The provocation for this comment comes from the latest threats issued by Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, the legal advisor and de facto leader of Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), an outfit that claims to fight for an independent Khalistan. Pannun, in a video message circulated ahead of Diwali, warned the people of Punjab against celebrating the festival of lights. According to him, lighting diyas and celebrating Diwali would invite dire consequences; instead, he instructed Sikhs to only celebrate Bandi Chhod Divas, the day commemorating the release of Guru Hargobind Singh Ji from Mughal captivity in Gwalior.
This attempt to intimidate Sikhs into replacing a festival celebrated by all Indians with a narrower, sectarian alternative is deeply troubling. It is not the commemoration of Bandi Chhod Divas that is objectionable — Sikhs have always marked the occasion with reverence and joy — but rather the threatening tone that alienates Sikhs from their compatriots and turns a religious celebration into a divisive political tool.
The essential point is this: while it is the democratic right of any group to voice its demand for autonomy or even independence, there can be no justification for violence or intimidation as instruments of political struggle. History is full of examples where nations reorganized peacefully. The Soviet Union broke into multiple republics, Czechoslovakia split amicably into two states, and even within South Asia, Bangladesh emerged after a brutal but decisive conflict rooted in overwhelming popular will. None of these outcomes relied on one man sitting overseas issuing threats to ordinary citizens about how they should celebrate their festivals.
Gurpatwant Singh Pannun is a US-Canada-based lawyer who has made himself the face of the Khalistan movement abroad. Through Sikhs for Justice, an organization banned in India under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Pannun has tried to keep alive the embers of a separatist project that has little resonance among Sikhs in India today. Punjab, scarred by two decades of militancy from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, has moved on. Its people, who lost thousands of lives to terrorism, crave peace, prosperity, and stability. For them, Khalistan is not a dream but a nightmare of the past.
Yet Pannun and his handful of associates continue to exploit the openness of Western democracies to stage referendums, spread propaganda, and issue threats against Indian institutions and leaders. India has repeatedly lodged protests with Washington and Ottawa, pointing out that such activities are inimical to the spirit of friendship between India and these countries. Both the US and Canada count India as a strategic partner — in trade, technology, and geopolitics — and it is only reasonable that they restrain individuals and groups who use their soil to undermine the sovereignty of a friendly nation.
The Right to Dissent vs. The Wrong of Terror
It is important to draw a sharp distinction between the right to dissent and the wrong of terror. Every people, in principle, have the right to articulate aspirations for self-determination. This is embedded in international law and reflected in the UN Charter. But the methods used to pursue such aspirations matter as much as the goals. When Pannun threatens ordinary citizens for celebrating Diwali, he is not advancing a political argument; he is engaging in intimidation. When his organization calls for violent attacks on Indian institutions, it crosses the line from advocacy to terrorism.
Contrast this with legitimate struggles for statehood or autonomy in other parts of the world. The Baltic states, for instance, did not threaten ordinary Russians with violence during their independence movements; they built broad-based consensus and leveraged global support. In Czechoslovakia, the “Velvet Divorce” between Czechs and Slovaks was negotiated without bloodshed. Even when violence was part of national movements — as in Bangladesh’s struggle in 1971 — it was waged against oppressive regimes, not targeted at civilians celebrating cultural or religious festivals.
By resorting to threats, Pannun not only delegitimizes his own cause but also tarnishes the global image of Sikhs, a community widely admired for its valor, industriousness, and generosity.
Sikhism’s Universal Message vs. Pannun’s Divisive Rhetoric
Sikh history and philosophy stand in stark contrast to Pannun’s divisive politics. The Sikh Gurus envisioned a community rooted in equality, compassion, and justice. Guru Nanak’s teachings transcended religion and geography, speaking to humanity at large. Guru Hargobind Singh Ji, whose release Bandi Chhod Divas celebrates, did not ask his followers to divide themselves from others but fought for the freedom of all, including 52 Hindu princes held in captivity.
Diwali itself has long been a shared festival — celebrated by Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists, each attaching their own historical and spiritual meaning. To threaten Sikhs not to celebrate it is to deny the pluralism and openness that lies at the heart of Sikh identity. Far from empowering the community, such rhetoric isolates Sikhs from their fellow Indians and feeds suspicion abroad.
Implications for India, the Sikh Diaspora, and Host Nations
For India, Pannun’s threats are a reminder of the painful decades of militancy in Punjab when thousands died in a futile insurgency. The Indian state has a duty to protect its citizens from intimidation, whether domestic or international. New Delhi has rightly pressed Washington and Ottawa to curb the activities of SFJ, and will continue to do so with greater urgency as Pannun escalates his rhetoric.
For the Sikh diaspora, Pannun’s antics are a double-edged sword. While some young Sikhs abroad may be swayed by emotive appeals to identity, most recognize that threats and intimidation discredit their community. Sikhs are among the most successful immigrant groups in Canada, the US, and the UK, contributing disproportionately in politics, business, and public life. Allowing a fringe separatist narrative to dominate public perception risks undoing decades of goodwill and hard-earned respect.
The Path Forward
It is time for Sikhs, both in India and abroad, to condemn Pannun and SFJ with one voice. Their campaign is not only against India but against the very spirit of Sikhism, which has always stood for universal brotherhood. The Sikh community’s achievements across the world — from farming in Punjab to business in Canada, from military valor to humanitarian service — cannot be overshadowed by the reckless threats of a handful of individuals.
The path forward lies in reaffirming what has always been true: that differences of opinion, even on questions as profound as statehood, must be addressed through dialogue, democratic processes, and peaceful advocacy. Violence, intimidation, and threats have no place in the discourse of civilized societies.
The right to demand Khalistan, or any other political goal, is not in itself illegitimate. What is illegitimate is the use of threats and terror to advance that demand. By warning Punjabis not to light diyas on Diwali, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun has crossed a moral and political red line. He has shown that his campaign is less about the aspirations of Sikhs and more about stoking fear and division.
India has walked this road before. It survived Partition, militancy, and secessionist violence. It will not be shaken by the video threats of one man abroad. What is at stake now is the reputation of the Sikh community and the credibility of the democracies that host Pannun. If the US and Canada truly value their friendship with India, they must ensure that their soil is not used to incubate threats against a partner nation.
Let it be said clearly: political objectives may be anyone’s right, but the method of terror and intimidation will never be legitimate.
Be the first to comment