Inssan abhee tak zindaa hae, zindaa hone per sharminda hae!
Human beings are still alive, but ashamed to be alive!
— Shahid Nadeem, Pakistani activist and playwright, punished for these lines under Zia-ul-Haq’s rule
Four decades after the targeted killings of Sikhs in 1984, justice remains elusive. For nearly thirty years, the author has written annually on this date, hoping that the Indian State and judiciary would one day identify and punish those responsible for one of the darkest episodes of independent India. Yet, in 2025, the situation remains unchanged — the families of victims continue to seek justice, while official institutions remain indifferent.
The tragedy of 1984 is not only the massacre itself but also the persistent failure of the Republic of India to provide closure. On the 41st anniversary, even the customary official expressions of sympathy or assurance of justice have faded.
A Justice System That Forgot Its Dead
The scale of the killings was staggering. According to official figures, 2,800 Sikhs were killed in Delhi and 3,350 across the country. Independent estimates, however, suggest that between 8,000 and 17,000 may have perished in the orchestrated violence that followed Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination on October 31, 1984.
As The Tribune reported on October 31, 2025, 650 cases were registered in connection with the killings. Chargesheets were filed in 362, but convictions occurred in only 39. Nearly 300 cases collapsed for want of evidence, witnesses, or police cooperation. Barely 20 cases remain active in Delhi’s trial courts or on appeal.
This grim record tells its own story: that of a democracy unable—or unwilling—to hold accountable those who commit mass violence against minorities. The legal process has moved slower than time itself, with witnesses dying, files disappearing, and political will absent.
Patterns of Selective Justice
The Sikh genocide is not an isolated instance. Each time India witnesses large-scale violence against minorities or Dalits, justice follows a predictable path—slow investigations, endless commissions, and few convictions.
Incidents such as the Nellie massacre (1983), Hashimpura custodial killings (1987), anti-Muslim violence following the Babri mosque demolition (1990–92), the Gujarat carnage (2002), the Kandhamal violence against Christians (2008), and the ongoing conflict in Manipur have all followed this pattern.
When victims belong to marginalized groups, the state responds with delays and deflection. Commissions of inquiry often replace prosecutions, ensuring that the public memory of atrocities fades over time. The 1984 Sikh genocide remains a stark reminder of this institutional bias.
The situation is equally dire in cases of anti-Dalit violence — from the Kilvenmani massacre (1968) to Khairlanji (2006) and Dangawas (2015). Conviction rates in these atrocities rarely exceed 20 percent. Yet, when alleged perpetrators come from minority or working-class backgrounds, investigations proceed swiftly and sentences are delivered in the name of “national security.”
This contrast reflects a troubling duality in the Indian justice system: compassion for the powerful, punishment for the weak.
The Early Commissions: Whitewashing the Crime
In the immediate aftermath of the killings, the government constituted the Marwah Commission to identify the perpetrators. It was soon disbanded, and Justice Ranganath Misra of the Supreme Court was tasked with conducting a fresh inquiry. His 1987 report infamously described the massacres as “riots of spontaneous origin,” later “channelized by gangsters.”
By reducing the organized massacre to “riots,” the Misra Commission effectively absolved the state of responsibility. The idea that Sikhs were both perpetrators and victims distorted the truth and served political convenience.
Over the next two decades, at least nine commissions of inquiry were appointed. Each announcement of a new commission or compensation scheme served as a political safety valve, deflecting public outrage. As lawyer H.S. Phoolka, who represented victims for decades, noted, those accused of leading mobs often rose to positions of political power instead of facing trial.
In 2017, the Supreme Court ordered a fresh review of 241 closed cases, appointing a panel of former judges. Another Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by former Delhi High Court judge S.N. Dhingra, was constituted in 2018. Its confidential report was submitted in 2019. Even today, the identities of many perpetrators remain officially “unknown.”
The Political Betrayal Continues
Successive governments have failed the victims of 1984. The Congress government presided over the massacre and later sought to minimize it as a spontaneous reaction. But subsequent non-Congress regimes, including those led by the BJP, did little to alter that reality.
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), while critical of Congress for its role, have also displayed selective amnesia. During the 2013–14 election campaign, Narendra Modi repeatedly demanded accountability for the “qatl-e-aam” (mass killing) of Sikhs, calling it a national wound. But once in power, his government took no significant steps to advance prosecutions or uncover the full truth.
As journalist Manoj Mitta, author of When a Tree Shook Delhi, observed, “Despite the BJP’s rule, there has hardly been any will to enforce accountability for the massacres that took place under the Congress. It’s as if there is a tacit deal between the sponsors of 1984 and 2002.”
The RSS View: The Nana Deshmukh Document
One of the most revealing documents about the RSS’s attitude toward the 1984 killings came from Nana Deshmukh, a senior RSS ideologue. On November 8, 1984—while killings were still ongoing—Deshmukh circulated a note titled Moments of Soul Searching.
This document, later published in the Hindi weekly Pratipaksh edited by George Fernandes, justified the massacres as an “expression of genuine anger.” Deshmukh portrayed the genocide as a “reaction” by nationalists against Sikh extremism, implying collective guilt on the part of the Sikh community.
