On July 7th, the Fatehgarh Sahib District administration distributed checks worth Rs 2 lakh to each of the 13 remaining families affected by the 1984 pogroms. The Indian government continues to improperly label the 1984 pogroms as riots, implying violence on both sides. The label of a “riot” not only mischaracterizes the massacre, but it also purposefully masks its most brutal dimensions, discussed in detail in ENSAAF’s report Twenty Years of Impunity.

A recent article by Zee News discusses Harvinder Kaur’s struggle for justice. She lost her husband and other relatives in the 1984 anti-Sikh pogroms; on April 29, a Delhi court finally began recording evidence.

When Harvinder Kaur initially attempted to file a FIR twelve years ago, the East Delhi police refused to register it. The FIR was finally registered in 1996, and named six people including the late Congress leader HKL Bhagat. He was later discharged from the case for lack of evidence.

Based on Harvinder Kaur’s affadavit, the Jain committee recommended the registration of the case. The court began recording Harvinder Kaur’s statements on April 29. Five Congress workers have been charge-sheeted for the killing of her husband, her son, and her son in law.

In her deposition, Kaur said she was witness to the incident in which a mob, allegedly led by local congress leaders, stabbed and hacked to death with swords three members of her family on November 2, 1984.

The delays and problems with prosecution that Harvinder Kaur experienced are typical of cases relating to the 1984 pogroms. Her testimony also demonstrates the role Congress party politicians had in organizing the violence, and how delays in filing FIRs and other tactics prevented the prosecution of perpetrators.

Twenty Years of Impunity: The November 1984 Pogroms of Sikhs in India reveals the systematic and organized manner in which state institutions, such as the Delhi Police, and Congress (I) officials perpetrated mass murder in November 1984 and later justified the violence in inquiry proceedings. The report demonstrates that police officers not only passively observed the violence, but also actively participated in the attacks and made promises of impunity to assailants. The report also examines the role of the Congress Party in organizing the massacres, delivering inflammatory speeches instructing attendees to kill Sikhs, and distributing weapons, money, and voter lists identifying Sikhs and their properties. Grave lapses in police investigations, delays in filing cases, the failure to identify and investigate prosecution witnesses, the deliberate misrecording of witness statements, and the failure to comply with legal procedures precluded effective prosecutions against major perpetrators. 

In other news related to the 1984 pogroms, Rs 26 lakh in compensation was paid to families of victims of the 1984 pogroms on April 24.

Mr Amarjit Pal, SDM, gave cheques to 13 kin of the victim of riots. A sum of Rs 2 lakh each was given to the victim families.

Mr Pal said another Rs 14 lakh would be distributed among the families of the riot-hit soon.

On March 30, seven victims on the 1984 pogroms received supplementary compensation as ordered by the Supreme Court.

The East Singhbhum deputy commissioner today distributed cheques worth over Rs 7.74 lakh to the dependants of the riot victims.

Parminder Kaur of Mango was inconsolable while receiving a cheque of Rs 1.25 lakh from East Singhbhum deputy commissioner Nitin Madan Kulkarni, as part of the compensation to the victims of the 1984 Sikh riots.

After receiving the cheque, Parminder recounted the moment when her father (a trader in Mango) rushed to his house after sustaining serious injuries in his stomach.

The Indian government continues to improperly label the 1984 pogroms as riots, implying violence on both sides. The label of a “riot” not only mischaracterizes the massacre, but it also purposefully masks its most brutal dimensions, discussed in detail in ENSAAF’s report Twenty Years of Impunity:

(1) The targeting of a religious group for murder and extermination, as evidenced by:
a. Slogans calling for the death of all Sikhs;
b. Repeated attacks by gangs to ensure that all Sikhs were killed;
c. Direct targeting of Sikh property;
d. Destruction of symbols and structures of the Sikh faith; and
e. Perpetration of other crimes such as rape and sexual assault, beatings and physical attacks, looting and stealing, extortion, acts of humiliation such as stripping, and mutilation of corpses;
(2) Police participation and instigation of the murders, as well as manipulation of records and destruction of evidence precluding criminal accountability; and
(3) Organized and systematic implemention of the carnage, characterized by:
a. A systematic and uniform method of killing;
b. Public meetings the night before the initiation of the massacre where leaders distributed weapons and exhorted attendees to kill Sikhs;
c. Organized dissemination of rumors;
d. Effective identification of Sikhs through lists;
e. Organized transportation of gangs of assailants; and
f. Large-scale provision and distribution of weapons and kerosene.

The Indian government continues to deny justice to the victims of the 1984 pogroms of Sikhs. On March 9, Punjab police used water canons to disperse victims protesting the Punjab Deputy Commissioners’ failure to give relief payments to the victims, despite orders by the central government. Nearly a dozen protesters had to be taken to the hospital because of the use of water canons.

After twenty years, the victims of the 1984 pogroms are still waiting for justice. Officially, 2,733 people were killed in the massacres in Delhi alone, but to date, only a handful of people have been convicted. Although Prime Minister Singh apologized last year for the 1984 “riots,” he ignored the complicity of the state in the massacres, and did not promise any concrete action beyond further inquiries and committees, which in the past twenty years have failed to address the victims’ rights to knowledge, justice, and reparation. 

Twenty Years of Impunity: The November 1984 Pogroms of Sikhs in India reveals the systematic and organized manner in which state institutions, such as the Delhi Police, and Congress (I) officials perpetrated mass murder in November 1984 and later justified the violence in inquiry proceedings. The report demonstrates that police officers not only passively observed the violence, but also actively participated in the attacks and made promises of impunity to assailants. The report also examines the role of the Congress Party in organizing the massacres, delivering inflammatory speeches instructing attendees to kill Sikhs, and distributing weapons, money, and voter lists identifying Sikhs and their properties. Grave lapses in police investigations, delays in filing cases, the failure to identify and investigate prosecution witnesses, the deliberate misrecording of witness statements, and the failure to comply with legal procedures precluded effective prosecutions against major perpetrators. 

