What Happened to Sikhs in 1984

Rioting, Ethnic Cleansing, or Genocide?

Rohan Rajesh

As the farmers’ protests persist in the Indian states of Punjab and Haryana, references have been made to the Punjab Insurgency, a period of severe violence in Punjab from 1981 to 1995. One of the most controversial events of the insurgency was the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. The latter term is the Indian government’s official term, but some activists and community leaders claim the event was a genocide. While the event was horrific and irreprehensible, regardless of which term is used, words matter. After nearly 40 years, the events still serve as an unsewn tear in India’s communal fabric.

Since the Partition of India, some Sikhs began advocating an independent state for their people known as Khalistan. A few became radicalized by the proposition, leading to an insurgency (with backing from Pakistan) on New Delhi’s doorstep. At the same time, local Sikh parties began demanding autonomy for Punjab from New Delhi as well as the recognition of Sikhism as a separate religion from Hinduism (the Indian Constitution includes Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism under Hinduism for legal purposes). Additionally, India had invested more in agriculture during the Green Revolution, and Punjabi agriculture benefitted handsomely. But New Delhi also wanted to reallocate river water between Punjab and its neighboring states, heightening anxieties in the rural areas. Economic inequality between urban and rural areas increased, leading to significant rural youth unemployment. All of these factors led to a violent movement for Khalistan gaining some traction, resulting in hundreds of deaths in the early 1980s. The situation worsened in 1984. 

That was the year Operation Blue Star was launched by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (no relation to Mahatma Gandhi) of the Indian National Congress (INC) party. An important insurgent, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, took up residence in the Golden Temple (the Sikh equivalent of Mecca) to evade the authorities. Bhindranwale had gained significant popularity among rural youth and was linked to several murders and assassinations. The government went guns blazing and stormed the temple to capture Bhindranwale (who was killed in the fighting) and other militants. Many Sikhs were outraged by what they perceived as an assault on their faith. In retaliation, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards. 

Angry Hindus began killing Sikhs and looting Sikh-owned businesses across North India, particularly in Delhi. They were also instigated and aided by members of the INC. Around 11,000 Sikhs were killed across North India, including 3,000 in Delhi alone. A sting operation by Cobrapost, an Indian investigative news source, claims that the Indian government and local police either did not prevent or outright colluded with the rioters. After the killings, Indira Gandhi’s son and successor Rajiv Gandhi callously responded, “When a great tree falls, the earth shakes,” as if the killings of thousands of innocent Sikhs were justified over the actions of two.

Now, let us look at the 1948 Genocide Convention definition of genocide. First, there must be intent to partially or completely destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious minority by any of the following means:

1. Killing members of the group;

2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

In determining if killings are genocide, the intent is the most important part. Few genocidaires leave detailed plans for the destruction of groups like the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge. That’s why genocide is so difficult to prosecute and why many governments, including the US government, are reluctant to wield the term for the Rohingya massacres in Myanmar. Instead, the Trump administration used the term “ethnic cleansing,” which does not have legal significance. During the Rwandan Genocide, the Clinton administration only publicly stated that “acts of genocide may have occurred” because calling the event a genocide would have necessitated a more robust response than the administration was willing to deliver.

With the events of 1984, there is no explicit documented intent on the part of the perpetrators to wipe out Sikhs in Hindu-majority areas. Legally, the massacres were brutal, senselessly violent revenge (At the same time, it is worth mentioning that Khalistani militants deliberately targeted and killed hundreds of Hindus in Punjab through the course of the insurgency). Of course, we are only talking about the legal definition of genocide, and naturally, many people would have broader views on the definition of genocide. 

While the term “genocide” may be legally tricky, the Indian government should certainly stop referring to the massacres as “riots.” Whatever the events of 1984 were, they were not disorganized or sporadic, but they were one-sided. The term “riots” obscures the true horror of the event and has led to frustration for many survivors.

Multiple government investigations have yielded few results. While low-level INC members have been convicted, many of the key players, witnesses, and victims are dead, and no police officers have been convicted. At the same time, investigations in India are heavily influenced by politicians, leading to few convictions for members of the INC. Whether or not subsequent investigations lead to convictions, at the very least, more education needs to be implemented in school curricula, and something similar to the Holocaust Museum should be created not only for the 1984 massacres but also for the other communal killings that have occurred in India’s post-Partition history, regardless of the party responsible. Only by acknowledging the sins of the past can we be ready to progress together.