The Harvard International Review (HIR) removed an article critical of the Sikh separatist Khalistan movement on February 22, following backlash from Sikh readers, including a complaint from Harvard’s Sikh chaplain.
The article by Sophia King and Anneliese S Mattox published on February 15, titled “A Thorn in the Maple: How the Khalistan Question is Reshaping India-Canada Relations,” said that the movement lacked widespread support and echoed Indian government allegations that key leaders were terrorists.
The decision to take down the article sparked controversy, with its author, Zyna Dhillon ’28, refusing to make requested edits. “I think the HIR buckled down under pressure and the decision to remove the article was, in my opinion, a knee-jerk reaction,” Dhillon wrote in a statement.
HIR’s editors-in-chief, Sydney C Black ’27 and Elizabeth R Place ’27, defended their decision, stating that the article would not be reinstated unless Dhillon made “necessary” changes.
They cited concerns over neutrality, calling the article an “opinionated style of journalism rather than the analytical reporting HIR has published for nearly 50 years.”
The Khalistan movement, which seeks a separate Sikh state in Punjab, peaked in the 1970s and 1980s but remains strong among segments of the Sikh diaspora. Dhillon’s article argued that Sikh nationalism in Canada has strained India-Canada relations. The issue gained renewed attention after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused “agents of the government of India” of assassinating Khalistani leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar in 2023, a claim 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 focused on Khalistani violence without adequately addressing its suppression. The editors suggested Dhillon add context but did not threaten removal. However, on February 22, they informed her that the article was taken down following a four-page complaint from Harvard Sikh chaplain Harpreet Singh.
Singh criticised Dhillon’s argument as “a dangerous equivalency” that conflated “all Khalistan activism with ‘terrorism’” and accused her of relying on Indian government data while downplaying support for Khalistan. HIR editors then asked Dhillon to remove Indian government statistics on militant violence and add details about alleged harassment of Indian diplomats in Canada.
Dhillon rejected the proposed changes and said that some edits—such as adding that “India defines terrorism broadly”—would have “actively pandered to the pro-Khalistan critics of the article.” She argued that HIR’s editorial interventions came in response to complaints rather than independent scrutiny of her work.
“They seem to think that me presenting the Khalistan movement in a certain way is a matter of my opinion, rather than what is like the actual situation on the ground,” Dhillon said.
Black and Place stated that HIR is implementing “stronger editorial checks on all reporting” and expanding its faculty advisory network “to deepen our expertise on complex regional issues.”
