Senior Journalist Tavleen Singh has written extensively for and against Narendra Modi. She has presented objective readings about the Sikh struggle and covered the Punjab in the 1980s and 1990s and she is entitled to her opinion. She is clearly insensitive to the Sikh community’s sentiments. This time, in her article on India’s Canadian Problem in The Indian Express, she has crossed the limits of religion and civility. The World Sikh News editor Jagmohan Singh highlights her misadventure in calling Guru Gobind Singh a ‘Hindu’, calling Sikhs as born to protect Hindus and her malicious hint that India should rake up trouble in Balochistan.

In the vast landscape of journalism, it is often challenging to discern truth from opinion. However, even in opinion pieces, there remains a responsibility to be anchored in fact. Tavleen Singh’s recent Sunday Column -“India’s Canadian Problem” is a glaring example of how unchecked assumptions and distortions can be misleading, bordering on outright damaging.

A senior columnist, always abrasive and off-tangent with respect to Sikhs, their religion, and politics, while talking about the charge of the Canadian Prime Minister about credible evidence in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, has sinister Idi-Amin-like wickedness to write, “It is a very serious charge and when viewed from an Indian point of vantage, there is almost a sense of pride that our usually flat-footed intelligence agencies have developed assets that can pull off a Mossad type killing.”

“What is worth remembering is that the army he built was an army of Hindus and that he was a Hindu himself.”

Tavleen Singh in The Indian Express, while writing about the Tenth Master, Guru Gobind Singh

Toeing the RSS line, she repeats their language, saying, “What is worth remembering, time and time again, is that the Khalsa was created by Guru Govind Singh with the specific purpose of fighting the repression of the Moghul Emperor.”

Apart from all other misreadings of the Sikh faith, Tavleen Singh has the audacity to say, “What is worth remembering is that the army he built was an army of Hindus and that he was a Hindu himself.”

“What is worth remembering, time and time again, is that the Khalsa was created by Guru Govind Singh with the specific purpose of fighting the repression of the Moghul Emperor.” 

Tavleen Singh, The Indian Express

Tavleen Singh’s assertion that Guru Gobind Singh, the revered tenth Sikh Guru, was a Hindu is not just a gross inaccuracy but an affront to the Sikh community. Guru Gobind Singh Ji founded the Khalsa Panth and instilled within it the core principles of Sikhism. To label him a Hindu shows a profound misunderstanding of Sikh history and religious tradition.

While Hinduism and Sikhism share historical roots and geographical origins, they are distinct in their spiritual teachings, practices, and identities.

Such misrepresentations are not only problematic but serve to perpetuate the stereotype of Sikhs as an offshoot of Hinduism. The Sikh community has long fought for its distinct identity, and Singh’s mischaracterization undermines this struggle. In fact, by doing so, she lends credence to the RSS chorus which repeats ad nauseam, “Sikhs to be Hindus.”

The article’s tone, moreover, is concerning. It assumes an anti-Sikh bias on the part of Tavleen Singh. While writers, like all individuals, are entitled to their viewpoints, when such biases lead to blatant historical inaccuracies, it does a disservice to readers and to the larger discourse on Sikh affairs.

Singh’s treatment of the Khalistan movement also warrants scrutiny. While she may be right to argue that not all Sikhs support the idea of Khalistan, she misrepresents the underlying reasons  Sikhs feel alienated, the unique character of the Khalsa Panth, and the legacy of Sikh rule in the eighteenth century which is embedded in the hearts of the Sikhs.

Singh’s treatment of the Khalistan movement also warrants scrutiny. While she may be right to argue that not all Sikhs support the idea of Khalistan, she misrepresents the underlying reasons some Sikhs might feel alienated and the legacy of Sikh rule in the eighteenth century.

“The point I am making is that if we want to use our intelligence agencies to make trouble on foreign soil, it should be next door, not in faraway Canada. Or in the Bahamas. Remember that goofy attempt to kidnap Mehul Choksi? If Pakistan is behind Canadian Khalistanis, then it is time to support the secessionist movement in Baluchistan openly.”

Painting the entirety of a community’s grievances as rooted in mere political manipulation or foreign influences is not only reductive but offensive.

To insinuate that Sikhs’ feelings of alienation stem solely from the Prime Minister’s silence after incidents of lynching, without considering a longer history of systemic discrimination and significant events like the attack on Darbar Sahib, shows a deep bias if not a lack of depth in her approach.

It is essential to treat the topic of Khalistan with nuance. The Sikh diaspora’s sentiments, especially in countries like Canada, are varied and rooted in complex socio-political histories. Simplifying this to a mere ‘revival’ of a myth is dismissive.

Clap clap clap if you like this. In an utterly shameful manner she says, “The point I am making is that if we want to use our intelligence agencies to make trouble on foreign soil, it should be next door, not in faraway Canada. Or in the Bahamas. Remember that goofy attempt to kidnap Mehul Choksi? If Pakistan is behind Canadian Khalistanis, then it is time to support the secessionist movement in Baluchistan openly.”

However, the most disappointing aspect of Singh’s piece is her suggestion that the Indian government should interfere in regions like Baluchistan as retaliation for perceived Sikh dissent, she not only endorses a dangerous foreign policy but defames Sikhs.

The most disappointing aspect of Singh’s piece is her suggestion that the Indian government should interfere in regions like Baluchistan as retaliation for perceived Sikh dissent, she not only endorses a dangerous foreign policy but defames Sikhs.

In an era where misinformation spreads like wildfire, it is crucial for writers to ensure that their assertions are grounded in truth and understanding. Disseminating inaccurate representations of a community’s history and beliefs is irresponsible.

Indian Express will do well to have Tavleen Singh’s columns scrutinized before the Sikhs start knocking on the doors of courts for defamation and blasphemy. The Indian Express needs to engage in rigorous fact-checking and open dialogue with the communities they write about. This is not just the ethical thing to do; it is essential for the integrity of journalism.