Following backlash from Sikh readers, including a complaint from Harvard’s Sikh chaplain, on February 22, the Harvard International Review ( HIR ) removed an article critical of the Sikh separatist Khalistan movement.
The movement lacked widespread support, according to Sophia King and Anneliese S. Mattox ‘ article titled” A Thorn in the Maple: How the Khalistan Question is Reshaping India-Canada Relations,” which was published on February 15. It echoed Indian government claims that key leaders were terrorists.
The article’s author, Zyna Dhillon’s 28, refusing to make the requested revisions, sparked controversy. Dhillon said in a statement that” the HIR buckled down under pressure and the decision to remove the content was, in my opinion, a knee-jerk effect.”
Sydney C. Black’s and Elizabeth R. Place’s editors-in-chief of HIR, defended their decision, arguing that the content would not be reinstated unless Dhillon made “necessary” adjustments.
They cited issues about independence and referred to the article as an “opinionated type of news rather than the scientific monitoring HIR has published for nearly 50 years.”
The Khalistan activity, which wants a distinct Sikh status in Punjab, hit a height in the 1970s and 1980s, but it continues to be popular with some Sikh community members. According to Drohon’s content, Sikh populism in Canada has strained India-Canada relationships. After Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused “agents of the government of India” of killing Khalistani head Hardeep Singh Nijjar in 2023, India denied the state, the matter gained renewed interest.
On February 16, the author’s publisher reached up to Dhillon, citing a reader’s worry that the article focused on Khalistani murder without effectively addressing its repression. Dhillon was suggested by the editors, but he didn’t harm to remove it. But, Harpreet Singh, a Harvard Sikh preacher, complained to the newspaper on February 22 and the post was removed.
Singh criticized Dhillon’s claim as” a harmful equivalency” that conflated” all Khalistan engagement with’terrorism'” and accused her of relying on American authorities data while dismissing Khalistan support. Then HIR readers requested that Dhillon provide more information about reported harassment of American diplomats in Canada as well as the Indian government’s statistics on militant violence.
Dhillon objected to the proposed modifications and claimed that some changes, such as adding that” India defines violence loosely” would have “actively pandered to the pro-Khalistan reviewers of the post.” She claimed that HIR’s newspaper interventions were made in response to concerns rather than to provide impartial analysis of her work.
They” seem to think that my portrayal of the Khalistan activity in a particular way is a matter of my mind rather than what is actually happening on the ground,” Dhillon said.
According to Black and Place, HIR is expanding its faculty expert network and implementing” stronger journal checks on all reporting” in order to “prove our expertise on intricate regional issues.”