His key assertions included:
1. The killings were not the result of organized conspiracy but of spontaneous public anger.
2. The actions of Indira Gandhi’s Sikh bodyguards were presented as reflecting the will of the entire Sikh community.
3. Operation Blue Star was glorified, and any opposition to it branded anti-national.
4. Sikhs were urged to accept the violence with “patience and tolerance,” as Hindus allegedly did after Gandhi’s assassination in 1948.
5. The document ended by lauding Indira Gandhi as a martyr and blessing Rajiv Gandhi, who had justified the killings with the infamous remark, “When a big tree falls, the earth shakes.”
Nowhere did Deshmukh demand action against the killers or protection for the victims. His narrative mirrored the Congress line, blaming the Sikh community rather than those who organized or condoned the violence.
Deshmukh’s position was not an isolated aberration but reflected the wider RSS attitude. The organization, which routinely publicizes photographs of its cadres engaged in relief work, produced none showing help for Sikh victims.
RSS Publications During the Massacre
The Organizer, the English weekly of the RSS, carried an editorial on November 11 and 18, 1984, mourning Indira Gandhi’s death but making no reference to Sikh victims. It described Gandhi as “a remarkable specimen of Indian womanhood” and her death as a “shocking horror story.” The piece concluded by expressing support for Rajiv Gandhi, calling for sympathy for the new Prime Minister.
RSS chief Balasaheb Deoras’s statement, also carried in the same issue, condemned the assassination and the “carnage,” but treated the events as “infighting within Hindu society.” He made no mention of the thousands of Sikhs being killed. While he instructed RSS units to form “Mohalla Suraksha Samitis” to restore peace, there is no record of these committees having any visible presence during the violence.
The RSS, which frequently celebrates its social service initiatives, has never produced any evidence of meaningful intervention to protect Sikhs during those days.
The Controversy Over Apologies
The reluctance to acknowledge the genocide continues into the present. In 2005, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh apologized in Parliament, stating:
“I apologize not only to the Sikh community, but to the whole Indian nation because what took place in 1984 is the negation of the concept of nationhood enshrined in our Constitution.”
In 2023, however, the RSS-affiliated Shiksha Sanskriti Utthan Nyas demanded that references to this apology—and to the violence itself—be removed from school textbooks. This effort to erase memory reflects a persistent discomfort within the ideological right toward any official recognition of state culpability.
From Denial to Reward: The Case of Nana Deshmukh
In 2019, on the eve of Republic Day, the Government of India conferred the Bharat Ratna—the nation’s highest civilian honour—on Nana Deshmukh. The citation praised his “humility, compassion, and service to the downtrodden.” For survivors of 1984, it was an act that deepened the wound.
Honouring a man who rationalized the killings of innocent citizens symbolized how far official India has drifted from moral accountability.
The Larger Consequences of Forgetting
The continued impunity for the 1984 genocide has had profound consequences for Indian democracy. It set a precedent of tolerance for mass violence against minorities. Scholars of communal conflict widely agree that had the 1984 perpetrators been brought to justice, later tragedies—such as the Bombay riots of 1992–93, the Gujarat pogrom of 2002, and the Kandhamal attacks of 2008—might not have occurred with such impunity.
By allowing the 1984 genocide to go unpunished, the state effectively signaled to majoritarian forces that organized violence could be politically profitable and legally survivable.
Remembering and Resisting Forgetfulness
The survivors of 1984 continue to live with trauma and unfulfilled promises. Many lost entire families, livelihoods, and homes. Thousands of widows still reside in colonies built as “temporary relief” decades ago. Their demands are simple: acknowledgment, justice, and memory.
Civil society has played a crucial role in keeping the issue alive. Theatre groups like Nishant Natya Manch performed street plays such as Sadharan Log (“Common People”) more than two thousand times, dramatizing the suffering and resilience of the Sikh community. These acts of cultural resistance remain vital reminders of human solidarity.
The poet Shahid Nadeem’s lament—“Human beings are alive, but ashamed to be alive”—continues to resonate. The shame lies not only in what was done but in what remains undone.
A Call for Conscience
The story of the 1984 Sikh genocide is, ultimately, the story of India’s democratic conscience on trial. Political parties have traded blame, commissions have diluted accountability, and ideological organizations have rationalized atrocity. Yet the moral responsibility remains collective.
The need today is not merely to remember 1984 as a historical episode, but to confront its continuing legacy — of institutionalized injustice, selective memory, and moral apathy. Justice delayed for one community endangers the rights of all.
As India marks the 41st anniversary of the Sikh genocide, the search for truth and accountability remains unfinished. The least that can be done for the victims is to ensure that their suffering is neither forgotten nor denied.
---
*Formerly with the Delhi University, click here for some of Prof Islam's writings and video interviews/debates. Facebook: https://facebook.com/shamsul.islam.332. X: @shamsforjustice. Blog: http://shamsforpeace.blogspot.com/.
Link for procuring his books: https://tinyurl.com/shams-books. This is the abridged version of the original article
Comments