The Harvard Worldwide Evaluate (HIR) eliminated an article important of the Sikh separatist Khalistan motion on February 22, following backlash from Sikh readers, together with a criticism from Harvard’s Sikh chaplain.
The article by Sophia King and Anneliese S Mattox revealed on February 15, titled “A Thorn within the Maple: How the Khalistan Query is Reshaping India-Canada Relations,” stated that the motion lacked widespread assist and echoed Indian authorities allegations that key leaders had been terrorists.
The choice to take down the article sparked controversy, with its writer, Zyna Dhillon ’28, refusing to make requested edits. “I believe the HIR buckled down beneath strain 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 determination, stating that the article wouldn’t be reinstated until Dhillon made “needed” adjustments.
They cited considerations over neutrality, calling the article an “opinionated fashion of journalism moderately than the analytical reporting HIR has revealed for practically 50 years.”
The Khalistan motion, which seeks a separate Sikh state in Punjab, peaked within the Nineteen Seventies and Nineteen Eighties however stays sturdy 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 centered on Khalistani violence with out adequately addressing its suppression. The editors advised Dhillon add context however didn’t threaten elimination. Nonetheless, on February 22, they knowledgeable her that the article was taken down following a four-page criticism 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 information 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 adjustments and stated that some edits—reminiscent of 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 moderately than impartial scrutiny of her work.
“They appear to suppose that me presenting the Khalistan motion in a sure method is a matter of my opinion, moderately than what’s just like the precise scenario on the bottom,” Dhillon stated.
Black and Place acknowledged that HIR is implementing “stronger editorial checks on all reporting” and increasing its school advisory community “to deepen our experience on complicated regional points.”
