Deadly Resurgence

In a significant operation, three suspected Khalistani militants were killed in an encounter with the police in Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh. According to the Punjab police, the operation was a major breakthrough against a Pakistan-backed terror module. The men were implicated in a grenade attack on the Bakshiwala Police Station in Punjab’s Gurdaspur district, a harrowing incident that fortunately resulted in no casualties. This latest confrontation serves as a chilling reminder of the lingering threat of Khalistani separatism, an issue that continues to haunt the region despite the passage of several decades.

While law enforcement agencies celebrate their victory, the political discourse around Khalistani extremism has become increasingly fraught, particularly among India’s left-leaning or so-called ‘liberal’ political groups. Rather than acknowledging the seriousness of the threat posed by these militants, many on the left remain dismissive of the role that radical Sikh separatism continues to play in destabilizing Punjab and beyond. Their steadfast refusal to confront the problem head-on, including their equivocation on the controversial death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar has done little to advance a meaningful dialogue on the issue. In fact, it risks emboldening those who see India’s secular fabric as something to be torn apart in the name of religious and ethnic purity.

The Khalistani movement, advocating for an independent Sikh state, has deep roots in the post-Partition period, fueled by a sense of marginalization. In the 1980s, under Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, it turned violent, culminating in Operation Blue Star, the 1984 Indian Army assault on the Golden Temple. This event marked a turning point, leading to widespread alienation among Sikhs and brutal retaliation, including the anti-Sikh riots following Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination.

Since the 1980s, the Khalistani movement has been largely contained through military, political, and police efforts. However, it has recently revived, with Pakistan’s ISI backing groups like the Khalistan Zindabad Force (KZF), responsible for the recent grenade attack in Gurdaspur. This violence is part of a broader pattern, with Pakistan using separatism to destabilize India.

Despite this, voices from India’s political left, including prominent intellectuals, journalists, and activists, have often downplayed the threat of Khalistani terrorism or outright condemned actions taken by the Indian state to combat it. The most egregious example of this is the left-liberal response to the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a key figure associated with the Khalistani movement, who was shot dead in Canada earlier this year. Rather than acknowledging Nijjar’s association with violent extremism and his role in orchestrating attacks against India, left-leaning commentators quickly framed his death as an instance of extrajudicial killing, denouncing Indian authorities without understanding the full scope of the threat he posed.

By distancing themselves from the realities of Khalistani militancy, some groups undermine counterterrorism efforts and alienate Sikhs who do not support separatism but are unfairly stigmatized. Sikhs, vital to India’s progress, should not be seen as extremists, and Punjab must not be held hostage by radicals. Those opposing strong measures today will condemn the consequences of future attacks. It is crucial for all political factions to support a national narrative that rejects separatism and prioritizes security.

The Pilibhit episode should serve as a wake-up call. The world has changed since the 1980s, but the threat of violent separatism has not disappeared. Pakistan’s role in sponsoring Khalistani militancy remains a critical issue, but so too is the domestic responsibility to isolate these extremists politically and ideologically. For that, a unified national consensus is needed. Until then, the shadow of the Khalistani insurgency will continue to loom over India’s future.