The world changed dramatically after the Second World War. The scale of destruction, human loss, and moral collapse forced global leaders to confront a hard truth. If power continued to rule unchecked, humanity would repeat the same cycles of conquest, colonisation, and mass suffering. Before the Second World War, colonisation was widely accepted. Powerful nations directly ruled weaker ones or installed puppet leaders to serve their interests. In the process, cultures were erased, religions were suppressed, languages were sidelined, and entire histories were rewritten to suit the rulers. Control mattered more than dignity, and domination was justified as civilisation

.

The horrors of the Second World War created a global awakening. Nations collectively agreed that the old world order could not continue. New rules were established to protect sovereignty and human rights. Institutions like the United Nations were formed to prevent wars, promote diplomacy, and give smaller nations a voice. International law aimed to replace brute force with dialogue. The goal was clear. Never again should one nation openly dominate another. Never again should power alone decide who deserves freedom.

Yet less than a hundred years later, this system appears to be cracking. What we are witnessing today feels disturbingly familiar. The situation around Venezuela and the heavy influence of the United States is seen by many as a modern example of interference driven by power and strategic interests. Rising tensions around Greenland and other regions further increase global anxiety. These events raise an uncomfortable question. Why do people blinded by power and greed fail to learn from history and seem willing to repeat the same mistakes?

Ironically, the world today is far more informed than ever before. Information travels instantly, yet this same connectivity has made societies more vulnerable. Misinformation spreads faster than truth, fear travels faster than reason, and public opinion is easily manipulated.

Are we slowly moving back toward an eighteenth and nineteenth century world where empires competed, borders shifted through force, and politics revolved around conquest and control? That world was defined by inequality, racial hierarchies, and endless wars disguised as national pride.

In conclusion, solutions are often discussed, but rarely implemented sincerely. Media control, religious divisions, and aggressive nationalism continue to fracture societies, even in our global and multicultural age. Still, hope remains. Real change has never come from institutions alone. It comes from people. From collective awareness, moral courage, and the refusal to accept injustice as normal. History does not repeat itself by accident. It repeats when people allow it to

.

The recent violent attack at Bondi Beach shocked the nation and deeply affected Australians from all backgrounds. In response to growing concerns around public safety, extremism, and social cohesion, the Australian Prime Minister announced new immigration and hate speech laws aimed at preventing violence and curbing harmful ideologies. While these measures are presented as necessary for national security, they have also raised concerns among minority communities, including the Australian Sikh community, about potential unintended consequences.

Australia’s Sikh community is observing these developments closely, especially as the changes come at a time of heightened tension and scrutiny. In recent months, Australia has witnessed a rise in anti immigration protests and aggressive rhetoric. Due to their visible identity, Sikhs have increasingly found themselves targeted in public spaces and online discourse, despite being a peaceful, law abiding community that has contributed positively to Australian society for generations.

Following the Bondi Beach attack, Sikh organisations and gurdwaras across Australia were among the first to publicly condemn the violence and express solidarity with Australia and its people. Sikh institutions clearly rejected terrorism and hatred, standing firmly with the values of peace, safety, and unity. Community leaders urged calm, cooperation with authorities, and continued engagement with wider Australian society.

At the same time, the Sikh community carries a unique historical experience that shapes its approach to justice and human rights. Sikhs are survivors of what many scholars and human rights organisations describe as state sponsored violence and mass atrocities in India, particularly during and after 1984. This history has compelled Sikhs worldwide to openly speak about human rights violations and to condemn ongoing policies they believe continue to marginalise their community. This advocacy is rooted in remembrance, justice, and prevention, not hatred.

Across Australia, Sikh organisations regularly organise peaceful marches and awareness campaigns in major cities to highlight issues related to human rights in India. These events provide platforms to discuss historical injustices and to critique Indian state policies that Sikhs believe work against their religious and political rights. Such activities have always taken place within Australia’s democratic framework, respecting the principles of peaceful protest and free expression.

Internationally, India has faced accusations from countries including Australia, Canada, and the United States regarding attempts at foreign interference. Alongside these allegations, India has actively lobbied Western governments to restrict Sikh political expression abroad, particularly voices associated with the Khalistan movement. Indian officials frequently argue that Western democracies give too much space to Sikh activism, often framing it as extremism rather than political dissent.

This context raises serious questions for Australian Sikhs under the new legal framework. Will peaceful criticism of a foreign government’s human rights record continue to be protected? Could advocacy and protest be misinterpreted as hate speech or a national security concern? There is growing anxiety that new laws, if broadly interpreted, may discourage Sikhs from raising legitimate concerns out of fear of legal or political repercussions.

