Harvard Worldwide Evaluate removes article criticising Khalistan motion – The Instances of India

The Harvard Worldwide Evaluate (HIR) eliminated an article vital of the Sikh separatist Khalistan motion on February 22, following backlash from Sikh readers, together with a grievance from Harvard’s Sikh chaplain.
The article by Sophia King and Anneliese S Mattox printed on February 15, titled “A Thorn within the Maple: How the Khalistan Query is Reshaping India-Canada Relations,” mentioned that the motion lacked widespread assist and echoed Indian authorities allegations that key leaders have been terrorists.
The choice to take down the article sparked controversy, with its writer, Zyna Dhillon ’28, refusing to make requested edits. “I feel the HIR buckled down underneath stress and the choice to take away the article was, in my view, a knee-jerk response,” Dhillon wrote in a press release.
HIR’s editors-in-chief, Sydney C Black ’27 and Elizabeth R Place ’27, defended their choice, stating that the article wouldn’t be reinstated until Dhillon made “obligatory” modifications.
They cited considerations over neutrality, calling the article an “opinionated model of journalism quite than the analytical reporting HIR has printed for almost 50 years.”
The Khalistan motion, which seeks a separate Sikh state in Punjab, peaked within the Seventies and Nineteen Eighties however stays robust amongst segments of the Sikh diaspora. Dhillon’s article argued that Sikh nationalism in Canada has strained India-Canada relations. The problem gained renewed consideration after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused “brokers of the federal government of India” of assassinating Khalistani chief Hardeep Singh Nijjar in 2023, a declare India denied.
On February 16, a day after the article’s publication, HIR editors reached out to Dhillon, citing a reader’s concern that the piece targeted on Khalistani violence with out adequately addressing its suppression. The editors instructed Dhillon add context however didn’t threaten removing. Nonetheless, on February 22, they knowledgeable her that the article was taken down following a four-page grievance from Harvard Sikh chaplain Harpreet Singh.
Singh criticised Dhillon’s argument as “a harmful equivalency” that conflated “all Khalistan activism with ‘terrorism’” and accused her of counting on Indian authorities knowledge whereas downplaying assist for Khalistan. HIR editors then requested Dhillon to take away Indian authorities statistics on militant violence and add particulars about alleged harassment of Indian diplomats in Canada.
Dhillon rejected the proposed modifications and mentioned that some edits—resembling including that “India defines terrorism broadly”—would have “actively pandered to the pro-Khalistan critics of the article.” She argued that HIR’s editorial interventions got here in response to complaints quite than impartial scrutiny of her work.
“They appear to assume that me presenting the Khalistan motion in a sure approach is a matter of my opinion, quite than what’s just like the precise state of affairs on the bottom,” Dhillon mentioned.
Black and Place said that HIR is implementing “stronger editorial checks on all reporting” and increasing its college advisory community “to deepen our experience on advanced regional points.”