Freedom of Expression or License to Incite? A Close Look at Khalistan Protests

Rohan

Following the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, the leader of the Khalistan Tiger Force, some Khalistan supporters have made unsubstantiated allegations insinuating the involvement of Indian authorities in his murder. Consequently, a few Khalistani hardliners have disseminated a threatening poster displaying photographs of notable Indian diplomats based in the UK: High Commissioner Vikram K Doraiswami and Council General Dr Shashank Vikram. Additionally, the banned organization Sikh for Justice has released a poster featuring High Commissioner Sanjay Kumar Verma and Counsel General Smt. Apoorva Shrivastava, accompanied by the phrase \”Killers in Toronto.\” This poster suggests that \”Kill India\” is the actual moniker of the extremist movement associated with Khalistani factions.

During a press briefing, Mr Arindam Bagchi, the spokesperson for the Ministry of External Affairs of India, voiced a steadfast and decisive response, declaring, \”the dissemination of posters promoting violence against Indian diplomats and diplomatic establishments abroad is deemed unacceptable. We unequivocally condemn such actions in the strongest possible terms.\” Mr Bagchi emphasised that the Indian government has taken stringent measures to address this issue by liaising with authorities from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, expressing the seriousness of the situation and soliciting their cooperation in tackling the problem of menacing posters distributed by Khalistani operatives.

In a show of solidarity for Nijjar, individuals linked with Khalistani extremism have staged protests in front of Indian consulates situated in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia on July 8th.

Show of Strength Fizzles Out

The expected Khalistan rallies, instigated by extremist elements backed by Pakistan, outside Indian consulates in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, have conclusively shown their lack of influence. These protests were organised in the wake of the infamous \”Kill India\” poster\’s dissemination by Khalistani extremist factions operating in Western countries.

The gatherings saw a minimal presence of Khalistan supporters. Based on video footage of the events, the maximum number of protesters noted in Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, was roughly 20, with the turnout in Toronto being marginally higher. In San Francisco, a procession of about 15 vehicles crossed the Bay Bridge and gathered in front of the Indian consulate. In Australia, a handful of protests occurred outside the Indian consulate in Melbourne. A comparable situation developed in London, where no more than 30 individuals with Khalistani affiliation congregated opposite the Indian High Commission. Despite a substantial police presence, they chanted slogans and delivered speeches for over two hours before dispersing.

Counter Protest by Indian Diaspora

Despite the inflammatory intentions behind the Khalistani rallies, these gatherings received limited support and faced robust opposition from the Indian community. Particularly in Toronto, the presence of the Indian community overshadowed the Khalistani protesters, thwarting their efforts. Their poorly planned attempt to desecrate the Indian flag was effectively foiled by a courageous individual of Indian origin, underscoring unity and resilience in the face of divisive agendas.

The overwhelming response from the Indian community exemplified their steadfast commitment to protecting the Indian consulate and its diplomats from petty criminals backed by Pakistan. Their resonant chants of \”Bharat Mata ki jai\” (Victory to Mother India), \”Vande Mataram\” (I bow to thee, Mother), and \”Long Live India\” echoed with unwavering Indian nationalism.

The Indian community showcased maturity and restraint, choosing peaceful means to demonstrate solidarity with India. Notably, the Indian Consulate in San Francisco has been targeted in the past, highlighting the need for enhanced security measures. Members of the Indian diaspora categorically expressed their support for the Indian Consulate and firmly stood against the threats posed by Khalistani elements to Indian diplomats.

Freedom of Expression For Whom?

Over time, India has consistently appealed to all countries, both collectively and individually, not to provide a platform for separatist elements, cautioning that such actions could affect bilateral relations. However, despite these appeals, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia permitted rallies by Khalistani extremists.

These countries have contended that their commitment to democracy means they regard freedom of expression as a fundamental value and cannot limit peaceful mobilisation.This raises the question of whether a commitment to democracy extends to permitting terrorists to hold peaceful demonstrations.

Are the governments of these countries oblivious to Khalistani terrorist activities, or was this permission deliberately granted? Should Canada forget the tragic Kanishka bombing? Should the world forget the heinous act that took the lives of 268 Canadian citizens (many of whom had Indian origins), 27 Britons, and 24 Indians at an altitude of 31,000 feet?

Allowing terrorist organisations to protest outside Indian consulates and high commissions jeopardises the safety and security of diplomats. As per Article 79 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, which covers various aspects of consular relations, host states have a specific duty to take all necessary measures to protect consular premises, prevent intrusion or damage, and ensure the peace and dignity of consular posts.

Khalistani terrorists have committed numerous acts of terrorism within and beyond India. Thus, based on freedom of expression, would these countries allow the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to protest peacefully? They would not.

A balanced approach that respects freedom of expression while prioritising the safety and security of individuals and diplomatic missions is needed. Granting permission for protests to extremist organisations undermines democratic principles and sends the wrong message to those involved in violent and extremist activities. Countries must adopt a strong stance against terrorism and extremist ideologies, guaranteeing the protection of all individuals and diplomatic premises.

(Author is operations manager at Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies, non-partisan think tank based in New Delhi)