For the Sikh community, the issue is not opposition to law and order, but the need for clarity, fairness, and protection of democratic rights. Sikhs seek assurance that laws designed to combat hatred will not be misused to silence minority voices or suppress human rights advocacy. Australia has long been regarded as a country where difficult conversations can occur without fear.

As Australia moves forward with these policy changes, meaningful consultation with affected communities will be essential. For the Sikh community, the way these laws are applied will shape not only their ability to speak freely, but also Australia’s broader commitment to multiculturalism, justice, and democratic values.

Many feel this act amounts to giving a symbolic “clean chit” to Mr. Bachchan, a figure still accused of inciting anti-Sikh violence through his televised remarks during the traumatic events of 1984. The timing of the broadcast has further fueled suspicion and dismay, coinciding closely with days remembered for orchestrated violence against Sikhs across India.

Symbolism and Accountability

For Sikhs worldwide, Diljit’s act isn’t seen as mere respect for an elder celebrity it’s interpreted as absolving Bachchan of his alleged role in inciting mobs after Indira Gandhi’s assassination. Survivor testimonies, including those of Jagdish Kaur a key witness to the carnage continue to reference Bachchan’s infamous “khoon ka badla khoon” slogan aired on national television, believed by many to be a catalyst for the targeted killings and widespread brutality that followed.

The choice to air this episode at such a charged time has led many to question whether popular media is sensitive to historical trauma. It has been seen as erasing painful memories, instead of honoring them.

Political Involvement and Impunity

The 1984 Sikh genocide was not just an explosion of mob violence it was notably fueled by political figures, many from the Congress party. Names like Lalit Maken, Jagdish Tytler, and Sajjan Kumar became notorious for their roles in leading or facilitating attacks. In a bitter twist for survivors and their families, several leaders were publicly rewarded in the aftermath, given Congress election tickets as apparent “appreciation” for their actions, rather than facing swift justice.

Although years of struggle by activists and witnesses led to convictions for a few, most accused enjoyed political protection and impunity for decades. Sajjan Kumar, for

instance, was eventually convicted, while others remained shielded for political reasons, highlighting the troubling legacy of state-sponsored violence and lack of accountability.

The Lasting Pain of 1984

The pogroms of November 1984 targeted Sikh homes, businesses, and religious sites in Delhi and beyond. Over three days, mobs killed thousands, raped women, and destroyed families often with police and politicians abetting the violence. For the Sikh community, memories of these atrocities are compounded by the state’s failure to deliver justice to victims.

During the November 1984 Sikh genocide, violent attacks against Sikhs were reported in multiple cities across India, with the epicenter in Delhi. Other major cities and regions where Sikhs were targeted include:

• Kanpur: Brutal killings and violence against Sikhs.

• Bokaro: Widespread mob attacks resulting in many deaths.

• Amritsar: Home to many Sikh families who faced threats and loss.

• Haryana towns: Areas like Faridabad and Gurgaon saw targeted violence.

• West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh: Several towns in these states also witnessed attacks.

Among the political figures accused of actively inciting or orchestrating violence against Sikhs were:

• Jagdish Tytler: Congress leader accused of leading mobs in Delhi.

• Sajjan Kumar: Congress MP, later convicted for his role in the killings.

• Lalit Maken: Congress politician, accused of participating in attacks.

• HKL Bhagat: Another senior Congress leader, repeatedly named in victim testimonies.

• Arjun Dass and Dharamdas Shastri: Accused of leading mobs in East and Central Delhi.

Despite the overwhelming evidence and survivor testimonies, justice has been slow, with only a few convictions and many accused enjoying political patronage for decades. The suffering of Sikhs was not confined to Delhi but spread to cities and towns throughout India, making November 1984 a nationwide tragedy.

Thus, the perceived normalization of Mr. Bachchan in public culture, combined with the honoring of implicated politicians, remains an open wound. Gestures like Diljit Dosanjh’s, especially on significant dates, amplify feelings of betrayal and injustice.

Editorial Reflection

Diljit Dosanjh’s gesture and the timing of the KBC show reveal how popular culture can sometimes inadvertently contribute to historical amnesia, giving comfort to figures still associated with pain. For the Sikh community, accountability whether through justice for political leaders or public acknowledgment of complicity is not just about revisiting the past, but about honoring the truth and dignity of survivors. Until these wounds are fully recognized, gestures seen as “clean chits” will provoke outrage, reminding us all that real healing follows real accountability.

Subscribe now

A familiar scene has been replaying itself across Western capitals. In Australia, a crowd gathers, their signs decrying the cost-of-living crisis and housing shortages. A speaker’s voice rises, blaming record levels of immigration. The rhetoric, while focused on policy, subtly and sometimes not so subtly shifts to target specific communities. Recently, a sitting MP, Jacinta Price, pointedly connected the Labour Party to Indian migrants, suggesting a political motive for their influx, a statement that sent ripples of anxiety through the large Indian diaspora, including the Sikh community.

Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, the "Take Back Control" mantra that powered Brexit has evolved into persistent protests against illegal Channel crossings. These rallies, often organized by right-wing groups, frame immigration as a threat to national culture and security. While the target is often Muslim communities, with speakers invoking the horrific grooming gang scandals predominantly involving men of Pakistani heritage, the atmosphere of intolerance created is a tide that lifts all boats of bigotry.

Sikhs, with their distinct religious identity manifested in turbans and beards, find themselves in a precarious position: caught in the crossfire of a heated debate they did not create, and vulnerable to becoming the next soft target.

A Spectrum of Discontent, A Common Thread

It is crucial to understand that the movements behind these rallies are not a monolith. They represent a spectrum of thought:

1. The Policy Critics: Those who argue against mass immigration, not immigration itself. Their concerns are often economic (wage suppression, strain on public services) and cultural (perceived challenges to integration). They demand a reduction in numbers and a more controlled system.

   

2. The Nativists and White Nationalists: On the far end are those who lobby for a "white nations" policy. Their opposition is not to the scale of immigration but to non-white immigration itself, viewing it as a form of "replacement."

While the first group may argue in terms of policy, their events often provide a platform and a veil of legitimacy for the more extreme elements. The common thread that runs through all these rallies is the identification of the "foreigner" as the source of a nation's problems.

The Sikh Dilemma: Visible yet Voiceless

For Sikhs, this is a deeply troubling landscape. Their visibility makes them easy identifiers of "otherness." A turban, a symbol of faith and equality, can be misconstrued by a hate-filled protester as a symbol of the immigration they protest. This puts Sikhs at a heightened risk of hate crimes, a fear tragically validated by past events like the murder of Balbir Singh Sodhi in the USA post-9/11, a man targeted for his turban by someone seeking revenge against Muslims.

The irony is profound. In the UK, for instance, Sikh organizations like the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS UK) and individuals like Mohan Singh have been at the forefront for over two decades, raising awareness and combating the very same grooming gang scandals that anti-immigration rallies now cynically co-opt to fuel anti-Muslim sentiment. Sikhs have been allies in protecting vulnerable children, yet they risk being tarred with the same brush of xenophobia.

Now, with the rhetoric expanding to target "Indians" broadly as seen in Australia Sikhs are doubly vulnerable. They are perceived as both "Indian" and visibly different, potentially making them a primary target for a movement that is increasingly looking beyond Muslims

Finding a Path Forward: Beyond Reaction and Toward Solutions

The solution to this complex challenge cannot be merely defensive. It requires proactive, courageous, and nuanced action from within the Sikh community and in alliance with others.

1. Nuanced Community Advocacy: Sikh advocacy groups must double down on their efforts to educate the broader public. This means not only explaining who Sikhs are and what they believe but also actively engaging with media and policymakers to ensure the community is not lumped into a monolithic "immigrant" bloc. The narrative should highlight the contributions of Sikhs as farmers, doctors, soldiers, and taxpayers who are woven into the fabric of their nations.

   Why Indians Targeted in Aussie Hate Storm | Podcast with Deepak Joshi

2. Building Strategic Alliances: The struggle against generalized hate is a shared one. Building bridges with other minority communities, including Muslim organizations, is essential. There is strength in a united front against bigotry, even while acknowledging and respecting different faiths and perspectives. Solidarity is the strongest antidote to divisive tactics.

3. Engaging with the "Policy" Debate, Rejecting the "Hate": It is possible to engage with legitimate concerns about housing and infrastructure without endorsing xenophobia. Sikh community leaders can participate in these conversations, advocating for a fair and compassionate immigration system that is also orderly and sustainable. This positions the community as a constructive partner in nation-building, not just a subject of the debate.

4. Promoting Sikh Stories: The most powerful tool to combat caricature is humanization. Sharing stories of Sikh service through langar (free kitchen) initiatives during disasters, their historical military service in both World Wars, and their community leadership replaces fear with familiarity. A public that sees a Sikh as a neighbour and a protector is less likely to be swayed by hateful rhetoric.

The rise of anti-immigration rallies is a test of Western societies' values of pluralism and tolerance. For Sikhs, it is a moment of acute vulnerability but also of opportunity an opportunity to firmly assert their place as a integral part of the Western mosaic, to stand against hate in all its forms, and to champion a discourse that is based on respect and shared humanity, not fear and division. The turban must not be a crossfire; it must stand as a beacon of resilience and hope in these divided times.