It is an honour to present before this august gathering a paper titled “Countering Denial: The Case of the 1984 Sikh Genocide.”
Throughout their history, Sikhs have endured immense suffering, atrocities, and persecution — at scales that we would today define as genocide. The 18th century Sikh history records two Ghallugharas — a Punjabi term denoting mass persecution or holocaust. Far from forgetting these genocides, Sikhs made their remembrance part of their daily Ardas (prayer) and transformed that memory into a source of strength and resilience.
This paper focuses on how Sikhs are countering the denial of the 1984 Sikh Genocide — one of the darkest and most systematically denied episodes of mass violence in contemporary South Asia.
As Professor Gregory H. Stanton, founder of Genocide Watch, has aptly stated — “Denial follows every genocide. It is the final and never-ending stage of each genocide.”
The perpetrators of genocide — often states themselves — attempt to deny the fact of genocide in every conceivable manner. For the community that has suffered genocide, there remains no alternative but to confront and counter this denial:
- by realising and naming the true nature of the events,
- by gathering facts and evidence,
- by documenting and preserving memories, and
- by using every available resource to ensure official recognition of the genocide.
The events of 1984 are often divided into two connected but distinct episodes:
- June 1984 – the Indian Army’s coordinated assault on Sikh Gurdwaras in Punjab and adjoining states, and
- November 1984 – mass attacks on Sikh Gurdwaras, homes, businesses, and individuals across the Indian subcontinent.
The Indian government framed these through its own terminology:
- the June 1984 assault was termed “Operation Blue Star,” and
- the November massacres were described as “1984 riots.”
Sikhs, however, call these events the “Teeja Ghallughara” — the Third Holocaust — and the 1984 Sikh Genocide.
The power of terminology has been a key battlefield in countering denial. While the state propagated its framing through official documents, newspaper and media, and textbooks, Sikh institutions and independent media gradually established their own counter-narrative.
Publications such as Sikh Shahadat magazine, Bibekgarh publications, online media like Sikh Siyasat News, Sikh24, NeverForget84.com, oral history projects like 1984livinghistory.org and seminars, remembrance events by Sikh student bodies — all played an essential role in establishing the correct nomenclature and collective consciousness around the term “Sikh Genocide 1984.”
One major denial strategy employed by the Indian state was to limit the geographical scope of the violence — portraying it as a spontaneous riot confined to Delhi.
However, extensive documentation has disproved this narrative. Works such as Sikhan Da Katleaam by Sukhjeet Singh Sokhi, Sikh Nasalkushi 1984 edited by Ranjeet Singh and myself, and Sikh Nasalkushi Da Khura Khoj by Gurjant Singh Bal and Sukhjeet Singh Sadarkot, besides many other works have established that the attacks were widespread — stretching from Jammu and Kashmir in the north to Rameswaram in the far south of India.
The book Sirf Delhi Nahin (Not Only Delhi) by Gurjant Singh Bal lists genocidal attacks in over 300 towns and cities across 21 Indian states. The author travelled more than 300,000 kilometres in last five years, meeting survivors, collecting testimonies, and documenting evidence. This monumental work stands as a direct rebuttal to the Indian state’s claim that the violence was confined to Delhi.
Another tactic of denial has been the minimisation of death tolls.
While Delhi Police records mention 1,605 deaths, the government’s official count stands at 2,733.
However, on 2 November 1989, The Sikh Forum published a list in The Indian Express naming 3,870 Sikhs killed in Delhi alone.
Furthermore, new discoveries — such as the mass grave found in Hondh-Chillar village (Haryana) in 2010 — and subsequent research have revealed a far higher death toll across India.
These findings demonstrate that the 1984 genocide was both broader and deadlier than officially acknowledged.
Even as early as November 1984, human rights groups like PUCL and PUDR documented the uniform pattern of the attacks: the same modus operandi, identical slogans, coordinated use of voter lists, and systematic targeting of Sikh men, women, and Gurdwaras, in their valuable report tilted “Who are Guilty?”
