Although he issued an apology as the head of government, there was no accountability for the complicity of his party’s senior leadership—whether through action or inaction—in the anti-Sikh pogroms and genocidal massacres of November 1984. By absolving the then-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and others in his party, he failed to provide closure to the thousands of victims and survivors.
Dr. Manmohan Singh’s recent passing, coming not long after the 40th anniversary of the tragic events of 1984, has reignited scrutiny over how successive Congress-led governments addressed one of the darkest episodes of collective punishment in India’s history. This horrific chapter unfolded under their watch in the aftermath of Mrs. Gandhi’s assassination by her two Sikh bodyguards.
There is no doubt that Singh was a visionary statesman. Serving as India’s Prime Minister for two terms, he also made his mark as an accomplished Finance Minister. As the architect of modern India’s economic reforms, he played a pivotal role in liberalising the economy, setting the foundation for the country’s growth and transformation for decades to come.1
He was also known for his efforts to assist the victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh violence in the years that followed, offering support and seeking to address their suffering.2
Dr. Manmohan Singh became India’s first Sikh Prime Minister in May 2004 and served until 2014, making him one of the longest-serving Prime Ministers in the country’s history. In February 2005, the Nanavati Commission of Inquiry into the so-called 1984 anti-Sikh ‘riots’ submitted its findings under Judge Nanavati. However, the Congress-led coalition government, with PM Singh at the helm and Sonia Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi’s widow, as the party president, delayed action on the report. It was finally tabled on 8 August 2005—on the last possible day permissible by law for submission to parliament.
Singh spoke for many at the time when he confessed that:
“Years have passed and yet the feeling persists that somehow the truth has not come out and justice has not prevailed.”
Lok Sabha, 11 August 20053
During a parliamentary debate on the Nanavati report in August 2005, Singh issued a heartfelt apology for the tragic events of 1984, acknowledging the pain and suffering endured by the victims and expressing regret for the failure to prevent such atrocities.
“I have no hesitation in apologising not only to the Sikh community but the whole Indian nation because what took place in 1984 is the negation of the concept of nationhood and what is enshrined in our Constitution.”
Lok Sabha, 11 August 20054
Despite the sincerity of Singh’s apology, many observed that it came from a leader who had no role in the government during the massacres. The Gandhi family, particularly Rajiv Gandhi—who had once metaphorically justified the violence—remained silent on the issue throughout his lifetime, as did his wife, Sonia Gandhi, leaving critical questions of accountability unanswered.
But then he made the following remarks, which seemed to be an attempt to deflect blame from the upper echelons of a Congress government that they were in any way responsible for the events of November 1984:
“The Report is before us, and one thing it conclusively states is that there is no evidence, whatsoever, against the top leadership of the Congress Party.”
Lok Sabha, 11 August 20055
It is here that he dismissed allegations against the then-PM, Rajiv Gandhi, under whose watch the anti-Sikh massacres took place:
- Dismissal of Allegations Against Rajiv Gandhi: Singh, as a senior leader in the Congress Party, dismissed allegations against Rajiv Gandhi, despite the serious accusations of complicity and negligence in handling the aftermath of the assassination of Indira Gandhi. Rajiv Gandhi’s leadership faced widespread criticism for failing to curb the violence, and many alleged that there were direct or indirect connections between the Congress leadership and the violence that was inflicted on the Sikh community.
- Denial of Army Deployment: The records indicate that during the period of the violence, Rajiv Gandhi’s office was slow to deploy the Indian Army, which further escalated the violence. There were reports that the Army was not called in until the situation was already out of control, and this lack of timely intervention contributed to the scale of the massacre. The delayed response from the government reinforced accusations of negligence and inaction.
- Rajiv Gandhi’s “Big Tree” Remark: The statement “When a big tree falls, the earth shakes” by Rajiv Gandhi in the aftermath of his mother’s assassination was seen by many as an indirect justification of the violence. This remark, made in the emotional and charged atmosphere following Indira Gandhi’s death, was widely interpreted as minimizing the horrific violence that occurred. Instead of unequivocally condemning the killings, Rajiv Gandhi’s words seemed to suggest that the violence was an understandable or inevitable reaction to the assassination.
- Promotion of Perpetrators: Despite the violence and the many allegations against those responsible for it, some of the individuals linked to the massacres were not only allowed to go unpunished but were actually promoted within the Congress Party.
