Written by Sheena Sandhu: The figure of Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, the U.S.-based lawyer who fronts Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), has loomed large in recent debates on Sikh politics and transnational security. His videos in Punjabi, often threatening violence in India and offering monetary “rewards” for disruptive actions, have made headlines across India.
While the Indian government has proscribed SFJ and declared Pannun a “terrorist” under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, his messaging finds regular amplification in Pakistani platforms. This alignment with Islamabad is not incidental. It is strategic — for Pakistan, Pannun and SFJ are useful amplifiers of an antiIndia agenda. For Sikhs, however, this relationship raises serious questions.
Pakistan’s record with Sikhs: A selective ally
Pakistan has hosted SFJ’s “referendum” activities and provided a public platform for Pannun’s messaging. Yet, the condition of Sikhs within Pakistan tells a very different story. With the community reduced to only a few thousand, reports of forced conversions, targeted killings, and property encroachments are well documented. Gurdwara management and Sikh access to heritage sites remain highly politicised. The much-publicised Kartarpur Corridor, often showcased as Islamabad’s goodwill gesture, cannot obscure the fact that Pakistani Sikhs live with insecurity and marginalisation. For Indian and diaspora Sikhs, this contradiction is crucial: the state that Pannun lauds as an ally has, in practice, failed its own Sikh citizens.
Instrumentalising Sikh politics
Pannun’s repeated praise for Pakistan needs to be seen in the framework of regional geopolitics. Since the 1980s, Pakistan has viewed Sikh separatism as a pressure point against India, just as it has used other proxy groups in Kashmir. By projecting SFJ’s activities, Islamabad gains international talking points, regardless of whether those activities reflect ground realities in Punjab. For Sikhs, this dynamic is corrosive. Genuine concerns — from justice for 1984 victims, to agrarian distress, to representation in state politics — become entangled with the imagery of foreign sponsorship. The more SFJ is associated with Pakistan, the easier it becomes for critics to dismiss Sikh demands as externally driven rather than rooted in the lived experiences of Punjab.
The financial and organisational opacity
SFJ operates as a small nonprofit in the United States, filing minimal IRS disclosures that reveal little about revenue sources or expenditures. Pakistani support has often been alleged, but hard evidence of state funding has not surfaced in public records. What is visible, however, is political sponsorship: rallies in Lahore, coverage in Pakistani media, and symbolic gestures coordinated on Pakistani soil.For policy analysts, this distinction matters. Even if financial flows remain opaque, the political convergence itself creates reputational risks for Sikh causes globally.
Risks for the Sikh community
The consequences are twofold.
1. For Sikhs in Punjab: Pannun’s rhetoric invites securitised responses that often overshadow democratic concerns. When every grievance is framed through the lens of separatism or Pakistan’s hand, space for legitimate negotiation shrinks.
2. For diaspora Sikhs: His appeals, particularly in North America and Europe, risk portraying the community as aligned with foreign powers. This undermines the credibility of diaspora advocacy on human rights, farmers’ issues, or minority rights in India.
The way forward
The Sikh community, both within Punjab and abroad, must therefore distinguish between symbolic posturing and meaningful advocacy. Pannun’s Pakistan embrace delivers headlines, but it does not deliver justice, political empowerment, or socio-economic change. In fact, it reinforces the narrative that Sikh issues are externally manipulated, which is precisely what undermines their legitimacy.India too must recognise the distinction between diaspora activism and hostile statebacked amplification. Responding with broad-brush securitisation risks alienating communities further. What is needed is a dual approach: firm action against unlawful activities, combined with genuine democratic engagement on Sikh concerns within India.
Conclusion
Gurpatwant Singh Pannun’s alignment with Pakistan is less about Sikh empowerment and more about Islamabad’s strategic calculus. For Sikhs, the lesson is clear: conflating community aspirations with Pakistan’s foreign policy agenda is a dangerous trap. It diminishes legitimate demands, exposes the community to greater suspicion, and risks repeating historical cycles where Sikh identity was instrumentalised rather than respected. The future of Sikh politics lies not in borrowed platforms across the border, but in strengthening democratic struggles within India.
(The writer is a retired civil servant, views are personal.)