Recent works such as Sikh Nasalkushi Da Khura Khoj (Footprints of the Sikh Genocide) have further confirmed this pattern, showing identical forms of violence in distant regions — clear evidence of central orchestration rather than local spontaneity.
It was long believed that the destruction of Sikh Gurdwaras occurred primarily in June 1984 during the military assault. However, new research reveals that thousands of Gurdwaras were attacked again in November 1984.
The recurring pattern was chillingly systematic: attackers would first burn down the Gurdwara Sahib, then proceed to destroy Sikh homes and businesses, killing Sikh residents—primarily males between the ages of 15 and 50—and subjecting Sikh women to rape.
Many Gurdwaras were razed completely; some were even converted into Hindu temples. While Sikhs have rebuilt many of them, others, such as Gurdwara of Hondh Chillar village remain unreconstructed — silent witnesses to genocide.
The most effective way to counter denial is official recognition.
In the last 15 years, the Sikh community, particularly in the diaspora, has made significant progress in this regard. The updated edition of our book “Sikh Genocide 1984: Eyewitness Accounts, Analysis, and Documents” lists 43 official documents — including assembly resolutions, proclamations, and statements — recognising the 1984 events as genocide.
Notably:
- On 30 June 2015, the Delhi State Assembly unanimously passed a motion condemning the November 1984 violence as the “Sikh Genocide.”
- Legislative bodies in Ontario (Canada), California, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and New Jersey in the United States have recognised the 1984 violence as “genocide”.
These outcomes are largely the result of the tireless efforts of Sikh diaspora organisations that have campaigned with persistence despite challenges posed by the Indian state.
Recognition efforts have often been met with resistance from the Indian state.
For instance, when the Connecticut State Assembly was to pass a bill recognising the Sikh Genocide, the Indian High Commission attempted to intervene — writing to US lawmakers to oppose the motion. Yet, Senator Kathy Osten courageously exposed these efforts during the inaugural Sikh Genocide Remembrance Day in Connecticut, dismissing the Indian High Commission’s letter as “nothing more than a document of denial.”
Similarly, Canada’s Jagmeet Singh and Harinder Malhi faced diplomatic and media targeting after the Ontario Assembly passed its motion recognising the genocide. The global Sikh community rallied in their defence.
When Pennsylvania passed a similar resolution, Indian media outlets — including The Week, Business Standard, The Tribune, PTC, and Ajit — circulated false reports claiming that the resolution had been withdrawn. This falsehood was exposed by Sikh Siyasat News, which was subsequently blocked in India — a move that itself revealed the lengths of official denial.
Sikhs have also countered denial by exposing the inherent weaknesses of India’s legal system.
In the landmark 2018 judgment of State Through CBI vs Sajjan Kumar, Justices S. Muralidhar and Vinod Goyal of the Delhi High Court observed, and I quote:
“Common to these mass crimes were the targeting of minorities and the attacks spearheaded by the dominant political actors being facilitated by law enforcement agencies. The criminals responsible for these mass crimes have enjoyed political patronage and managed to evade prosecution and punishment. This calls for strengthening the legal system. Neither ‘crimes against humanity’ nor ‘genocide’ is part of our domestic law of crime. This loophole needs to be addressed urgently.”
This judicial statement — from within India’s own system — validates the broader argument: that the denial of genocide is enabled by institutional voids and political complicity.
To conclude, denial is not merely a refusal to acknowledge the past — it is an active continuation of genocide in the realm of memory, truth, and justice.
Even today, Sikhs continue to face coordinated propaganda campaigns that call for a repeat of 1984 to “teach Sikhs a lesson.” However, the global Sikh community has learned its own lessons — and one of the most vital among them is that remembrance and recognition are essential to preventing the recurrence of genocide in the future.
The Sikh response to denial has been to remember, to document, to rebuild, and to speak truth to power. From community-driven documentation to international recognition campaigns, from survivors’ testimonies to legal battles, Sikhs have turned remembrance into resistance.
The case of the 1984 Sikh Genocide reminds us that memory is not passive recollection — it is moral action.
It challenges us, as genocide scholars and as members of the global community, to ensure that denial never becomes the final word.