THE 1984 ANTI-SIKH RIOTS: RIOTS OR GENOCIDE?

Introduction

What is Genocide? This is the one question that to this date has never been answered
satisfactorily by anyone. Doing an entire course on the very topic has on the contrary made
the understanding of the topic even murkier and confusing.

The United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948 adopted the Convention for the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide1. The Convention provides a definition
of this crimes, which states:

“Article 2 : In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following

acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
• (a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

Taking this definition into consideration, the present essay will try to validate that the 1984
Anti Sikh Riots were not gross violations of human rights but a genocide.

The 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots: A review

One of the worst incidents in post independent India was the 1984 anti-Sikh riots which took
place in the capital of the country, Delhi, and other neighbouring states too. 1984 was both a
jubilant and a sorrowful year for India. The nation had won its first Cricket World Cup and
the successful space voyage of Rakesh Sharma was being celebrated throughout the country.
But little was known as to what the people of the country would face in the coming months of
1984.

In June 1984, the Indian Army laid siege to the Golden Temple in Amritsar to flush out
terrorists as part of Operation Bluestar which was a direct order of the then Prime Minister of
the country Indira Gandhi. This operation evoked a horrific response. On October 31st 1984,
Indira Gandhi was brutally assassinated by her personal two bodyguards who were Sikhs.
Within a couple of hours India was facing its bloodiest incident since the partition. The worst
riot in India’s history turned colonies into mass graves for the Sikhs.

TIMELINE OF EVENTS

                                                                                                                       
1
After obtaining the requisite twenty ratifications required by article XIII, the Convention entered into force on
12 January 1951.
 • On October 31, 1984, as Indian Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi walked through her
grounds for an interview with actor Peter Ustinov and two of her bodyguards, Beant
Singh and Satwant Singh, raised their guns as if to salute her and shot her. She was
rushed to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).
• At 11:00 a.m., the government-controlled radio, All India Radio, announced the
attempt on the Prime Minister’s life.
• As a crowd gathered in front of the AIIMS, around 1:00 p.m., the Hindustan Times’
spot board alerted Indians to her death3 and the Indian Express published a special
supplement announcing: “Mrs. Gandhi assassinated.”
• The national TV service, Doordarshan, officially telecast the news throughout India at
6:10 p.m., confirming the assassination to a shocked and riveted nation.

Beginning roughly 18 hours after the Hindustan Times2 and Indian Express3 first announced
Mrs. Gandhi’s assassination, the Congress party and Indian police unleashed a nightmare of
organized violence against the Sikh community, supported and encouraged by the Delhi and
Central governments. Gangs of assailants burned Sikhs alive, gang-raped Sikh women, and
destroyed their gurudwaras (religious prayer house for Sikhs) and properties, among other
devastating crimes. The violence, allegedly motivated out of grief over Mrs. Gandhi’s
assassination, continued unabated for at least four days, and intermittently for the rest of the
week.

Senior political party officials and police carefully orchestrated the Sikh massacres of
November 1984. During the night of October 31, Congress (I) party officials met with their
local support networks to: identify the residences and properties of Sikhs through
government-issued voter or ration lists; distribute weapons, kerosene and incendiary
chemicals; exhort non-Sikhs to kill Sikhs and loot and burn their properties; and plan the time
of attack. That night, they floated the first rumour that Sikhs had celebrated the assassination
of Indira Gandhi, dancing and distributing sweets4, conditioning Indians for the violence to
follow.

The next morning, on November 1 between 8 and 10 a.m., assailants simultaneously attacked
Sikhs throughout the country shouting slogans of extermination. The gangs often first
attacked the Sikh gurudwara in the particular neighbourhood. After desecrating the Sikh
scriptural canon, Sri Guru Granth Sahib, by urinating on or burning them, burning down the
gurudwara and attacking symbols of the Sikh faith, the mob attacked the properties of Sikhs
and the Sikhs themselves. Organized transportation, sometimes provided using state-owned
buses and railways, brought assailants to where Sikhs lived. The behaviour of policemen
surpassed inaction, and often amounted to participation and instigation. If the Sikhs gathered
and defended themselves, the police disarmed the Sikhs and sent them to their individual
houses, making them easier targets for death squads. Congress (I) party leaders led, directed
and encouraged gangs of assailants, and participated in the massacres themselves.
                                                                                                                       
2
Hindustan Times- National Daily of India.
3
Indian Express- National Daily of India.
4
Citizens for Democracy, Truth About Delhi Violence: Report to the Nation (1985) at
http://www.carnage84.com/human/truth/truth.htm.  
As the violence continued methodically and systematically over the next days, Congress (I)
politicians and policemen spread two more false rumours: the Sikhs had poisoned the water
supply and Sikhs in Punjab were killing Hindus on Delhi-bound trains. Government officials
continued to deny the extent of violence against Sikhs, while police officers and political
leaders simultaneously directed the organized slaughtering of Sikhs. The Army, called into
Delhi 24- hours after the violence had begun, could not begin to effectively counter the
violence until November 3 because of the Delhi administration’s refusal to cooperate.