A recent article in The Hindu discusses this failure on the part of the government, and suggests that social violence such as the 1984 pogroms require non-conventional approaches to justice.

The retributive justice-oriented legal system has been criticised for deepening the already existing divisions between communities.

Added to this, the material obstacles and the destruction of evidence in the chaos that surrounds violent conflicts make it almost impossible to achieve justice through the legal system. The deliverance of justice becomes even more difficult in situations where institutions of the State endorse violence against specific communities.

Instead, the article suggests “non-conventional” approaches to justice that do more than simply punish the perpetrators of violence.

Countries such as Guatemala, Rwanda, South Africa and East Timor, torn by similar violence, have experimented with diverse approaches, ranging from retribution-oriented criminal justice mechanisms to those that focus on truth telling, reparation and healing. Drawing on insights that transcend cultural variables, India could learn some valuable lessons from the experiences of these countries.

Moving beyond adversarial approach, it should generate processes that facilitate individual and collective healing for the Sikh/ Muslim community, that build relationships across the divisions of conflict, and that address the injustices that took place before, during and after the riots.

Under this approach, victims should participate in deciding what form justice should take to protect their rights to knowledge, justice, and reparation. Truth telling is the foundation of this approach to justice.

When the truth about the nature of the violence is concealed, it further disempowers victims, who feel even more voiceless. Despite the various inquiry panel reports on the 1984 riots, this continues to be the reality for many survivors.

Although it does not rule out incarceration, according to the author, the goals of this approach are healing and reparation.

It includes a wide range of methodologies such as dialogue, acknowledgement of — and accountability for — the harm done, apology, remorse, financial reparation, rehabilitation, reconstruction and psychosocial support and trauma healing.

1,459 victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh pogroms have applied for government compensation of Rs 2 lakh. Earlier this year, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had ordered the government to pay the compensation by April 30. Deputy Commissioner Garewal said that after verification, all the cases would be sent to the Financial Commissioner of Punjab by February 28.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered the Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh Governments pay compensation to the families of the victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh pogroms by April 30.

The petition also stated that the banks must be directed to follow the
Reserve Bank of India’s rules for granting loans to victims. Satnam
Singh, who filed the petition, added:

At the request of the Union Home Ministry, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has moved the trial court in New Delhi to reopen the cases against Congress MP Sajjan Kumar for his role in the 1984 anti-Sikh pogroms. The CBI is also seeking the original documents of the cases, which had been closed without even filing the charge sheets.

Several statements by witnesses implicate Kumar in organizing the violence against Sikhs:

In one of the two FIRs in question, Joginder Singh, a resident of Sultanpuri in West Delhi, had alleged that Sajjan Kumar, the Outer Delhi MP, had on November 1, 1984 “brought a mob of ruffians and told them they had 72 hours’ freedom to kill Sikhs and no Sikh should escape”.

Joginder Singh had further related how his 32-year-old brother Surjeet Singh was “dragged out and burnt alive”. “I was not allowed to save my brother and was pushed away by the assailants,” he had further said in his affidavit.

In the second FIR filed by one Anek Kaur of the same area, she had said she saw Sajjan Kumar, accompanied by another Congress leader Jai Kishan, threatening people gheraoed by a rampaging mob that “all members of the Sikh community would be killed.”

Despite this evidence, the police never filed a charge sheet against Sajjan Kumar, and in 2002, he was acquitted in the last remaining case against him.

Three government-appointed committees (Jain-Banerjee, Poti-Rosha, and Jain-Aggarwal) have all recommended taking action against Sajjan Kumar for his role in the pogroms. In February 2005, the Nanvati Commission submitted its report to the Union Home Ministry; in it, the Commission recommended the re-investigation of Sajjan Kumar and other Congress leaders.

Although Prime Minister Manmohan Singh pledged to take action against those idenified in the Nanavati report for re-examination, the government has so far demonstrated sloppiness in its prosecution of Kumar. For example, CBI counsel was late in filing its appeal against Kumar’s 2002 acquittal, and was so unprepared during a hearing that the Delhi High Court was forced to adjourn.

On December 29, the Indian government approved a Rs 715 crore ($158 million) relief package for victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh pogroms. Two months prior to this, two committees from the Ministry of Home Affairs recommended that the government pay about Rs 1,000 crore in compensation.

The package takes into account earlier payments, and provides for Rs 3.5 lakh ($7,800) maximum for each death and Rs 1.25 lakh ($2,800) maximum for each injury. The package also compensates damage to uninsured property at ten times the amount already paid.

Kuldip Kaur, who lost her husband in the riots, said the money was not enough.

On January 3, families of the victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh pogroms and the 1984 Sikh Massacre Affected Welfare Society organized a rally. Leaders from the rally said that after 21 years and nine commissions, there has been no real progress towards rehabilitation for the survivors; they also demanded action against leaders and others responsible for the massacre. 

Rejecting the package offered by the Central Government of Rs 2 lakh for the affected families, they said most of the youths of the affected families were unemployed and this amount would be insufficient for their rehabilitation.

Despite the compensation package approved by the government, many of the survivors of the 1984 massacre will continue to suffer; the pogroms continue to impact lives through the effects of trauma, the status of orphans and widows, and the effects of property destruction. The Indian government still has not fully addressed the victims’ rights to knowledge, justice, and reparation, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repitition.