A Sikh Perspective on the Hindu American Foundation’s “Khalistan” Brief

A Sikh Perspective on the Hindu American Foundation’s “Khalistan” Brief

The Hindu American Foundation’s “Khalistan” materials, including its law-enforcement policy brief, present themselves as neutral security guidance. In reality, they offer a narrow, highly selective narrative that risks stigmatizing an entire religious community and its political aspirations, while downplaying or erasing the large-scale human-rights violations that Sikhs have endured over the last century.

This response does not deny that serious acts of terrorism were carried out in the name of Khalistan, nor does it seek to excuse any attack on civilians—Hindu, Sikh, or anyone else. Those crimes are real and must be condemned without qualification.

What this rebuttal does insist on is:

1. Proportionality of narrative: You cannot tell the story of Punjab and Sikh political struggle by isolating militant violence and ignoring state atrocities, pogroms, and long-term structural harms.

2. Basic fairness to Sikhs in the diaspora: You cannot responsibly brief U.S. law enforcement in a way that encourages officers to see Sikh religious symbols, political speech, or gurdwara life as a proxy for extremism.

3. Respect for evidence: You cannot selectively quote from the record, amplify one set of numbers, and omit entire bodies of documentation that contradict a one-sided “movement of hate” framing.

The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) brief fails on all three.

1. Sikh History Cannot Be Reduced to “A Movement of Hate”

HAF’s core claim is that “Khalistan” is essentially a theocratic, hate-driven project that has manifested mainly through terrorism since the 1980s. Even within its own article, this claim is contradicted by the broader history it briefly acknowledges:

• It notes British divide-and-rule tactics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.(Hindu American Foundation)

• It mentions Punjabi Suba, the reorganization of Punjab in 1966, language and water disputes, and Sikh fears about erosion of identity.(Hindu American Foundation)

• It references Operation Blue Star and the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom, admitting that more than 3,000 Sikhs were massacred in Delhi alone with key perpetrators unpunished for decades.(Hindu American Foundation)

These are not “normal federalism issues.” They are structural and sometimes lethal injuries experienced by a minority community whose members had already lived through Partition, displacement, and repeated episodes of state violence.

To present the Khalistan idea as if it appeared fully formed out of religious hatred is historically inaccurate. Sikh demands have ranged from basic constitutional federalism and minority protection to full self-determination, and they have been expressed through peaceful democratic processes, civil-society work, and advocacy, not only through armed struggle. Treating all Sikh self-determination discourse as extremist erases vast numbers of peaceful, law-abiding Sikhs and flattens a complex political debate into a security problem.

2. Violence in Punjab Was Systemic—and Not Only from Militants

The HAF article lists a series of horrific militant attacks on buses, trains, festivals, and individual civilians in the 1980s and 1990s. Those attacks happened; many are corroborated in open-source reporting and human-rights documentation. They were devastating for Hindu and Sikh families alike, and any honest Sikh narrative must acknowledge that reality.

What HAF omits is equally important:

• Extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and torture by security forces: Independent human-rights organizations and quantitative researchers have documented thousands of enforced disappearances and suspected extrajudicial executions by Punjab police and security forces during the counterinsurgency period. A joint statistical analysis by human-rights researchers and the NGO Ensaaf concluded that patterns of killings and “encounter” deaths were systematic and not random “excesses.”(Ensaaf)

• Secret cremations and disposal of bodies: Investigations inspired by the work of Jaswant Singh Khalra uncovered large numbers of unidentified bodies illegally cremated by police, strongly suggesting attempts to destroy evidence of custodial killings.(Ensaaf)

• Torture and custodial abuse: Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and others have long reported on widespread torture in Punjab police stations and interrogation centers during this era, including against individuals who were never charged with any crime.(Wikipedia)

The HAF article devotes many paragraphs to militant atrocities and only a few lines to state abuses, describing them as “human rights abuses” that occurred when security forces “responded with force.”(Hindu American Foundation) That framing implies unfortunate but secondary side-effects of an otherwise legitimate security operation. It does not reflect the weight of evidence that much of this violence was systematic and illegal—not just “excess” but an integral part of how the conflict was prosecuted.

If law-enforcement officers are given a narrative in which Sikhs are primarily perpetrators and the state primarily a victim of terrorism that “occasionally overreacted,” they will not understand why many Sikhs see themselves as survivors of crimes against humanity as well as victims of militant violence. That misunderstanding is dangerous for policing, community trust, and basic fairness.

3. Casualty Numbers Are Contested—and So Is Responsibility

HAF asserts that the Khalistan movement resulted in “nearly 22,000 deaths… including approximately 12,000 civilians,” implying that militant actors bear overwhelming responsibility for the human toll in Punjab.(Hindu American Foundation)

In reality:

• Estimates of total deaths during the Punjab conflict vary significantly depending on methodology and sources.

• Many analyses do attribute thousands of civilian deaths to militant groups, but

• Other serious studies document thousands of killings and disappearances attributable to security forces and systematic abuses such as fake “encounters” and torture.(Ensaaf)

There is no single, universally accepted breakdown that attributes “22,000” deaths primarily to militants while reducing state responsibility to a footnote. To present such a number as settled fact—without clearly explaining sources, methods, and counter-evidence—is not neutral research; it is advocacy.

A responsible law-enforcement training would at minimum explain that:

• Militants committed grave atrocities, including bombings and massacres of civilians.

• State forces also committed grave, often unpunished abuses, including extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, and torture.

• Sikhs were victims on both sides of this violence—killed by militants for opposing them and killed or disappeared by security forces under suspicion or in reprisal.

