Racism, Repression, and the Global Sikh Question: What the Baku Conference Reveals About India’s Minority Crisis
An international conference titled “Racism and Violence Against Sikhs and Other Minorities in India: The Reality on the Ground” was held in Baku, bringing together Sikh organisations from the global diaspora, human rights defenders, legal experts, journalists, scholars, and civil society actors. Organised by the Baku Initiative Group, the conference sought to move past official narratives and focus on what the organisers described as documented, ground-level realities faced by minorities in India.
At a time when India is projecting itself globally as the world’s largest democracy and a pluralistic civilisation, the discussions in Baku highlighted a sharply different picture. Speakers focused on patterns of discrimination, impunity, and repression that, according to the organisers, are not isolated incidents but part of deeper structural problems linked to political rhetoric, state institutions, and an increasingly hostile environment for dissenting minorities.
While the conference addressed violence and discrimination against multiple communities, the Sikh experience featured prominently. This was not incidental. Sikhs occupy a distinct position in India’s political and social history, shaped by both deep national contribution and repeated episodes of state violence.
Sikhs in India: Contribution and Marginalisation
Sikhs make up roughly 1.7 to 2 percent of India’s population, estimated at around 23 to 25 million people. Despite being a small minority, their contribution to the Indian state has been significant. Sikhs constitute nearly 6 percent of the Indian armed forces, one of the highest per-capita representations of any community. Punjab, India’s only Sikh-majority state, remains a key agricultural region and a major contributor to the country’s food security.
Yet, as highlighted in the conference document circulated by the Baku Initiative Group, this record of contribution has not translated into security or justice. Instead, the Sikh community has faced what the organisers describe as one of the most enduring cases of systemic injustice in independent India.
The reference point for this injustice remains the anti-Sikh violence of 1984. Following the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, organised mobs targeted Sikh neighbourhoods in Delhi and other cities. At least 3,000 Sikhs were killed in Delhi alone, with many more killed across the country. Multiple independent investigations and survivor testimonies have established that the violence was not spontaneous but coordinated, with the involvement or complicity of political leaders and police forces.
Nearly four decades later, accountability remains elusive. While a handful of low-level convictions have taken place, no senior political leader or police official has been meaningfully punished. Survivors continue to face bureaucratic obstruction, intimidation, and indifference from the state. This unresolved legacy continues to shape Sikh distrust toward Indian institutions and forms an essential backdrop to contemporary grievances.
From Historical Violence to Contemporary Repression
What the Baku conference emphasised was not only historical injustice but the continuation of repression in new forms. Speakers and documents pointed to arbitrary arrests of Sikh activists, prolonged detention without trial, deaths in police custody, and the increasing tendency to label peaceful political or religious expression as extremism or terrorism.
One of the most frequently cited legal tools in this context is India’s Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or UAPA. Originally framed as an anti-terror law, the UAPA has been repeatedly criticised by international human rights bodies for its broad definitions and low thresholds for arrest. Under the law, individuals can be detained for extended periods without trial, and bail is extremely difficult to obtain.
In 2020, nine UN Special Rapporteurs issued a joint communication expressing serious concern over the misuse of the UAPA, particularly against minorities and dissenters, including Sikhs. The communication warned that the law’s vague provisions allow peaceful activism, including advocacy related to self-determination, to be framed as terrorism, enabling long-term incarceration without due process.
These concerns were echoed again in 2024, when the UN Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations on India, expressed alarm over persistent discrimination and violence against Sikhs, widespread hate speech, arbitrary arrests, and institutional bias.
The conference in Baku placed these findings within a broader pattern, arguing that repression against Sikhs is not episodic but systematic, shaped by a security-driven approach that treats political dissent as a threat rather than a democratic right.
The Farmer Protests and the Criminalisation of Dissent
Any discussion of contemporary Sikh repression is incomplete without addressing the farmers’ protests of 2020 to 2021. Sparked by three farm laws introduced by the Indian government, the protests drew hundreds of thousands of farmers, many of them Sikh, to the borders of Delhi for over a year.
Rather than engaging with the protesters’ demands, the state responded with a mix of delegitimisation and coercion. Protesters were repeatedly labelled as extremists, separatists, or foreign-backed agitators. Sikh farmers, in particular, were accused of harbouring Khalistani sympathies, a charge that has long been used to discredit Sikh political mobilisation.
