Punjab (India): The Quest for Khalistan and the Politics of Memory
1. BASIC FACTS & HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The conflict in Punjab is rooted in the complex aftermath of the 1947 Partition of India, which left the Sikh community—a distinct religious group with its own history, scripture, and aspiration for its own homeland—divided and uncertain of its place within the new Hindu-majority nation. While the Indian Constitution initially acknowledged Sikh demands for recognition, the failure to create a Punjabi-speaking state (Punjabi Suba) that truly addressed Sikh aspirations sowed seeds of discontent.
The movement for greater autonomy evolved into an armed insurgency for an independent Sikh state, Khalistan, during the 1980s. This period was marked by rising militancy, often met with severe state repression. The central, traumatic event was Operation Blue Star in June 1984, when the Indian Army stormed the Harmandir Sahib (Golden Temple) in Amritsar, Sikhism’s holiest shrine, to flush out armed militants, led by the charismatic Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. The perceived desecration of their spiritual center was perceived to be a profound humiliation for Sikhs worldwide.
This was followed months later by the assassination of India’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards, which triggered a horrific, organized pogrom against Sikhs across northern India, particularly in the capital, New Delhi. Mobs, often led by political actors and ignored if not aided by the police and security forces, murdered thousands of Sikhs with impunity as the security forces largely stood by.
While the insurgency was largely suppressed by the mid-1990s through a heavy-handed police and military campaign, the demand for justice for the victims of 1984 and for Sikh self-determination never completely disappeared. It has found new expression in the Sikh diaspora, particularly in Canada, the UK, and the US, where allegations of Indian government involvement in the suppression of dissent abroad through targeted killing of pro-Khalistani leaders have recently ignited diplomatic crises.
2. PERSPECTIVES
The conflict is defined by starkly different interpretations of history, sovereignty, and justice.
The Khalistani Narrative:
For proponents, the movement is a legitimate struggle for self-determination, a right enshrined in international law. They frame the events of 1984 not as a law-and-order operation but as a state-sponsored attack on Sikh religious and political identity. Operation Blue Star is viewed as a sacrilege, and the subsequent pogrom as a genocide intended to punish the entire community. From this viewpoint, the Indian state is an occupying force in Punjab, and the fight for Khalistan is a fight for survival against cultural and political assimilation. Their aspiration for a Sikh-homeland for the 30 million or so adherents of their faith mirrors the rightful claim of the 16 million or so Jewish adherents for a Jewish state.
The Indian State Narrative:
The Indian government frames the Khalistan movement as a secessionist threat to the nation’s integrity, fueled by a small minority of extremists and foreign interference. Operation Blue Star is portrayed as a tragic but necessary action to combat terrorism and preserve national sovereignty. The government points to Punjab’s current stability and economic progress as evidence that the movement lacks mass support and that its grievances have been addressed within the framework of the Indian Union. The violence of 1984 is acknowledged as a "riot" or "tragedy," but the state rejects the characterization of it as a pogrom with official complicity.
The Diaspora & International Perspective:
The large Sikh diaspora, particularly in Canada and the UK, has become a crucial arena for this conflict. For many diaspora Sikhs, physical distance has preserved the trauma of 1984 in its rawest form, free from the narrative control of the Indian state. Their activism keeps the memory of the pogrom alive and pushes for official recognition and justice. Recent allegations of the Indian government’s involvement in the assassination of a Canadian citizen and plots against individuals in the US have been seismic, shifting the discussion from historical grievance to active, extraterritorial threats to sovereignty and citizen safety in Western nations.
3. PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION & ANALYSIS
Central Question: Can a state ever morally or effectively use violence to suppress a secessionist
movement that is rooted in a legitimate historical grievance?
This question forces an examination of the limits of state power, the nature of legitimate resistance,
and the enduring power of historical memory.
A. Philosophical Lenses:
Max Weber's Monopoly on Violence:
Sociologist Max Weber defined the state as the entity that “claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Operation Blue Star was the ultimate assertion of this monopoly. However, its legitimacy is fiercely contested. Was it a legitimate action against armed militants, or did the violation of the Golden Temple’s sanctity constitute such a profound assault on Sikh identity that it transformed the state from a protector into an oppressor in the eyes of a community? This event demonstrates the peril a state faces when its assertion of monopoly power is perceived as illegitimate, potentially fueling the very resistance it seeks to quell.
Walter Benjamin and Divine vs. Mythical Violence:
German philosopher Walter Benjamin distinguished between "mythical violence," which is law-making and law-preserving (the violence of the state), and "divine violence," which is law-destroying and expiatory (the violence of a revolutionary collective). The Indian state’s violence was "mythical"—it sought to preserve the law of the union. The Khalistani militants’ violence was framed by its adherents as "divine"—a purifying force to destroy an unjust political order. The pogrom of 1984 exists outside this dichotomy; it was not law-making but community-destroying, a nihilistic violence that served no end but retribution, challenging any easy moral categorization.
Hannah Arendt On Violence and Power:
Arendt sharply distinguished power (the human ability to act in concert) from violence (which is instrumental and destructive). The Indian state, in its actions in Punjab, relied heavily on violence but in doing so may have eroded its power—that is, the consent and cooperation of the Sikh community. Conversely, the Khalistani movement, in adopting violence, may have undermined its own moral power and broader appeal. The recent diaspora activism, which operates through legal channels, political lobbying, and free speech, represents a shift from violence to Arendtian power, making it a far more complex challenge for the Indian state to confront.
B. The Diaspora and the Geography of Memory:
The conflict’s migration to Canada and the UK introduces a crucial new dimension.
Philosopher Avishai Margalit’s concept of "ethics of memory" is pertinent: he argues that communities have a moral duty to remember past atrocities. The Sikh diaspora acts as a custodian of this ethical memory, ensuring that the events of 1984 are not forgotten or whitewashed by the state. The allegations of extraterritorial operations suggest that for the modern state, sovereignty is no longer bounded by territory; it seeks to manage dissent not only within its borders but also across the global footprint of its diaspora. This creates a direct clash between the sovereign right of a foreign nation to protect its citizens and the perceived right of a state to combat what it defines as terrorism emanating from beyond its boundaries.
The Punjab conflict illustrates that secessionist movements do not end with military victory. They can transition into a long-term struggle over memory, narrative, and legitimacy, fought in the court of international public opinion and the political arenas of foreign capitals. But it demonstrates in equal measure the challenge for any state in trying to defeat any insurgency without addressing the underlying grievances with such a commitment to justice that the memory of its own violence does not forever fuel the cause it sought to extinguish.