Jagdish Tytler was one of the ministers in Singh’s cabinet and amongst several Congress leaders indicted by the Nanavati Commission for his role in the massacres. Yet the Prime Minister went out of his way to shield his minister by referring to him as a ‘valued colleague’.6
The Action Taken Report (ATR) was made public on 8 August 2005 along with the Nanavati Report. In the ATR, it was clear the government had no intention of implementing the recommendations of Judge Nanavati. It promptly rejected much of the commission’s findings including taking action against sitting MPs, Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar. The Opposition, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by L.K. Advani of the BJP decided to seek adjournment motions in opposition of the government’s refusal to take the Nanavati Report seriously and allow a discussion on it. The Communist Party of India (CPM) and some of the reginal parties, who were part of the governing coalition declared that it would also vote against the government in the proposed adjournment motions.7
There is no doubt the action by the opposition parties forced the government to concede the demand to review the ATR and allow for a debate the next day. By the end of 9 August 2005, both Tytler and Kumar had resigned.
The death of H.K.L. Bhagat in November 2005, just two months after the resignations of Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar, was a deeply controversial moment, particularly in the context of the 1984 anti-Sikh massacres and the ongoing political discourse surrounding accountability. Bhagat, the former Member of Parliament (MP) for East Delhi, had been indicted by the Nanavati Commission for his involvement in the Trilokpuri massacre, one of the most brutal episodes during the anti-Sikh violence that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Sikhs in his constituency. Despite these grave allegations, Bhagat’s death was marked by tributes from top political leaders, including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress Party President Sonia Gandhi.8
Eight years later, another example of Congress Party commitment to shield alleged perpetrators from justice came in the case against Jagdish Tytler in 2013, when an Indian arms dealer, Abishek Verma, deposed before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) that Tytler had in 2008:
‘Boasted of having met the Prime Minister [Manmohan Singh] who in turn would ask Director/CBI to get the investigating conducted in his favour’.
The Economic Times, 3 June 20159
In 2019, now former PM, Singh blamed the then Home Minister Narsimha Rao for not calling out the army on the advice of Inder Kumar Gujral, another former Prime Minister:
“Gujral Ji was so concerned that he went to the then Home Minister Narsimha Rao that very evening .. the situation is so grave that it is necessary for the government to call the army at the earliest. If that advice would have been heeded perhaps the 1984 massacre could have been avoided.”
India Today. 5 December 2019.10
Yet what seems to be missing is the absence of action by the then Prime Minister and his cabinet. According to the lead lawyer for the victims, Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, H.S. Phoolka, Rao wanted to call out the army, but was prevented by the Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi.
“We have evidence that Narasimha Rao wanted to call the army, but the Prime Minister did not allow.”
H.S. Phoolka. NDTV. 5 December 2019.11
Dr. Manmohan Singh’s apology for the 1984 massacres in 2005 was a rare and significant gesture in Indian politics, signalling a recognition of past wrongs and a desire for reconciliation. It highlighted a contrast with the current administration under Narendra Modi, who has failed to take similar responsibility or offer an apology for the 2002 Gujarat pogrom despite serious allegations of state complicity.12
While Dr. Singh’s apology was a goodwill gesture, it did not meet the expectations of the victims for action. His inability to translate the apology into real consequences for those responsible meant that the government’s failure to address the issue became a source of further frustration for the victims.
This chapter in Indian history underscores the importance of justice and accountability, not just for the victims of the violence, but for the integrity of the political system itself. Without accountability, historical wounds remain open, and the trust between citizens and the state can be severely eroded.
Read more: Dr. Manmohan Singh’s Legacy and the 1984 Anti-Sikh Pogroms
- Manmohan Singh obituary. Mark Tully and Randeep Ramesh. The Guardian. 29 December 2024. ↩︎
- Manmohan Singh’s PhD thesis to help for Sikhs after 1984, gems surface online about former PM. The Telegraph India. 27 December 2024. ↩︎
- ‘PM’s intervention during the debate in Lok Sabha on motion for adjournment on need to take action against persons indicated by Nanavati Commission’, Lok Sabha, Press Information Bureau, Government of India, 11 August 2005. ↩︎
- ibid. ↩︎
- ibid. ↩︎
- PM apologises for 1984 riots. Business Standard. 14 Jun 2013. ↩︎
- When a Tree Shook Delhi. Manoj Mitta, H.S. Phoolka. Roli Books (New Delhi 2007). ↩︎
- PM paying homage to Cong leader HKL Bhagat. DPCCm office, New Delhi. 30 October 2005. Photo: Anu Pushkarna. ↩︎
- ‘Jagdish Tytler got clean chit after meeting Manmohan Singh The Economic Times, 3 June 2015. ↩︎
- 1984 riots could have been avoided, if Narasimha Rao had listened to IK Gujaral: Manmohan Singh. Anand Patel. India Today. 5 December 2019. ↩︎
- “Had IK Gujral’s Advice Been Heeded…”: Manmohan Singh On ’84 Riots. NDTV. 5 December 2019. ↩︎
- Manmohan Singh’s Apology, Narendra Modi’s Silence: The Tale of Two Carnages. Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay. The Wire. 30 December 2024. ↩︎
What actions did the late Dr. Manmohan Singh take as Prime Minister of India in regards to the anti-Sikh pogroms of November 1984?
Tweet
