.S.-based non-governmental organization the U.S. based Sikhs for Justice filed a civil lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the Indian government was involved in the riots. Kamal Nath, who was charged by the Nanavati commission with inciting rioters, and the Congress Party were summoned by the court. [61][62][63] Judge Robert W. Sweet, dismissed the complaint against Kamal Nath in March 2012, who decided that the court did not have the authority to hear the case it being out of his jurisdiction [64] Kamal Nath's motion to dismiss the claim was granted in the 22-page order, which also noted that Sikhs for Justice had not "served the summons and its complaints to Kamal Nath in an appropriate and desired manner.". [65] Sonia Gandhi was summoned by a federal court in New York on September 3, 2013, for allegedly assisting in the protection of rioters. [66] On July 11, 2014, the U.S. court dismissed the case against Gandhi. [67]
Cobra post operation
According to a Cobra post sting operation conducted in April 2014; during the riots the Delhi Police was muzzled by the government,. Police was instructed not to intervene against rioters and the fire department refused to respond to locations where arson incidents were reported. [68]
Special Investigation Team (Supreme Court)
In January 2018, the Supreme Court of India set up its own three-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into 186 cases pertaining to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots that the Union Government's SIT had not looked into further. This SIT consisted of a former High court judge, a former IPS officer of Inspector general rank and a serving IPS Officer.[69]
Recognition as a genocide
Although the 1984 massacre has not been officially recognized by the state as a genocide, Sikh communities in India and abroad are still pushing for this recognition. [70]
India
In India on July 15, 2010, the Jathedar of the Akal Takht, the global religious leader of the Sikhs, referred to the events after Indira Gandhi's death as a Sikh "genocide" rather than the "anti-Sikh riots" that the Indian government, media, and authors had been referring. [71] Shortly after, a similar motion was introduced in the Canadian Parliament, this decision was made. [72] Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi called the "1984 riots" a "horrendous genocide" in 2019. [73]
United States
In October 2024, co-chairs of the American Sikh Congressional Caucus and four US members of Congress, Jim Costa and David Valadao, introduced a resolution to formally recognize and commemorate the Sikh Genocide of 1984. [74]
California
The California State Assembly passed Assembly Concurrent Resolution 34 (ACR 34) on April 16, 2015. The resolution was co-authored by assembly members Jim Cooper, Kevin McCarty, Jim Gallagher, and Ken Cooley from the Sacramento area. It denounced the Indian government for its involvement in the murders and its failure to stop them. The killings were referred to as a "genocide" by the assembly because they "led to the deliberate destruction of many Sikh families, communities, homes, and businesses." [75][76]
Connecticut
The American state of Connecticut passed a bill in February 2018 declaring that November 30 of each year is " Sikh Genocide" Remembrance Day to remember the lives lost on 30 November 1984, during the Sikh Genocide.[77]
New York
The state of New York formally recognized the Sikh Genocide in March 2025, according to the New York State Senate. [78]
Canada
On the 40th anniversary of the '1984 Sikh Genocide,' the New Democratic Party (NDP) of Canada intended to ask the national parliament to recognize it. [79][80]
Ontario
A motion denouncing the anti-Sikh riots as "genocide" was passed by the Ontario Legislature in April 2017. [81] The Indian government opposed the motion and denounced it after it was approved. The City of Brampton, Ontario, declared 2024 to be "Sikh Genocide Week." [82]
Australia
In 2012, Australian Member of Parliament Warren Entsch presented a petition with over 4,000 signatures urging the government to declare the 1984 massacre of Sikhs in India to be genocide. [83].
