This statement critically analyzes and rebuts the claims made by Ramya Ramakrishnan, The Director of Community Outreach at the Hindu American Foundation on October 9, 2024, titled “If you are a proud and vocal Hindu American, you may not be safe”
The statement is riddled with historical inaccuracies and fear-mongering, all of which are thoroughly addressed in the analysis below.
The article begins by addressing Joe Rubin, a reporter for the Sacramento Bee who published a bombshell piece which exposed the perspective of organizations such as the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) towards Sikhs.
Shortly after, the statement by Ramakrishnan, notes that Rubin seemed uninterested in what she deemed as the “real issues,” and instead asked questions which made it clear that he was on the side of (Pro-Khalistan) vandals.
“In the past couple of years there have been several incidents of vandalism targeting Hindus and Hindu places of worship across the country. The graffiti in many incidents strongly points to supporters of the movement to create a Sikh theocratic state called Khalistan, taking land from India to do so.”
Hindu Mandhirs have been vandalized in California, Vancouver, Toronto, and Australia internationally over the last few years, with graffiti which appears to be supportive of the Khalistan movement, but not a single investigation has pointed definitively to the perpetrators. No arrests have been made, yet the conclusions drawn by organizations such as the Hindu American Foundation and Indian Media, are “this is proof that the Khalistan Movement is anti-Hindu.”
The investigation into the Mandhir vandalization in Queensland, Australia concluded with authorities stating that they saw a “Hindu Hand” in the incidents. Detectives in the case found it odd that the temple’s CCTV cameras were dysfunctional, and since there were no suspects, concluded that this may be a false flag operation to misdirect the authorities into investigating pro-Khalistan Sikhs
All other investigations into these vandalisms have similar conditions— dysfunctional security cameras, no suspects, and premature attribution of guilt drawn by pro-India voices like the (HAF). If the investigations have not concluded, and the one that has suggests a “Hindu Hand” in it, it is both unwise and unreasonable to attribute guilt— that too, conveniently to a politically opposing movement
The statement then rattles off a multitude of debunked Indian State talking points in regards to Khalistan:
“Khalistan is a violent movement”
“Khalistan is a project of Pakistan”
“Khalistan has no support in Panjab”
“Khalistan is a threat to Hindus”
The above statements are unequivocally false even upon a surface level analysis of history. The idea of “Khalistan,” a Sikh state, initially began before the partition of India in 1947. Sikhs, in their own sovereign land from the late 1700’s to the mid 1800’s, Panjab, were less than 10% of the population. Muslims comprised of about 65%, Hindus 20%, and others, including Christians, Buddhists, and Jains, were the remaining portion. Sikhs were a minority in their own territory, yet their ideals safeguarded the rights of all religious groups.
The example of the above Sikh rule, or Sikh Raj, led to a proposition, pre-partition of India and Pakistan, for a separate Sikh homeland, just as it was prior to the 1849 annexation of it by the British. These proposals were denied, and Sikhs were persuaded by senior Hindu leadership to join the Indian Union. These assurances were reneged immediately after partition, which commenced another era of occupation of Panjab, an occupation that continues today
Sikhs began advocating for their rights immediately after the 1947 partition, and have seen their native land exploited and looted since. In modern day India, many estimate that upwards of a million Sikhs have been tortured, jailed, and murdered by Indian authorities. In 1984, through a massive state funded propaganda campaign led by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Indian authorities laid siege to the epicenter of the Sikh Faith, Sri Harimandir Sahib, or what many refer to as the Golden Temple. The Indian army, with machine guns and tanks, desecrated all structures inside the complex, massacring thousands of worshippers. This attack was justified by the Indian Government as an operation to “flush out terrorists, who had been holding the complex hostage.” There was no evidence to indicate that the complex and its attendees were being held hostage, however the Indian public was informed incorrectly as part of a larger strategy of genocide
This attack was followed by what has been coined by Human Rights Organizations as “The Decade of Disappearances.” From 1985 to 1995, Indian authorities were given the order by the Central Government to arbitrarily abduct and disappear Sikh men between 15-50. Hundreds of thousands of Sikhs were executed, and disposed of in rivers, or as unidentified bodies in crematoriums.
The brutality leading up to 1984, as well as the events after gave rise to the Sikh armed struggle. Seeing their overt oppression, Sikhs resisted said oppression in what they decided was the only plausible method the time— an armed resistance. This is presented today, by India and its proxies, as terrorism. The Sikh guerrilla movement sought to punish the perpetrators of crimes, and attain a sovereign homeland, where their beliefs could be safeguarded.
