Britain Admits ‘Limited’ Advisory Role in India’s Deadly 1984 Raid on Sikh Temple

By Raphael Satter and Katy Daigle

Britain admits ‘limited’ advisory roleA UK military officer’s advice to Indian authorities had only a “limited impact” on the final plan for the 1984 attack on an Indian temple, Foreign Secretary William Hague tells MPs.

The British government has acknowledged advising the Indian government ahead of its 1984 raid on the Golden Temple in Amritsar, an admission which links the United Kingdom — India’s former colonial master – with one of the bloodiest episodes in the subcontinent’s recent history.

Foreign Secretary William Hague told Parliament on Tuesday that British military advice was “purely advisory” and had only a “limited impact” on the operation, but the acknowledgement of any kind of a link to the deadly attack may be discomfiting.

“A single U.K. military officer provided some advice. But critically, this advice was not followed, and it was a one-off,” Prime Minister David Cameron said in a video message to the Sikh community in Britain.

Still, the acknowledgment of any link to the deadly attack that killed hundreds if not thousands at Sikhs’ holy temple will be disturbing to many.

The storming of the Golden Temple in Amritsar was one of the most contentious episodes in the Indian government’s battle against Sikh separatists, whose violent campaign for an independent homeland in the Punjab region smouldered into the 1970s and 80s.

“It is awkward,” said Sumit Ganguly, an Indiana University professor and the co-author of a book on Amritsar. “The evidence that the British government might have provided some assistance in terms of the planning of this event is once again going to stoke old memories, memories that had long been buried.”

Hague said the situation and planning changed significantly between the British adviser’s visit in February and the Indian government’s assault on June 5-7.

“The number of dissident forces was considerably larger by that time, and the fortifications inside the site were more extensive,” he said.

Sikh militants had holed up in the temple for months, but the Indian army botched its attempt to clear them from holy site, at first underestimating the resistance before being drawn into vicious hand-to-hand combat. Hague noted reports that as many as 3,000 people were killed though the Indian government put the toll at 575.

The attack outraged Sikhs and led to a catastrophic breakdown in communal relations.

“It’s of enormous significance,” said Ganguly. “This involved sending in the Indian army into one of the holiest shrines – if not the holiest shrine – of Sikhism. Even Sikhs who were opposed to the insurgency were deeply and profoundly hurt by the use of armed force against their place of worship.”

When prime minister Indira Gandhi was killed in a revenge attack a few months later, the country erupted. Mobs overran trains and went house to house across northern India, beating and lynching Sikhs, hacking many to death and burning others alive. Many more died as the country convulsed with violence, further feeding the insurgency.

Before it was stamped out in the late 1980s, the rebellion eventually cost more than 18,000 lives, including 329 people killed in an Air India jetliner explosion over the Atlantic Ocean blamed on Canada-based Sikhs.

Britain’s government had recently ordered an urgent investigation into possible British nvolvement in the raid after recently declassified documents suggested a special forces officer advised the Indians with the approval of Britain’s then-prime minister, Margaret Thatcher.

Hague said the review “finds that the nature of the U.K.’s assistance was purely advisory, limited and provided to the Indian government at an early stage; that it had limited impact on the tragic events that unfolded at the temple three months later.”

Manjeet Singh, a leader of Akali Dal, the Sikh governing party in northern Punjab state where the army action took place said that Britain owed “an unconditional apology” irrespective of whether their role was merely advisory or something more.

“Whatever they have revealed is not full information,” he said. “They should come out with all facts.”

India’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Syed Akbaruddin said the British “have just shared the documentation and conclusions of their inquiry,” saying he could not immediately comment as officials were still reviewing the report.

Gregory Katz contributed to this report.

Courtesy of


Be Sociable, Share!

You may also like...