Impact and legacy
The mayhem led to great unrest among Sikhs world over. The separatists residing abroad, especially in Canada like the Babbar Khalsa, detonated a bomb on Air India flight 182, a Boeing 747-200, which was en route from Montréal to Delhi with a layover in London on June 23, 1985.[84] The explosion occurred over the mid-Atlantic, resulting in the deaths of 307 passengers and 22 crew members. Additionally, the separatist intended to target Air India flight 301, another Boeing 747, but the bomb detonated prematurely at Narita Airport in Tokyo, Japan, before it could be loaded, claiming the lives of two baggage handlers.[85] The conspirators had planned for both attacks to happen simultaneously but failed to consider that Japan does not observe daylight saving time, unlike Canada.
On August 12, 2005, then Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, issued an apology in the Lok Sabha for the riots.[86][87] These events are often referenced as a justification for the establishment of a Sikh homeland in India, commonly referred to as Khalistan.[88][89][90] On January 15, 2017, the Wall of Truth was unveiled in Lutyens' Delhi, New Delhi, serving as a memorial for Sikhs who lost their lives during the 1984 riots and other hate crimes globally. [91][92]
On October 31, 1984, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by two of her Sikh bodyguards in an act of vengeance for attack on sri Harmandir Sahib. In the aftermath of her assassination, mobs, often incited by leaders of the Congress Party, unleashed violence against Sikhs in Delhi and other urban areas. Over a span of three days, at least 2,733 Sikhs were killed, and their properties were looted and destroyed. Numerous women were subjected to sexual violence in the capital. Additionally, hundreds of Sikhs lost their lives in other regions of the country. The authorities hastily attributed each instance of mass communal violence to a spontaneous public outcry—Rajiv Gandhi, Indira Gandhi's son and successor, remarked at a rally in the capital, 'When a great tree falls, it is only natural for the earth around it to tremble.'
As time has passed, many victims, witnesses, and perpetrators have died, diminishing the prospects for justice and accountability. Numerous legal cases have faltered after influential suspects reportedly threatened or intimidated witnesses. In other instances, inadequate investigations and evidence tampering by law enforcement resulted in the acquittal of the accused.
Summary
The Delhi police played a significant negative role in the massacre by expelling the Sikhs from the gurudwara and leaving them vulnerable to the mob's violence. In numerous instances, the police even disarmed the Sikhs prior to the mob's assault. The extent of this collusion was so extensive that it took over 36 hours for the events of the Block 32 massacre in Trilokpuri to be revealed, despite its proximity to the Delhi police headquarters, which was less than ten kilometers away. Only one police officer, Maxwell Pereira, demonstrated integrity by advocating for the victims within his jurisdiction, showcasing his leadership qualities. Meanwhile, the remaining senior officials succumbed to the influence of the ruling party, effectively paralyzing the police force's operations.
Failure of Police Investigations
Fact-finding bodies and civil society groups found that the 1984 anti-Sikh violence was led and often perpetrated by activists and sympathizers of the then-ruling party, the Indian National Congress, some of whom later became members of parliament or occupied posts in government. The police simply stood by, and were often complicit in the attacks. Instead of holding those responsible for the violence to account, many police officials and Congress party leaders involved have been promoted over the last 30 years.
The Delhi police eventually filed only 587 First Information Reports (FIRs), official complaints, for three days of violence that resulted in 2,733 deaths. Out of these, the police closed 241 cases without investigation, claiming inability to trace evidence. Following a report by the government-appointed commission led by retired Supreme Court judge G.T. Nanavati in 2005, four of the cases that had been closed were reopened and reinvestigated.
Most investigations by government-led commissions and civil society organizations found that the violence started spontaneously on October 31 after news of Indira Gandhi’s death spread. But the following morning it took the shape of a well-organized pogrom. The 2005 Nanavati commission said the violence, in different localities, followed a similar pattern:
The attacks were made in a systematic manner and without much fear of the police; almost suggesting that they were assured that they would not be harmed while committing those acts and even thereafter. Male members of the Sikh community were taken out of their houses. They were beaten first and then burnt alive in a systematic manner. In some cases tyres were put around their necks and then they were set on fire by pouring kerosene or petrol over them. In some cases white inflammable powder was thrown on them which immediately caught fire thereafter. This was a common pattern which was followed by the big mobs which had played havoc in certain areas. The shops were identified, looted and then burnt. Thus what had initially started, as an angry outburst became an organized carnage.
