Post-conflict justice in divided democracies: the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in India

Abstract

Official figures claim that almost 3000 people were killed, and many more injured or displaced, in four days of rioting aimed at the Sikh population of Delhi in late October and early November 1984 following the assassination of Indira Gandhi. This article analyses the efforts made to address the human rights violations that occurred. It argues that as a divided democracy, India has struggled to do justice to the victims, despite multiple commissions of inquiry, compensation schemes and a prime ministerial apology. It argues that this has occurred not simply because of challenges commonly faced by democracies dealing with similar incidents, but also because of the particular problems faced in a context in which we see continuity of rule by a political elite allegedly implicated in the abuse and in which there is acute concern for the survival of a fragile divided polity.

Keywords:

• Human rights
• India
• accountability
• peacebuilding

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Grewal, Betrayed by the State, 35.

2 Tambiah, “Presidential Address,” 774.

3 Nanavati Commission Report, 3.

4 Crossette, “India’s Sikhs: Waiting for Justice,” 72. India’s census showed that the Sikh population of Delhi dropped from 6.4% of the total population to 4.84% between 1981 and 1991. Grewal, Betrayed by the State, 16.

5 Crossette, “India’s Sikhs: Waiting for Justice,” 72.

6 see Philpott, Religion, Reconciliation and Transitional Justice; Iqbal, Hossain and Mathur, “Reconciliation and Truth in Kashmir”; Braithwaite and D’Costa, Cascades of Violence. Of course, an expansive literature exists on communal violence in India: see eg Brass, Production of Hindu-Muslim Violence; Wilkinson, Religious Politics and Communal Violence.

7 In this context, we cannot address the important topic of the origins of the violence or the marginalisation and ‘othering’ of Sikhs in India. On these issues, see especially G. Singh, Ethnic Conflict in India.

8 Ni Aoláin and Campbell, “Paradox of Transition”; Hansen, “Time and Space of Transitional Justice”; Dunbar, “Consolidated Democracies and the Past”; Hobbs, “Locating the Logic of Transitional Justice”; Berastegi, “Transitional Justice in Settled Democracies.”

9 Teitel, “Transitional Justice Genealogy,” 69.

10 Ni Aoláin and Campbell, “Paradox of Transition,” 188.

11 Dunbar, “Consolidated Democracies and the Past,” 19.

12 Huntington, Third Wave.

13 Jeffery and Kim, “Introduction,” 4.

14 Teitel, “Transitional Justice Genealogy,” 69.

15 Jeffery, Amnesties, Accountability and Human Rights, 9; International Centre for Transitional Justice, “What Is Transitional Justice?”

16 Hinton, “Transitional Justice Imaginary,” 3249.

17 Hansen, “Time and Space of Transitional Justice,” 46; cf. Sharp, “Emancipating Transitional Justice”; McAuliffe, “Transitional Justice’s Expanding Empire,” 33.

18 Winter, Transitional Justice in Established Democracies; Henry, “From Reconciliation to Transitional Justice,” 210.

19 Balint, Evans, and McMillan, “Rethinking Transitional Justice,” 227–8; Hobbs, “Locating the Logic of Transitional Justice,” 526.

20 Ni Aoláin and Campbell, “Paradox of Transition,” 179.

21 Ibid., 188.

22 Dunbar, “Consolidated Democracies and the Past,” 19.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

25 Vinjamuri and Snyder, “Trials and Errors,” 6.

26 Dunbar, “Consolidated Democracies,” 19; Stepan, Arguing Comparative Politics, 215.

27 Peleg, “Transforming Ethnic Orders,” 9.

28 Ibid., 10.

29 Chatterji, Buluswar and Kaur, Conflicted Democracies and Gendered Violence, 19 and 3.

30 Ni Aoláin and Campbell, “Paradox of Transition,” 186.

31 Ahuja and Varshney, “Antecedent Nationhood, Subsequent Statehood,” 243; Mitra, “Federalism’s Success.”

32 Ganguly, “Introduction,” xiv.

33 Ibid.

34 G. Singh, Ethnic Conflict in India.

35 Bhattacharyya, “Indian Federalism and Democracy,” 218.

36 Stepan, Arguing Comparative Politics, 353–4.

37 Tully and Jacob, Amritsar: Mrs Gandhi’s Last Battle, 39–43; see also Mukhopadhyay, Sikhs: The Untold Agony of 1984, 31–45.

38 A rich literature exists on the ‘othering’ of minority groups by the dominant Hindu majority India. Foremost among recent works to address this issue is Chatterji, Buluswar, and Kaur, Conflicted Democracies and Gendered Violence, esp. 79, 84 and 219.