From the above mentioned review, one cannot help but notice the strikingly similar pattern of
orchestrated and organized violence against a specific group which took place 10 years later
in Rwanda and came to be known as the Rwandan Genocide. But unfortunately, 1984 riots
have been categorised as ‘Gross violations of Human Rights’ by the US. Human Rights
Watch and WikiLeaks cable leaks in 2011 stated and raised the same question that the
presente essay tries to raise: why was this event not categorised as a genocide when evidence
proves and supports the definition of this crimes given in the UN 1948 Genocide
Convention?

The 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots: A Legal Perspective as Genocide

Genocide is one of the most heinous crimes in the international community, therefore, the
prohibition of this crime is a jus cogens or peremptory norms5 under international law,
meaning that no derogation or modification can be permitted for this type of norms. Several
international instruments6 have defined genocide as the intention to destroy in whole or part
members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Therefore, the main element that
differenciates gross human rights violation from genocide is the “intention to destroy” and
what defines its particular gravity.7

In the present case, the Anti Sikh Riots fufill all the criteria to be defined as a genocide. In
only four days in 1984, 8.000 Sikh people were killed8 as a plan against members of this
group. Furthermore, this crime became more serious by the way the Sikh people were
massacred: with incendiary weapons (kerosene and petrol), burned alive, among others. It is
important to mention that the word killing needs to be defined properly to differentiate
situations where the act of genocide does not apply. Several tribunals9 have stated that the
word killing means homicide commited with the intention to cause death. With the example
mentioned before, the present case complies with the standards of killing.

                                                                                                                       
5
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: article 53
6
UN Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, article 2.2, International
Criminal Court: Rome Statute; article 6; Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia, article 4.2; Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, article 2.2
7
Antonio Cassese et al: International Criminal Law, Cases and Commentary, Crimes (Genocide), Oxford
University Press
8
NDTV: Delhi court to give verdict on re-opening 1984 riots case against Congress leader Jagdish Tytler, April
13, 2013
9
ICTR: Prosecutor vs. Akayesu, Judgment of 2 September 1998, Indian Penal Code, Section 307, Penal Code of
Rwanda, Statute of the ICTY, article 2.2.a
Furthermore, these mass killings were against a specific ethnical and religious group. Since
the murder of Indira Ghandi by her two bodyguards, both Sikh, riots against this religious
group started to grow in India. The 1948 Genocide Convention seeks to protect to right to life
of certain human groups and this characteristics also creates genocide an exceptionally grave
crime.10. The International Criminal Court for Rwanda (ICTR) has stated11 that a group is one
whose members share a common language and culture or a group which distinghishes itself
or by others. Also, a religious group is the one who shares a common religion, denomination
or mode of worship12. Moreover, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Kristć case, the Prosecution and Defence stated that the victims of
genocide must be targeted by reason of their membership to a particular group, it is not
sufficient to state that there is genocide if the victims are coincidentally members of a
group.13Furthermore, the group must be “stable”, meaning that is given by birth, not
changeable by its members and who the members automatically belong.14

The Sikhs are a religious group in India, although a minority groups, that represents around
21,500,000 people in the country (1.9% of the total population)15. They practice Sikhism
(monotheistic religion), which is the fourth largest religion in India, and have different traits
than the rest of the Indian population, including the wearing of the deep blue and saffron
colored turbans16, a clear distinction from other groups in India. The Sikhs are part of this
religious group since their birth and they practice their rituals, such as the Gurupurab, the
Amrit Sanskar, among others.

In the present case, it is clear evidence that the killings were only against the Sikh
community; such as the announcement on All India Radio saying that the bodyguards of
Indira Gandhi were Sikhs. Furthermore, the speech made by Congress leader Sajjan Kumar in
Delhi's Raj Nagar “where he incited the mob and said that not a single Sikh should survive
and those sheltering Sikhs should be set ablaze.”17. For these reasons, the requirement of
“against a ethnical and religious group” in the Genocide Convention is met as only Sikhs
were targeted.

As was mentioned before, what distinguishes genocide from other types of crimes is the
intention to destroy in whole or in part the group, or what it is called the “dolus specialis” of
the crime. The proof of the intention to commit genocide can rely from a number of facts and
circumstances, the scale of atrocities committed, the systematic targeting of the victims on
account of their membership or the repetition of destructive and discriminatory acts.
                                                                                                                       