In 2005, during a discussion in parliament on the Nanavati report, then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of the Congress Party, himself a Sikh, apologized for the 1984 anti-Sikh violence. He said: “I have no hesitation in apologising not only to the Sikh community but the whole Indian nation because what took place in 1984 is the negation of the concept of nationhood and what is enshrined in our Constitution. So, I am not standing on any false prestige. On behalf of our Government, on behalf of the entire people of this country, I bow my head in shame that such thing took place.” But at the same time, Singh failed to accept the government’s responsibility for the killings: “The Report is before us, and one thing it conclusively states is that there is no evidence, whatsoever, against the top leadership of the Congress Party.”
For our political parties and their powerful leaders, democracy often prioritizes party interests over public concerns; it focuses on the strategic electability of candidates rather than the constitutionally mandated accountability of elected officials; and it emphasizes electoral vote percentages rather than delivering justice for the countless victims who remain nameless and faceless in the judicial system. India’s democracy requires a more effective criminal justice system. Citizens of India, regardless of caste, creed, or the visible and invisible aspects of religion, deserve superior public institutions.
“Future generations in India are entitled to more compassionate historical narratives. Not the events of 1984 in Delhi; Not those of 2002 in Gujarat; Not the occurrences of 2013 in Muzaffarnagar”: Basant Rath, an IPS officer from the 2000 batch associated with the Jammu and Kashmir cadre, shares these personal views.
According to Meenakshi Ganguly, the South Asia director at Human Rights Watch, India's inability to hold accountable those primarily responsible for the anti-Sikh violence in 1984 has not only deprived Sikhs of justice but has also increased the risk of communal violence for all Indians. She stated that the authorities consistently obstructed investigations to shield the offenders of these atrocities, thereby exacerbating public skepticism towards India's justice system.
Ten government-sanctioned commissions and committees have examined the brutal assaults on thousands of Sikhs in 1984, which followed the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. Investigations by independent civil society groups have uncovered the involvement of both police forces and leaders from Gandhi’s Congress Party. However, four decades later, only 30 individuals, primarily low-ranking supporters of the Congress Party, have faced conviction for the violence that led to thousands of deaths and injuries. No police personnel have been held accountable, and there have been no prosecutions for sexual assault, underscoring a significant failure in justice.
On October 31, 1984, Indira Gandhi was murdered in an act of revenge by two of her Sikh bodyguards. Following the assassination, mobs, often instigated by Congress Party leaders, went on a rampage against Sikhs in Delhi and other cities. Over three days, at least 2,733 Sikhs were killed, their property looted and destroyed. Many women were raped in the capital. Hundreds of Sikhs were killed elsewhere in the country. The authorities quickly blamed every incident of mass communal violence on a spontaneous public reaction—Gandhi’s son and successor, Rajiv Gandhi, declared at a rally in the capital, “Once a mighty tree falls, it is only natural that the earth around it shakes.”
Many victims, witnesses, and perpetrators have since died, making hopes for justice and accountability more remote with every passing year. Many legal cases collapsed after powerful suspects allegedly threatened or intimidated witnesses. In other cases, poor investigation and tampering of evidence by the police led to acquittals of the accused.
“Thirty years since the horrific massacre, communal violence still breaks out in India, raising the same concerns about accountability,” Ganguly said. “The Indian government’s failure to take even rudimentary steps to bring to justice the authors of the 1984 violence has perpetuated a climate of lawlessness that demands a renewed commitment to ending state complicity in such attacks.”
To confront the abuses of 1984 and the ongoing issue of communal violence, Human Rights Watch has called upon Indian authorities to:
1. Initiate an independent, time-sensitive investigation into the cases of violence from 1984, including the 237 cases that were closed by police, with the power to recommend prosecutions.
