A recent video doing the rounds on social media has once again brought the question of Khalistan into the public sphere, highlighting how unresolved grievances and memories of past injustices continue to shape Sikh identity and political aspirations across the globe. The resurgence of these demands is not simply about territorial sovereignty but about the persistent sense of betrayal, alienation, and cultural erasure that has accumulated over decades.
The imagery and rhetoric in the circulating video speak to the enduring centrality of 1984 in Sikh political memory. The military operation at the Golden Temple in Amritsar and the anti-Sikh massacres that followed remain defining events, not only because of the violence itself but because justice has largely eluded the survivors. The absence of accountability, the failure to prosecute those responsible, and the silence around the victims’ suffering have created an unbroken chain of distrust between the community and the Indian state. This historical rupture is continuously reactivated each time such videos emerge, ensuring that the debate never entirely disappears.
Grievances, however, extend beyond the tragic events of 1984. Many within the Sikh community argue that Punjab has been systematically weakened through political fragmentation, disputes over river waters, economic decline, and policies that they believe erode language, culture, and religious distinctiveness. The constitutional classification of Sikhs under the broader Hindu category is seen not as a neutral administrative measure but as a symbolic act of assimilation that undermines Sikh autonomy and identity. These layered discontents find a receptive audience among diaspora Sikhs who, distanced from the constraints of domestic politics, often see the demand for Khalistan as an assertion of dignity and cultural survival rather than a mere call for independence.
For supporters, the emotional weight of these grievances means that exile feels safer than home, and that the dream of Khalistan is less about cartographic boundaries than about restoring pride and ensuring the continuity of the faith and its traditions for future generations. Critics, however, argue that such calls risk reopening wounds, deepening divisions, and destabilizing national unity at a time when India is already navigating complex social and political challenges. They insist that reconciliation, reform, and democratic engagement provide more constructive pathways than separatism, yet this position often fails to engage with the emotional resonance of trauma and memory that keeps the Khalistan demand alive.
The circulation of the video on social media is therefore more than an isolated instance of digital activism. It is a reminder that the Sikh community’s questions about justice and recognition remain unanswered, and that attempts to dismiss these expressions as extremism or terrorism risk amplifying the very alienation they are meant to contain. The debate over Khalistan is not merely about borders or sovereignty but about dignity, belonging, and the unresolved scars of history. Until those deeper issues are addressed with sincerity, videos like this will continue to surface, reigniting a conversation that refuses to fade.