HAF’s brief never squarely tells law-enforcement readers this full truth.

4. Diaspora “Khalistan” Advocacy Is Not Automatically Terrorism

HAF devotes significant space to diaspora groups—especially Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) and its legal advisor Gurpatwant Singh Pannun—emphasizing alleged links to designated terrorist organizations, Pakistan’s ISI, and historic plots.(Hindu American Foundation)

What is missing from this discussion is:

• Legal status in the United States and Canada: SFJ is banned in India, but in the U.S. it is not designated as a terrorist organization by the State Department. Advocacy for a referendum, even for secession, is protected political speech under U.S. constitutional law so long as it does not cross into material support for terrorism or direct incitement to imminent violence.(Wikipedia)

• Diversity of Sikh organizations: The majority of Sikh gurduaras, civil-rights groups, and community organizations in North America focus on religious life, education, charitable work, and civil liberties—not on armed struggle. Many have explicitly condemned terrorism and hate crimes in all forms.

• Context of recent events: Allegations about transnational plots or state-linked targeted killings (e.g., the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada and alleged plots against Pannun) are now the subject of high-level investigations and diplomatic disputes, including public statements from Canada and the U.S. regarding possible foreign government involvement.

HAF mentions Canadian and British consulate vandalism and protests but says virtually nothing about the documented history of Sikhs as victims of hate crimes in North America:

• Just days after 9/11, Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh gas-station owner in Arizona, was murdered by a man who explicitly said he was “going to go out and shoot some towel-heads.”(Sikh Coalition)

• In 2012, a white supremacist attacked a gurdwara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, killing six worshippers and wounding several others before dying at the scene.(Encyclopedia Britannica)

Any law-enforcement training that discusses Sikhs, security, and terrorism without also acknowledging these realities will be dangerously incomplete. It risks priming officers to see turbans, unshorn hair, or Khalistan slogans as warning signs of extremism, rather than as expressions of religion and political opinion by a community that has itself been repeatedly targeted.

5. Conflating Sikh Identity, Khalistan, and “Hinduphobia” Is Irresponsible

HAF’s narrative blurs key distinctions:

• Between Sikh and Khalistani (many Sikhs are not pro-Khalistan, and even among those who support the idea of Khalistan, methods and philosophies range from nonviolent legal advocacy to armed militancy, just as they do in any political movement).

• Between political criticism of the Indian state and hatred of Hindus as a people.

• Between historical statements by specific leaders (for example, inflammatory rhetoric attributed to Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale) and the teachings of Sikh theology, which reject caste, emphasize equality, and prohibit hatred of entire communities.

There were instances of anti-Hindu rhetoric and sectarian propaganda during the conflict, just as there have been instances of anti-Sikh propaganda and mob violence targeting Sikhs. Sikh ethics do not sanctify hatred; they condemn it. Using the worst rhetoric from a particular historical figure to paint all present-day Sikh activism or all expressions of “Khalistan” as inherently “Hinduphobic” is misleading and fuels inter-community suspicion.

Responsible law-enforcement guidance would:

• Encourage officers to distinguish between protected speech (even harsh criticism of India, Hindu nationalism, or specific politicians) and unlawful threats or incitement.

• Emphasize context, pattern, and specific behaviors rather than treating symbols or slogans as automatic risk indicators.

• Remind officers that Hindu communities too are sometimes targeted by hate crimes, and that Sikh and Hindu Americans often cooperate and coexist in the diaspora, despite political disagreements.

6. A Better Framework for Law Enforcement and the Public

A balanced, rights-respecting approach to Sikh issues and Khalistan in the diaspora would look very different from the HAF brief. It would:

1. Start from first principles: Sikhs are a small religious minority with a long documented history of military service, sacrifice, and also victimization—from colonial times to 1984 to post-9/11 hate crimes in the West.

2. Acknowledge all harms honestly:

   • Militant organizations committed serious crimes and must be opposed.

   • The Indian state and its security forces, as documented by multiple human-rights investigations, also committed serious, systematic abuses that remain insufficiently addressed.

3. Distinguish advocacy from violence:

   • Support for human rights, calls for accountability, or even political support for self-determination through peaceful means are not terrorism.

   • Actual material support to designated terrorist groups, threats to individuals, or plots to attack consulates or houses of worship are crimes and should be treated as such—without extrapolating guilt to an entire community.

4. Recognize Sikh communities as partners, not suspects:

   • Most Sikh institutions work closely with local police to improve temple security and prevent hate crimes.

   • Demonizing “Khalistan” and implying that Sikhs are inherently suspect will undermine the very cooperation that keeps everyone safer.

7. Conclusion

The Hindu American Foundation’s “Khalistan” law-enforcement brief and related article are not neutral security primers. They are advocacy documents that:

• magnify one dimension of a complex conflict,

• minimize or sanitize state violence and impunity,

• conflate an entire spectrum of Sikh political thought with extremism, and

• risk contributing to profiling and mistrust of Sikhs in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K.

A truly responsible discussion of Khalistan, Sikh history, and security would face all of the record—Operation Blue Star, the 1984 pogroms, enforced disappearances, militant atrocities, state crimes, and diaspora hate-crime victimization—without favoritism and without turning a deeply scarred community into a caricature.

Sikhs, like any other people, are not above criticism. But they are also not a convenient prop in someone else’s geopolitical narrative. Any law-enforcement agency or member of the public seeking to understand Khalistan, Sikh activism, or Punjab’s history should read widely, listen to multiple voices (including Sikh human-rights groups and survivors), and resist the temptation to accept one highly politicized brief as the final word.