This controversy surrounding Harvard University and the removal of Zyna Dhillon's article has sparked a major debate on academic freedom, free speech, and the influence of pressure groups within elite institutions. Dhillon’s piece, which critically examined the impact of Khalistani extremism on India-Canada relations, was taken down just a week after publication by the Harvard International Review (HIR). The decision, reportedly influenced by pro-Khalistani groups and Sikh organizations, including Harvard’s Sikh Chaplain Harpreet Singh, has led to widespread backlash.
Critics argue that Harvard’s decision sets a dangerous precedent, where intimidation can dictate academic discourse. Activists, including Vasant Bhatt from the Hindu American Foundation, have launched petitions demanding the article's reinstatement and a public apology from Harvard. The Hindu American Foundation condemned the university's move, pointing out that it aligns with a pattern of Khalistani intimidation, which has even been linked to hate crimes in the U.S. and Canada.
The HIR editors-in-chief defended their decision, stating that the article lacked neutrality and contained unverifiable statistics from the Indian government. They proposed revisions, including the removal of Indian Home Ministry data on terrorism casualties and a clarification on Khalistani involvement in harassment incidents against Indian diplomats. Dhillon refused to comply, insisting her article was fact-based and well-sourced.
This incident has further exposed deep divisions on Khalistan-related issues in the West. Many view Harvard’s move as part of a larger trend where academic institutions, under pressure from radical groups, suppress dissenting narratives. On social media, archived versions of Dhillon’s article are being widely shared, with calls to reinstate it gaining momentum. The situation raises critical questions about the state of free speech in universities, particularly when controversial political topics intersect with powerful lobbying groups.