Seeing the success of the guerilla movement, and the support of it from the people of Panjab, Indian authorities continued their “threat to Hindus” propaganda campaign to gain support of their genocide of Sikhs amongst the masses. In reality, the Sikh resistance was never directed at any religious group, but to quell the tide of brutality they faced. The fear mongering of the Indian State has now found footing in foreign countries, as indicated by the title of the article addressed, “If you are a proud and vocal Hindu American, you may not be safe”
Today, even leaders of western countries have pointed to transnational repression by the Indian Government of Sikhs on their sovereign soil, including successful and unsuccessful assassinations. Hundreds of Sikhs today languish in Indian jails past their jail sentences, and those who perpetrate atrocities of Sikhs enjoy impunity in the Indian State
“Khalistan is a project of Pakistan”
For decades, pro-Indian government voices have perpetuated a causal fallacy. “Since the Khalistan movement does not demand a piece of Pakistan, they must be funded by Pakistani agencies exclusively to damage India.”
When the British left the Indian subcontinent in 1947, Sikhs were left out of any negotiations that would return to them the sovereign rule they maintained over Panjab, which was officially annexed by the British a century prior. Before the 1947 partition, to persuade Sikhs to join modern day India, Hindu leaders such as Mohandas Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, who were given control of India upon Britain’s exit, would go on record and making statements such as:
“The brave Sikhs of Panjab are entitled to special consideration. I see nothing wrong in an area and a set up in the North wherein the Sikhs can also experience the glow of freedom.”
Jawaharlal Nehru, Congress meeting:
Calcutta - July, 1944
“No Constitution would be acceptable to the Congress which did not satisfy the sikhs.”
Collected works of M K Gandhi
Vol.58. p. 192
"I ask you to accept my word and the Resolution of the Congress that it will not betray a single individual, much less a community. If it ever thinks of doing so, it would only hasten to its own doom. I pray you to unbosom yourself of all doubts and apprehensions.”
Gurdwara Sis Ganj Sahib, Delhi, February 24, 1931
“Take my word that if ever the Congress or I betray you, you will be justified to draw the sword as taught by Guru Gobind [Singh].''
-Mohandas Gandhi
These assurances were all entirely false, and were rescinded soon after the partition of India, however the migration caused by such false promises was substantive. At partition, almost all Sikhs who resided in current day Pakistan, migrated to India. This resulted in a shift in demography which today is as the following: 24 Million Sikhs reside in Panjab on the Indian side, and 70 thousand in Pakistan
When advocating for self-determination, a homeland, should Sikhs begin where 24,000,000 of them reside, or where 70,000 do?
“Khalistan has no support in Panjab”
This misconception has been propagated by Indian State supporters to point at how the movement for Sikh sovereignty, Khalistan, is a phenomenon of the west, and how no Sikhs in Panjab even want freedom. This myth has been debunked repeatedly, and was yet again proven false when a number of Pro-Khalistan Sikhs were elected by landslide margins, in elections they contested within Panjab. Can the Indian Government, and its proxies such as HAF, truly hold the position that “no one in India wants Khalistan,” when the consequence for voicing your support for it there is jail or death?
The statement by Ramakrishnan goes on to further prematurely implicate pro-Khalistan Sikhs of vandalizing Mandhirs, before listing a number of incidents where pro-Khalistan Sikhs were allegedly harassing Hindus online and in person. This would again propagate the idea that Khalistan is anti-Hindu.
During the Khalistan Referendum voting in San Francisco, California, in January, 2024, over 127,000 Sikhs voiced their support for Khalistan. Another 30,000 who were standing in lines were turned away due to time running out. And this was in one city on one days. Referendums held in Vancouver, Toronto, Australia, and many countries in Europe, all saw even larger turnouts. Many of the places mentioned had Mandhirs vandalized suspiciously before the referendum votes.
Hypothetically, if someone singular individual, or even a group of individuals. out of the millions that support Khalistan peacefully all over the world made a derogatory statement toward a Hindu, is that representative of the entire movement?
Ramakrishnan then asks Sikhs if they condemn inflammatory comments by a spokesperson of a pro-Khalistan organization. First, one organization does not represent an entire movement. Second, even if it did, why is the burden of condemnation always placed upon the oppressed? Sikhs who support Khalistan do not support places of worship being attacked, or inflammatory comments, but is it their responsibility, as an oppressed people, to issue condemnations, despite a generation of theirs murdered at the hands of the Indian State? Still, they do, and this is a testament to their faith
In conclusion, the article points at a lack of involvement by the US authorities in safeguarding Hindus from “Khalistani extremists.” This is despite thousands of Hindus regularly being present at Sikh places of worship that are openly pro-Khalistan, and coexisting in harmony. Fear mongering from such organizations parrots the tactics the Indian government uses to justify repression in India.
Ramakrishnan’s statement, which claims a lack of protection for Hindu Americans against “Khalistani extremists,” is an extension of fear-mongering tactics often used by the Indian state to justify its suppression of Sikh demands for justice. The peaceful coexistence of Sikhs and Hindus at Sikh places of worship around the world contradicts the divisive narrative promoted by organizations like HAF. Fear-based rhetoric only serves to distract from the legitimate grievances and aspirations of the Sikh community.
