The demand for Khalistan is a complicated and contentious matter with legal, political, and social implications. Khalistan is a distinct homeland or state in India for Sikhs, and the demand for it has been a source of discussion and debate for decades, with some seeing it as a valid demand for self-determination and others seeing it as a threat to India’s territorial integrity and unity.
The legality of the desire for Khalistan is a difficult issue that necessitates a thorough study of both domestic and international law. Statutorily, the Indian Constitution does not allow for the formation of a distinct religious state. Article 1 of the Constitution specifies that India is a “Union of States,” and that the states are “integral elements of the Union.” Thus any move to split from India would be deemed unlawful under Indian law, as India is a sovereign and secular democratic republic, and its Constitution ensures the country’s integrity and oneness. Any effort to secede from India would be unlawful under Indian law, and anybody participating could face criminal prosecution. Yet, international law respects peoples’ freedom of association, which includes the right to form their state. This right is enshrined in the United Nations Charter as well as several human rights treaties.
Some contend, however, that the Indian Constitution does not adequately guarantee the rights of minority people, including Sikhs. The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, but it is bound by reasonable constraints in the interest of India’s sovereignty and integrity. Sikhs and the Indian government have been at odds over the demand for Khalistan, as several Sikhs feel alienated and discriminated against. They think that establishing a separate state would provide Sikhs with greater political and economic representation, as well as address their problems. To tackle these issues, the Indian government has established committees to investigate incidents of alleged prejudice and assault against Sikhs including The 1967 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. This statute addresses the prohibition of illegal acts by people and groups, especially terrorist organisations. By this statute, the Indian government has designated many Sikh extremist groups, including the Khalistan Liberation Force, as terrorist organisations.
Additionally, the government also established the 1966 Punjab Reorganization Act, which was passed to separate the former state of Punjab into the states of Punjab and Haryana. The act also permitted the creation of a Union Territory by combining certain regions of Punjab with Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh. This statute protects the state of Punjab’s geographical integrity and administrative boundaries, simultaneously preventing separate states from being formed as well.
Furthermore, many countries around the world do not consider the demand for Khalistan as legitimate, viewing it as a matter of Indian domestic affairs. It is vital to stress that while peaceful expression of opinions and demands is a fundamental right in a democratic society, any violent or illegal means of achieving such objectives is unacceptable and will be dealt with according to the law.
It is contested that Sikhs constitute a unique people with the right to self-determination. Some say that Sikhs are a separate cultural and linguistic group in India with a long history of political and economic discrimination and that they’re entitled to valid freedom of association. Others believe that Sikhs are an intrinsic part of the Indian nation, so any attempt at dividing them from the nation as a whole would be an infringement of the territorial integrity concept.
To summarize, the desire for Khalistan is a complex and difficult topic that calls into question the validity of secession as well as the right to self-determination. While the international community acknowledges peoples’ right to pursue their political status
