THE GREAT INDIAN DEBATE — DAY 44 Was Rajiv Gandhi's handling of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots ever properly accounted for?
THE STAKES In June 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking a fresh probe into the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, citing the passage of four decades. The decision reignited debates not just about justice delayed, but about the role of the state in enabling—or failing to prevent—mass violence. With the 40th anniversary of the riots approaching, and survivors still awaiting closure, the question lingers: Was the political leadership of the time ever truly held to account, or did impunity become the norm? The answer shapes how India confronts its history of communal violence—and whether future leaders believe they can act with impunity.
THE ARGUMENT FOR: YES, RAJIV GANDHI’S ROLE WAS ACCOUNTED FOR (AND FOUND WANTING, BUT NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE)
Those who argue that Rajiv Gandhi’s handling of the 1984 riots was properly scrutinized point to the multiple commissions, inquiries, and legal proceedings that followed the violence. The most prominent was the Nanavati Commission (2000-2005), which examined the role of Congress leaders, including Rajiv Gandhi, in the riots. While the commission found that local Congress workers were involved in inciting violence, it did not hold Rajiv Gandhi directly responsible for the killings. His defenders argue that as Prime Minister, he was not on the ground in Delhi and could not have personally orchestrated the pogrom.
Moreover, the Mishra Commission (1987) and the Kapur Mittal Committee (1987) both investigated the riots, and while they criticized the Delhi Police and local administration for inaction, they did not implicate Rajiv Gandhi in a criminal conspiracy. The Supreme Court’s 2018 decision to uphold the conviction of Congress leader Sajjan Kumar—while significant—did not extend to Rajiv Gandhi, who had passed away in 1991. His supporters argue that the legal system, flawed as it may be, did its job: it investigated, it prosecuted where evidence existed, and it did not find Rajiv Gandhi guilty of direct involvement.
There is also the argument of political context. The riots occurred in the immediate aftermath of Indira Gandhi’s assassination by her Sikh bodyguards, an event that triggered a spontaneous, if horrific, backlash. Rajiv Gandhi’s infamous remark—"When a big tree falls, the earth shakes"—was widely condemned as insensitive, but some historians argue it reflected the shock and grief of the moment rather than a deliberate incitement to violence. The Justice Ranganath Misra Commission (1986) noted that the riots were not pre-planned but escalated due to administrative failures, not a central conspiracy.
Finally, those who believe Rajiv Gandhi was accounted for point to the Congress party’s own reckoning. In 2005, then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a Sikh, publicly apologized for the riots, and the Congress later expelled leaders like Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar. If the party itself acknowledged its failures, why should Rajiv Gandhi be singled out beyond what the courts and commissions have already established?
THE ARGUMENT AGAINST: NO, RAJIV GANDHI’S ROLE WAS NEVER FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR
Critics argue that Rajiv Gandhi’s handling of the 1984 riots was never properly investigated because the institutions meant to hold him accountable were compromised from the start. The Nanavati Commission, while damning in its findings against local Congress leaders, stopped short of examining Rajiv Gandhi’s role in depth. The commission’s mandate was limited to the "sequence of events," not the political decisions that enabled the violence. For instance, why did the Delhi Police—under the Union Home Ministry’s control—fail to act for three days? Why were curfews imposed too late, and why were army units delayed? These were questions the commissions either avoided or answered inadequately.
The Mishra Commission, headed by a sitting Supreme Court judge, was widely criticized for its lack of transparency. Its report was never made public in full, and it exonerated the Delhi administration and police with minimal scrutiny. The Kapur Mittal Committee, which investigated police complicity, was disbanded before it could complete its work. Survivors and activists have long argued that these inquiries were designed to protect the powerful, not deliver justice.
Then there is the question of political will. Rajiv Gandhi’s government did not order a CBI probe into the riots, unlike the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy, which saw immediate central intervention. The Delhi High Court’s 2018 judgment in the Sajjan Kumar case noted that the riots were a "crime against humanity" enabled by a "political patronage" that went beyond local leaders. If the state machinery was complicit, how could the Prime Minister—who controlled that machinery—not bear responsibility?
Perhaps the most damning indictment comes from Rajiv Gandhi’s own words and actions. His "big tree" remark was not just a gaffe; it was a dog whistle that signaled impunity to rioters. His government rewarded officials who failed to protect Sikhs, including Delhi’s Lt. Governor P.G. Gavai, who was later given a gubernatorial post. And while Manmohan Singh’s apology in 2005 was symbolic, the Congress party never expelled Rajiv Gandhi’s close aides who were accused of orchestrating the violence, like Kamal Nath, who was later made Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh.
Finally, there is the matter of justice denied. Of the 3,325 Sikhs killed in Delhi alone, only 30 people have been convicted in 40 years. The CBI’s 2023 closure report on the remaining cases cited "lack of evidence," a claim survivors reject as a cover-up. If Rajiv Gandhi’s role was truly accounted for, why do so many families still feel that the truth was buried with him?
THE HIDDEN DIMENSION: THE UNWRITTEN RULE OF INDIAN POLITICS—IMMUNITY FOR THE POWERFUL
Most debates about 1984 focus on legal accountability, but the real issue is political immunity. India has a long history of mass violence—1947, 1984, 1992, 2002—where the state either fails to prevent riots or actively enables them. Yet, in almost every case, no senior leader has ever been convicted. The pattern suggests an unwritten rule: the higher the office, the lower the accountability.
This is not just about Rajiv Gandhi. It’s about how India’s political class treats communal violence as a tool, not a crime. The 1984 riots were not an aberration; they were a blueprint. The Congress’s initial denial, the BJP’s later politicization of the issue, and the judiciary’s glacial pace all reinforce the same message: leaders can get away with it if they control the narrative. The hidden dimension here is not just about 1984, but about whether India’s democracy has the stomach to punish its own elites—or whether impunity is the price of power.
WHERE INDIANS STAND
There is no comprehensive national survey on public opinion about Rajiv Gandhi’s role in 1984, but regional and demographic divides are stark. A 2014 Lokniti-CSDS survey found that 62% of Sikhs believed the Congress was responsible for the riots, compared to 38% of non-Sikhs. In Punjab, where the Sikh vote is decisive, the Congress’s association with 1984 has been a permanent electoral liability, contributing to its near-wipeout in the state in 2022. Meanwhile, in Hindu-majority states, the issue is rarely a voting factor, suggesting that memory of 1984 is deeply communalized.
YOUR VIEW If the Indian state has failed to hold its leaders accountable for mass violence in 1984, 1992, and 2002, is the problem the law—or the people who enforce it?
This newsletter aims to clarify genuine arguments on complex issues. It does not endorse any political position or party.