10
ICTY: Prosecutor vs. Krstić, Judgment of 2 August 2001, paragraph 553
11
ICTR: Prosecutor vs. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Trial Chamber, Judgment of 21 May 1999, paragraph 98
12
ICTR: Prosecutor vs. Akayesu, Judgment of 2 September 1998, para. 515
13
ICTY: Prosecutor vs. Krstić, paragraph 561
14
ICTR: Prosecutor vs. Akayesu, Judgment of 2 September 1998, paragraph 511, 1948 Genocide Convention,
travaux preparatoires.
15
Government of India: Ministry of Home Affairs, Census in India, 2011,
http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/population_enumeration.aspx
16
All About Sikhs: November 1984, Government Organized Carnage, http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/delhi-
riots/november-1984-government-organised-carnage
17
IBN Live: 1984 anti-Sikh riots backed by Govt, police: CBI, http://ibnlive.in.com/news/1984-antisikh-riots-
backed-by-govt-police-cbi/251375-37-64.html
Additionally, the existence of the plan or policy is not a requirement, although it can be a
direct proof, of the crime and there should be a motive for the commission of the crime 18.

In the present case, the intention to kill all Sikhs is clearly established by the speech of Sajjan
Kumar mentioned before, the absence of the police which deliberately acted the way it was
not supposed to, acting in a pre-planned manner to avoid helping the victims of the massacre
and not taking actions against the main culprits19. Moreover, it can be demonstrated that there
was a plan derived from the Indian government to slaughter the Sikhs when the Congress (I)
party met with their local supporters and gave them instructions and weapons to eliminate
Sikhs.

Based on the above and beyond reasonable doubt, the 1984 Sikh Riots are a crime of
genocide and not only gross human rights violations, because it complies with all
requirements fro this crime and thus, providing the required standard of proof in international
criminal law.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of the debate presented in this paper, the conclusion remains absolute, which is
that the 1984 Anti Sikh Riots were not riots, not violations of human rights but a total
genocide. The Indian government is still yet to prosecute those who are actually behind the
entire planning of this genocide, even though in the recent years, a few names have come up
of some highly influential political leaders of the then Congress (I) party.

The official number of deaths given by the media in the aftermath was also not the entire
truth and numbers were diluted as the State government started handling media coverage and
dissemination of information by the media to the general public.

It is interesting to know that at this time, the international community did not take these riots
as genocide and also, the World did not know about this massacre because it was not
broadcasted through international media coverage. Something as this massacre can be
comparable to the Rwandan Genocide due to the fact that both were of the same
characteristics and fulfilled al requisites for the crime of genocide.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

All About Sikhs. November 1984, Government Organized Carnage. Available from:
http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/delhi-riots/november-1984-government-organised-carnage

Carnage 84. (1985).Citizens for Democracy, Truth About Delhi Violence: Report to the
Nation (1985). Available from: http://www.carnage84.com/human/truth/truth.htm.

                                                                                                                       
18
ICTY: Prosecutor vs. Jelisić, Judgment of 5 July 2001
19
IBN Live: Police kept eyes 'closed' during 1984 anti-Sikh riots: CBI, March 31, 2012,
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/police-kept-eyes-closed-during-1984-antisikh-riots-cbi/244569-55.html  
Cassese, Antonio. (2011). International Criminal Law, Cases and Commentary, Oxford
University Press.

Government of India. (2011). Ministry of Home Affairs, Census in India. Available from:
http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/population_enumeration.aspx

IBN Live. (2012). 1984 anti-Sikh riots backed by Govt, police: CBI. Available from:
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/1984-antisikh-riots-backed-by-govt-police-cbi/251375-37-64.html

IBN Live. (2012). Police kept eyes 'closed' during 1984 anti-Sikh riots: CBI. Available from:
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/police-kept-eyes-closed-during-1984-antisikh-riots-cbi/244569-
55.html

ICTY. (2001). Prosecutor vs. Krstić. Available from: http://www.icty.org/case/krstic/4#tdec

ICTR. (1999). Prosecutor vs. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Trial Chamber. Available from:
http://www.unictr.org/Portals/0/Case%5CEnglish%5Ckayishema%5Cjudgement%5C010601.
pdf

ICTR. (1998). Prosecutor vs. Akayesu, Judgment of 2 September 1998. Available from:
http://www.unictr.org/Portals/0/Case/English/Akayesu/judgement/akay001.pdf

International Criminal Court. (2002). Rome Statute. Available from: http://www.icc-

cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf

Indian Penal Code. (1860). Available from:    

http://districtcourtallahabad.up.nic.in/articles/IPC.pdf

NDTV. (2013). Delhi court to give verdict on re-opening 1984 riots case against Congress
leader Jagdish Tytler. Available from: http://www.ndtv.com/article/cheat-sheet/delhi-court-
to-give-verdict-on-re-opening-1984-riots-case-against-congress-leader-jagdish-tytler-352179

Penal Code of Rwanda. (1980). Available from:

http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=9015

Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. (1993). Available
from: http://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/Statute/statute_sept09_en.pdf

Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. (1994). Available from:
http://www.unictr.org/Portals/0/English/Legal/Statute/2010.pdf

UN Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. (1948).
Available from: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280027fac

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. (1969). Available from:

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201155/volume-1155-I-18232-
English.pdf