39 Van Dyke, “Khalistan Movement in Punjab, India,” 977; Adeney, “Does Ethnofederalism Explain the Success,” 139.

40 G. Singh, “Punjab Crisis since 1984,” 476.

41 Tully and Jacob, Amritsar: Mrs Gandhi’s Last Battle, 46.

42 P. Singh, “Class, Nation, and Religion,” 62.

43 Van Dyke, “Khalistan Movement in Punjab, India,” 978.

44 Tully and Jacob, Amritsar: Mrs Gandhi’s Last Battle, 57.

45 Ibid., 60.

46 The Constitution of India, Article 356.

47 Adeney, “Does Ethnofederalism Explain the Success,” 138–9.

48 Chatterji, Buluswar, and Kaur, Conflicted Democracies and Gendered Violence, 217.

49 Ibid., 219.

50 On the assault, see Fair, “Golden Temple,” 46–51.

51 Tully and Jacob, Amritsar: Mrs Gandhi’s Last Battle, 185 and 183.

52 J. Singh and Sharyaar, “Sikh Reference Library.”

53 Tatla, “Morning after: Trauma,” 57.

54 Singh and Sharyaar, “Sikh Reference Library,” 205.

55 For a useful and informed account, see Van Dyke, “Anti-Sikh Riots of 1984 in Delhi.”

56 Nanavati Commission Report, 3.

57 Grewal, Betrayed by the State; Mitta and Phoolka, When a Tree Shook Delhi.

58 Mukhopadhyay, Sikhs: The Untold Agony of 1984, 77.

59 Chima, The Sikh Separatist Insurgency in India, 168; G. Singh, “Punjab since 1984,” 411.

60 Ensaaf, “Violent Deaths and Enforced Disappearances.”

61 Human Rights Watch, Protecting the Killers.

62 Laws and Iacopino, “Police Torture in Punjab, India”; Kumar, Reduced to Ashes.

63 Van Dyke, “Khalistan Movement in Punjab, India,” 975.

64 Gurharpal Singh refers to this situation as ‘managed disorder’. See “Punjab since 1984,” 417.

65 Baxi, “Adjudicating the Riot,” 67.

66 Ibid., 68.

67 Ibid., 69.

68 Ibid., 67.

69 K. Singh, My Bleeding Punjab, 91.

70 Baixas, “Anti-Sikh Pogrom,” 3.

71 Tambiah, “Presidential Address,” 746–7.

72 Raghavan, “Indian Police: Problems and Prospects,” 128.

73 Nanavati Commission Report, 4–5.

74 Kaur, Twenty Years of Impunity, 66.

75 Sitapati, Half-Lion, 64.

76 Helweg, “India’s Sikhs: Problems and Prospects,” 150.

77 Suri, 1984: The Anti-Sikh Violence and After, 20–32.

78 Mohanka, “Religion and Conflict in India,” 591.

79 Kapur, “Khalistan: India’s Punjab Problem,” 1207.

80 Mitta, “Seven Reasons Why Modi’s Model.”

81 Ranganath, Misra Commission Report, 31.

82 Nanavati Commission Report, 2; Baxi, “Adjudicating the Riot,” 74.

83 Nanavati Commission Report, 6.

84 Ibid., 8.

85 Sharma, “‘84 Riot Victims Burn.”

86 In April 2013, the Lok Sabha was informed that 650 criminal cases had been brought and 442 rioters convicted of various crimes, ranging from murder and assault to arson and looting. Another 2706 had been acquitted. See Economic Times, “1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Case.”

87 Nanavati Commission Report, 147.

88 Ibid., 162.

89 Ibid., 153.

90 Nanavati Commission Report, 153.

91 Ibid., 172.

92 Mitta and Poolka, When a Tree Shook Delhi.

93 Mehta, 153.

94 DNA India, “Sikh Groups Reject PM’s Apology.”

95 Ibid.

96 For a sympathetic view of the BJP’s strategy, see Verma, Narendra Modi: The Game Changer, 74–6. On Modi’s rise to power, see Hall, Modi and the Reinvention of Indian Foreign Policy, 1–3.

97 For a critical analysis, critical especially of Modi and his government, see Nussbaum, Clash Within, 17–51.

98 A further complication is that one of the judges appointed by the Vajpayee government in March 2002 to lead a commission of inquiry into the Gujarat riots, along with Chief Justice K. J. Shah, was G. T. Nanavati, who was then also leading the commission into the anti-Sikh riots.

99 For an example of this stick in use, see Press Trust of India, “1984 Riots Guilty Still Remain Unpunished.”

100 Press Trust of India, “Govt. Sets up Committee.”

101 Indian Express, “Narendra Modi Government Trying to Save.” For Modi’s criticisms, see Times of India, “Anti-Sikh Riots Caused Pain,” and for Rahul Gandhi’s response, see Hindustan Times, “Congress Not Involved in 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots.”

102 Rajagopal, “Supreme Court to Form Its Own.”

103 The Hindu, “Justice, 34 Years On.”

104 BBC News, “Sajjan Kumar: Milestone Conviction.”

105 Adeney, “Does Ethnofederalism Explain the Success,” 133.

Additional information

Funding

This article was funded by the Australian Research Council (DP180103138).

Notes on contributors

Renée Jeffery

Renée Jeffery is a Professor of International Relations in the Griffith Asia Institute at Griffith University. Her research focuses on post-conflict human rights processes in the Asia-Pacific. She has authored and edited nine books including Amnesties, Accountability and Human Rights (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014), Transitional Justice in Practice (Palgrave 2017), and Transitional Justice in the Asia-Pacific (Cambridge University Press 2014).

Ian Hall

Ian Hall is a Professor of International Relations and the Deputy Director (Research) of the Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. His research focuses on Indian foreign and security policy and the history of international thought. His most recent book is Modi and the Reinvention of Indian Foreign Policy (Bristol University Press, 2019).