The 1984 Riots remain one of the darkest chapters in independent India’s history, and a recently highlighted passage from former Congress Union Minister Salman Khurshid’s writings has reignited debate over how the violence was perceived at the time. In his book At Home in India: A Restatement of Indian Muslims, Khurshid described what he called a “terrible satisfaction” among some Muslims following the assassination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, suggesting that Hindus and Sikhs were seen by them as paying for their alleged “sins” dating back to Partition.
The passage has resurfaced decades after it was originally published and has attracted criticism because of the way communal violence and historical grievances are connected. According to the text cited by The Commune, Khurshid wrote that some Muslims had not forgotten the “unpleasant aftermath” of Partition and viewed the suffering that followed Indira Gandhi’s assassination through the prism of what they believed had happened in 1947.
The 1984 Riots erupted after Indira Gandhi was assassinated by two of her Sikh bodyguards on October 31, 1984. Anti-Sikh violence subsequently spread across several parts of the country, with Delhi witnessing particularly horrific attacks. Thousands of Sikhs were killed, families were devastated and properties were destroyed. The violence left a lasting scar on the national conscience.
What makes the resurfaced passage particularly controversial is its language of collective responsibility. Khurshid’s account describes a perception among some Muslims that Hindus and Sikhs were “paying” for bloodshed associated with Partition and for Indira Gandhi’s death. The argument, critics say, risks treating entire communities as responsible for historical events involving people who lived generations earlier.
The 1984 Riots cannot be understood simply as an extension of Partition-era grievances. The people who suffered in the violence were individuals and families, many of whom had no connection whatsoever to the events of 1947. Turning a communal tragedy into an alleged form of historical repayment raises fundamental questions about collective guilt and the moral consequences of such thinking.
The timing of the controversy has also drawn attention because of Khurshid’s later political career. He became a senior Congress leader and served in several important Union ministries during the Manmohan Singh-led UPA government, including the Ministry of Minority Affairs, the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Ministry of External Affairs.
Importantly, the book containing the passage predates Khurshid’s ministerial career. The Commune notes that At Home in India: A Restatement of Indian Muslims was published in 1986 by Vikas Publishing House. A separate work, At Home in India: The Muslim Saga, appeared in 2014.
The resurfacing of the passage has therefore prompted renewed scrutiny of how political and intellectual figures interpreted the aftermath of the 1984 Riots. While historical writings can document the attitudes and emotions prevalent within sections of society, critics argue that describing mass suffering in terms of communities “paying” for supposed ancestral wrongdoing crosses an important moral boundary.
There is also a broader lesson in the controversy. The 1984 Riots demonstrated how quickly political assassination, communal suspicion and organised violence could combine to produce catastrophic consequences. The victims should not be reduced to symbols of a political argument, nor should their suffering be interpreted as deserved punishment for events that occurred decades earlier.
The 1984 Riots continue to demand historical honesty, accountability and sensitivity toward victims. Revisiting old writings can be useful when it encourages society to confront uncomfortable truths, but such examination should not become an excuse for reproducing communal stereotypes or assigning collective guilt.
Ultimately, the debate surrounding Khurshid’s words is about more than one passage in an old book. The 1984 Riots remain a reminder of the dangers of viewing citizens through the actions of communities, political movements or generations that came before them. History may explain how people arrived at moments of violence, but it cannot make violence against innocent individuals morally acceptable. The enduring responsibility is to remember the victims as individuals and ensure that historical grievances are never again transformed into justification for communal punishment.
