05/06/2026
The strongest and most defensible version is one that:
States documented facts.
Cites human-rights reports and scholars.
Expresses SAD (Amritsar)’s concerns and political conclusions.
Warns against the securitization of minorities and dissent.
Punjab, Security-State Thinking, and the Future of Democracy in India
Statement by Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar)
Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar) expresses its profound concern that India is increasingly adopting a framework in which political, religious, regional, and minority questions are approached through the language of security rather than through the principles of democracy, federalism, civil liberties, and constitutional rights.
Punjab understands the dangers of such thinking because Punjab has lived through them.
For Sikhs, these concerns arise not from theory but from historical experience. Operation Blue Star in June 1984 was conducted as a military operation inside Sri Darbar Sahib. The period that followed witnessed Operation Woodrose, widespread military deployments, disturbed-area notifications, preventive detention measures, special police powers, encounter policing, and extensive allegations of human-rights violations.¹
Former Punjab Director General of Police Julio Ribeiro has recently criticized the contemporary “encounter model” and warned that practices associated with Uttar Pradesh are now being replicated elsewhere. His warning carries particular significance because he himself is closely associated with Punjab’s “bullet for bullet” era.²
Human-rights documentation concerning Punjab has long recorded allegations of enforced disappearances, custodial torture, arbitrary detention, illegal cremations, and fake encounters. Human Rights Watch described the situation as a “policy of impunity,” while Amnesty International documented cases in which detainees allegedly disappeared into custody and were later reported as having died in encounters.³
These experiences should serve as a warning rather than a model.
At the same time, India has steadily expanded its strategic relationship with Israel. Cooperation now extends across defence, intelligence, cybersecurity, surveillance technologies, artificial intelligence, agriculture, innovation, and strategic planning. In 2026, India and Israel formally elevated their relationship to a “Special Strategic Partnership.“⁴
The issue is not diplomatic cooperation between sovereign states. Nations have every right to cooperate in matters of defence and security.
The concern arises when military doctrines, surveillance technologies, counter-insurgency methods, and national-security frameworks begin to shape the relationship between the state and its own citizens.
This concern is reinforced by strategic doctrines discussed within sections of India’s security establishment concerning a “two-front” or “two-and-a-half-front” challenge, involving Pakistan, China, and internal security threats.⁵ Punjab occupies a unique place within this framework because of its location on India’s western frontier and its long history of being viewed through a security lens.
Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar) believes that democratic societies must be vigilant whenever legitimate political aspirations, religious identities, regional movements, or minority concerns begin to be viewed primarily as security problems rather than constitutional questions.
Recent controversies concerning Pegasus spyware further highlight these concerns. Pegasus, developed by Israel’s NSO Group, has been linked by investigative journalists, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch to allegations of surveillance directed at journalists, activists, lawyers, opposition figures, and civil-society actors in several countries, including India. The Supreme Court of India considered these allegations serious enough to establish an independent inquiry.⁶
Similarly, allegations made by Canadian authorities regarding the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar and criminal proceedings announced by the United States Department of Justice concerning an alleged plot targeting Gurpatwant Singh Pannun have raised international questions regarding transnational repression and the limits of state power. The Government of India has denied unlawful involvement, and legal proceedings remain ongoing.⁷
The Party further notes that respected human-rights organizations have raised grave concerns regarding the treatment of Palestinians.
Human Rights Watch concluded that Israeli authorities were committing the crimes of apartheid and persecution against Palestinians. Amnesty International similarly described Israeli rule over Palestinians as a system of domination and oppression. B’Tselem, one of Israel’s leading human-rights organizations, described the system between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea as one of Jewish supremacy over Palestinians.⁸
Jewish scholars and public intellectuals, including Norman Finkelstein and Ilan Pappé, have also criticized aspects of Israeli state policy toward Palestinians and warned about the dangers of permanent militarization, occupation, and the normalization of exceptional security measures.⁹
Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar) does not argue that India and Israel are identical, nor that every Indian security policy originates in Israel.
Our concern is different.
Our concern is that a political culture appears to be emerging in which:
minorities are increasingly securitized;
dissent is viewed as a threat rather than a democratic right;
policing becomes militarized;
surveillance becomes political;
extraordinary powers become normalized;
and security institutions increasingly overshadow civil institutions.
Scholars have examined parallels between majoritarian nationalist movements across different societies. Political scientists such as Achin Vanaik and others have discussed points of comparison between Hindutva and other forms of ethno-religious nationalism, while emphasizing that each historical case remains distinct and must be evaluated on its own evidence.¹⁰
Punjab’s history demonstrates how quickly a constitutional question can be transformed into a security question.
The lesson of Punjab is not that security concerns are illegitimate. The lesson is that when security becomes the primary framework through which a community is viewed, constitutional freedoms, federal principles, civil liberties, and democratic trust can all be weakened.
India’s future must therefore be built upon constitutional government, federalism, human rights, due process of law, accountability for state power, and genuine political dialogue.
Punjab’s experience should not be forgotten.
It should be remembered as a warning of what can happen when liberty is subordinated to permanent security-state thinking.
Endnotes
Scholarly and historical works concerning Operation Blue Star (1984), Operation Woodrose, emergency powers, and security operations in Punjab.
Julio Ribeiro, “Encounter model taints khaki,” The Tribune, June 2026.
Human Rights Watch, Protecting the Killers: A Policy of Impunity in Punjab, India; Amnesty International reports concerning Punjab during the militancy and counter-insurgency period.
Government of India and Government of Israel Joint Statements establishing a “Special Strategic Partnership” (2026).
Public statements by senior Indian military officers and strategic planners regarding India’s “two-front” and “two-and-a-half-front” security doctrine.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Pegasus Project reporting, and Supreme Court proceedings concerning Pegasus allegations.
United States Department of Justice proceedings regarding an alleged plot targeting Gurpatwant Singh Pannun; public statements by Canadian authorities regarding Hardeep Singh Nijjar; Government of India responses.
Human Rights Watch, A Threshold Crossed (2021); Amnesty International, Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians(2022); B’Tselem, A Regime of Jewish Supremacy (2021).
Norman G. Finkelstein, Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom; Ilan Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and related works.
Achin Vanaik, writings on Hindutva, nationalism, and comparative ethno-nationalist politics; related scholarly literature on majoritarian nationalism.
