Surrey, British Columbia, Sikh community leader and Khalistan referendum organizer Hardeep Singh Nijjar was gunned down in his vehicle in June. Canadian authorities say India’s government is possibly responsible for the assassination.
On Jan. 28, Californians will cast ballots in a historic vote on creating a new independent country.
Why is this the first you’re hearing of it? Because the only Californians who can vote in the election are Sikhs. The proposed independent country would be in northern India.
But that’s no reason to overlook the most important election in the Golden State next year.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Indeed, the Khalistan Referendum, as this ballot measure is known, is worthy of your attention for two reasons. First, the referendum raises the questions of whether democracy is more likely to quell or inflame, violence, and how well it might resolve deep divisions over nationhood. Second, the vote is part of an experiment on how ballot measures might shape a new global system of democracy.
The Khalistan Referendum is a global election, held on different dates and in different cities that are home to many Sikhs. The Jan. 28 balloting, which will take place in San Francisco, follows votes in London, Geneva, Rome, Toronto and Vancouver.
The referendum is nonbinding — even if the majority of voters favor independence, it won’t guarantee a new nation. But if the results show widespread support for independence among the diaspora, organizers will push for a Khalistan Referendum in the northern Indian state of Punjab.
Sikhs for Justice, a U.S.-based group, proposed the Khalistan Referendum. Sikhism is a 500-year-old religion, fusing elements of Hinduism, Islam and other faiths. There are an estimated 25 million Sikhs worldwide, 80% of whom reside in India, primarily in Punjab. California is home to 250,000 Sikhs, most of whom live in the Central Valley or the Bay Area.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
The referendum’s supporters argue that Sikhs, as targets of discrimination in India and elsewhere, need the protection of an independent Sikh-majority nation, which they would call Khalistan. But India has opposed the referendum, banning Sikhs for Justice in 2019 for “espousing secessionism.”
These claims are grounded in a longstanding violent conflict between the government and armed, pro-independence insurgents that was especially deadly in the 1980s and 1990s.
The Indian government says the referendum could inflame violence. But its Sikh backers say that the referendum is a democratic tool for peacefully resolving conflict in Punjab, as provided for in the United Nations Charter, which grants all peoples the right to self-determination.
To convince the world of the referendum’s legitimacy, Sikhs for Justice asked an independent international committee of leading democracy scholars and practitioners to set referendum rules and oversee the voting.
The committee is neutral on the referendum question of an independent Khalistan. However, many members are working to devise systems of worldwide elections so that people in every country can jointly decide policies on global issues.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
I embedded at the referendum vote in Surrey, British Columbia, on Oct. 29 with the committee chair, Dane Waters, a U.S.-born, Beirut-based animal rights activist who is founder of the Initiative & Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California.
The atmosphere was tense. The Surrey-based Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian citizen and referendum organizer, was assassinated in June. The Canadian government says it has credible evidence tying the assassination to India’s government. More recently, U.S. prosecutors charged a man, with ties to an Indian government employee, with attempting to assassinate a referendum organizer, who is an American citizen.
The assassination has impacted the referendum. The international committee prefers to hold votes at neutral sites and had rented a Surrey public school. But after the Canadian government’s announcement that India was possibly behind the Nijjar assassination, the school bowed out, citing security concerns.
The vote was instead conducted at Surrey’s gurdwara, or Sikh temple, steps from where Nijjar was killed. A large police detail provided security. Outside the voting hall, Khalistan supporters played Punjabi music so loudly that it was hard to interview voters waiting in long lines.
Inside, however, the event was quietly managed by British Columbia election poll workers — all non-Sikhs — hired through a third party. At each check-in table, one poll worker was paired with a Punjabi-speaking Sikh volunteer who could translate for voters uncomfortable in English. Any Sikh could register and vote with a photo ID. Poll workers checked names against previous voting rolls to avoid double-voting.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Tens of thousands of people cast ballots. Asked about their reasons for voting, older voters recalled violence they or loved ones had suffered in Punjab. Younger, Canadian-born Sikh voters often mentioned the Gaza war; far better, they said, to resolve nationhood disputes through a democratic referendum than through violence.
Could the Khalistan referendum become a model for deciding whether breakaway states can form their nations? Perhaps. It’s fitting that California, which sometimes dreams of independence, will get the next glimpse of this democratic experiment.
Joe Mathews writes the Connecting California column at Zócalo Public Square.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Nikkei Editorial
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
visit website