During the protests, journalists, activists, and ordinary participants were booked under serious criminal charges, including sedition and UAPA. Internet shutdowns, barricades, and heavy policing became routine. Several protesters died due to harsh conditions, accidents, or alleged police action. Independent fact-finding reports documented custodial violence, intimidation, and the targeting of protest organisers.
The farmers’ movement eventually succeeded in forcing the government to repeal the farm laws, but the aftermath has been marked by continued surveillance and legal harassment of activists. For many Sikh observers, the protests confirmed that even mass, peaceful mobilisation can be met with repression if it challenges state authority.
Transnational Repression and the Global Sikh Diaspora
One of the most serious issues raised at the Baku conference was transnational repression. This refers to attempts by states to silence or intimidate critics beyond their borders through surveillance, threats, legal pressure, or violence.
In recent years, Sikh activists in the diaspora have increasingly reported intimidation linked to Indian authorities. This includes threats to family members in India, cancellation of overseas Indian citizenship cards, denial of consular services, and coordinated online harassment. The issue gained global attention following allegations of Indian involvement in assassination plots targeting Sikh activists abroad, most notably in Canada and the United States.
While these cases are still under investigation, they have fundamentally altered how Sikh political activity is viewed internationally. What was once dismissed as diaspora politics is now being examined through the lens of state-sponsored transnational repression. The Baku conference framed these developments as part of a broader effort to criminalise Sikh political expression wherever it occurs.
Beyond Symbolism: The Role of the Baku Initiative Group
The organisers of the conference stressed that the event was not intended as a symbolic exercise. According to the Baku Initiative Group, the goal was to critically examine documented realities, expose patterns of abuse, and challenge narratives that normalise discrimination and impunity.
Two panel discussions structured the conference. The first focused on the structural roots of racism and violence against minorities in India, examining how political rhetoric, policing practices, and legal frameworks intersect. The second addressed state responsibility, impunity, and possible pathways to accountability and justice.
What distinguished the Baku conference from many similar forums was its emphasis on linking historical violence to present-day repression. Rather than treating 1984 as a closed chapter, speakers framed it as a precedent that enabled future abuses by establishing a culture of impunity.
Diaspora Engagement and the Politics of Accountability
The strong presence of diaspora Sikh organisations at the conference underscored the global nature of the struggle for justice. For many in the diaspora, international platforms have become essential precisely because domestic avenues for accountability in India remain blocked.
Diaspora advocacy has played a key role in keeping issues like 1984 alive in international forums, documenting human rights violations, and pressuring governments to raise concerns with Indian authorities. At the same time, diaspora activism has also been met with increasing hostility, both from the Indian state and from nationalist groups that frame any criticism as anti-national.
The Baku conference highlighted the tension between diaspora engagement and state narratives. While India actively courts the Sikh diaspora for economic and cultural diplomacy, it often delegitimises political advocacy by the same communities as foreign interference or extremism.
A Broader Minority Crisis
Although the conference focused heavily on Sikhs, organisers were careful to situate Sikh repression within a wider minority crisis in India. Violence and discrimination against Muslims, Christians, Dalits, and Adivasi communities were repeatedly referenced, particularly in relation to hate speech, mob violence, and discriminatory laws.
This broader framing is important. It challenges attempts to isolate Sikh grievances as exceptional or separatist. Instead, it positions them within a shared pattern of shrinking civic space, weakened legal safeguards, and the erosion of minority rights.
Why International Scrutiny Still Matters
Critics often argue that international conferences have limited impact on ground realities. The organisers of the Baku conference acknowledged this limitation but argued that sustained international scrutiny remains essential, especially when domestic institutions fail to deliver justice.
International attention has historically played a role in pressuring states to acknowledge abuses, even if accountability remains slow. For Sikh survivors of violence and families of political prisoners, being heard on global platforms is itself a form of resistance against enforced silence.
The Baku Initiative Group concluded that protecting minority rights is not a matter of charity or symbolism but a legal and moral obligation. Without accountability for past crimes and safeguards against present abuses, reconciliation remains impossible.
Conclusion
The conference in Baku was ultimately less about diplomacy and more about disruption. It disrupted comfortable narratives of Indian pluralism by foregrounding testimonies, legal findings, and lived experiences that are often marginalised. For Sikhs, it offered a space to connect historical trauma with contemporary repression and to situate their struggle within global human rights frameworks.
Whether such conferences translate into concrete change remains uncertain. But in a political climate where dissent is increasingly criminalised and minorities are asked to prove their loyalty, platforms that document and amplify uncomfortable truths continue to matter.