By Sardar Khan Niazi

In recent months, India has stepped up its repression of Sikh communities, both in Punjab and among the diaspora, with the cruel paradox emerging: policies meant to suppress dissent serve only to deepen alienation, sharpen identity, and magnify the very grievances the government seeks to silence. Instead of mending fissures, the hardening state strategy is fueling a fire that may burn far longer than New Delhi expects. Significant part is the state’s treatment of Sikhs, too often seen through the lens of suspicion, labeled as separatists or anti‑nationals, even when their actions are peaceful and rooted in constitutional rights. Freedom of expression, assembly, religious practice are being constrained. A crackdown on Sikh activists, internet restrictions in Punjab, and intensified surveillance all point to an escalated approach. The case of Amritpal Singh is emblematic. His push to highlight wrongful detentions of Sikh prisoners triggered a manhunt, accompanied by widespread arrests, curbs on protest, and a blanket digital shutdown in Punjab. Rather than engaging with his legitimate claims, the state resorted to force–raising serious issues of proportionality and democratic norms, but also pushing many Sikhs into the only recourse left: resistance. When ordinary dissent becomes dangerous, silence and complicity are not neutral–they are forms of surrender. A second front is formal and informal discrimination–Sacrilege incidents, the neglect of cases, slow judicial processes–and the marginalizing of historically vulnerable Sikh sub‑groups like the Mazhabi and Valmiki Sikhs. These are not abstract issues. They touch daily life–education, jobs, identity, and religious dignity. When faith is treated as a perilous marker and not as part of one’s self, when justice is deferred, it does not fade away. It breeds bitterness. Then there is transnational repression. UN special rapporteurs and rights groups are increasingly accusing the Indian government of harassment, coercion, and targeting Sikh activists abroad.  Whether through pressure, legal instruments, or diplomatic channels, the message to Sikh diaspora is ever louder: dissent anywhere will not be tolerated. However, such efforts often backfire: visibility increases, solidarity strengthens, international scrutiny intensifies. New Delhi’s strategy rests on a securitized vision: every protest, symbolic assertion of rights, or religious expression becomes, in the state’s framing, a challenge to national unity. When political identity is flattened into a single official version of nationalism, when religious and regional diversity is treated as deviation rather than enrichment, trust erodes. For many Sikhs, the Indian constitutional rhetoric rings hollow against experiences of marginalization, delayed justice, unfair stereotyping and repression. There is also a political cycle at play: politics built around majoritarian identity needs identifiable others. Elections heighten this dynamic; crises provide pretexts for heavy-handed responses that are then normalized. Moreover, each normalization strengthens the machinery of repression. For India, if it truly seeks stability and unity, the roadmap must begin with justice: prompt visible, fair legal redress of sacrilege cases; open dialogue with Sikh leaders; transparency in policing; free expression. Repealing or reforming laws or administrative practices that enable arbitrary detention, indiscriminate surveillance, or political suppression is essential. International pressure, through UN bodies or democratic governments, must hold New Delhi accountable–not with ideological posturing, but with insistence on rights. Moreover, for the Sikh community, the way forward includes principled non‑violence, strategic alliances with civil rights actors, and measured public diplomacy that draws attention to abuses without exacerbating polarization. The essential truth India must accept is that repression does not extinguish dissent–it transforms it. When bridges are burned, the demand for recognition and justice does not vanish; it only hardens. The longer New Delhi insists on smothering dissent rather than engaging with it, the more likely it is that the solution will become the problem.