2. Enact police reforms to shield law enforcement from political influence that protects offenders, as was seen following communal violence in 1984 (Delhi), 1992 (Mumbai), 2002 (Gujarat), and 2013 (Muzaffarnagar).
3. Establish a police complaints authority at both state and district levels, as advised by the Supreme Court, to investigate public allegations of serious police misconduct.
4. Create a robust witness protection program to eliminate the intimidation, threats, and harassment faced by victims and witnesses, similar to what occurred after the 1984 attacks.
5. Pass outstanding legislation against communal violence that aligns with international human rights standards, holding state officials accountable for their actions.
In popular culture
The anti-Sikh riots have been the subject of several films and novels:
The 2022
Netflix movie
Jogi, starring
Diljit Dosanjh, directed by
Ali Abbas Zafar, was set against the backdrop of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in
Trilokpuri,
Delhi. It told the story of a Sikh man named Jogi whose goal was to save his family, friends and fellow neighbours from a massacre that killed thousands of Sikhs.
The 2021 web television series
Grahan, starring
Pavan Malhotra,
Wamiqa Gabbi, and
Zoya Hussain, and created by Shailendra Kumar Jha and directed by Ranjan Chandel, for
Hotstar, was inspired by
Satya Vyas' popular novel Chaurasi. It was the first series to deal with the 1984 anti-Sikh riots that happened in
Bokaro,
Jharkhand. The series was centered on the nexus between politics and law enforcement.
The 2005 English film
Amu, by
Shonali Bose and starring
Konkona Sen Sharma and
Brinda Karat, was based on
Shonali Bose's novel of the same name. The film told the story of a girl, orphaned during the riots, who reconciled with her adoption years later. Although it won the
National Film Award for Best Feature Film in English, it was censored in India but was released on DVD without the cuts.
[155]
The 2004
Hindi film
Kaya Taran (
Chrysalis), directed by Shashi Kumar and starring
Seema Biswas, was based on the
Malayalam short story "
When Big Tree Falls" by
N.S. Madhavan. The film revolved around a Sikh woman and her young son, who took shelter in a Meerut nunnery during the riots.
The 2003 Bollywood film
Hawayein, a project of
Babbu Maan and
Ammtoje Mann, was based on the aftermath of Indira Gandhi's assassination, the 1984 riots and the subsequent victimisation of the Punjabi people.
Mamoni Raisom Goswami's
Assamese novel,
Tej Aru Dhulire Dhusarita Prishtha (
Pages Stained with Blood), focused on the riots.
Khushwant Singh and
Kuldip Nayar's book,
Tragedy of Punjab: Operation Bluestar & After, focused on the events surrounding the riots.
Jarnail Singh's non-fiction book,
I Accuse, describes incidents which occurred during the riots.
Uma Chakravarthi and Nandita Hakser's book,
The Delhi Riots: Three Days in the Life of a Nation, has interviews with victims of the Delhi riots.
H. S. Phoolka and human-rights activist and journalist Manoj Mitta wrote the first account of the riots,
When a Tree Shook Delhi.
Helium (a novel of 1984, published by Bloomsbury in 2013) by Jaspreet Singh]
The 2014 Punjabi film,
Punjab 1984 with
Diljit Dosanjh, was based on the aftermath of Indira Gandhi's assassination, the riots and the subsequent victimisation of the Punjabi people.
The 2016 Bollywood film,
31st October with
Vir Das, was based on the riots.
The 2016
Punjabi film,
Dharam Yudh Morcha, was based on the riots.
The 2001
Star Trek novel
The Eugenics Wars: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh by Gary Cox, a 14-year-old
Khan, who was depicted as a North Indian from a family of
Sikhs, is caught up in the riots while reading in a used book stall in Nai Sarak. He was injured, doused with kerosene and nearly set on fire by a mob before being rescued by
Gary Seven.
