New Zealand’s recent, indecisive response to the pro-Khalistan activities organised by a visiting foreign national raises serious concerns for the nation’s diplomatic integrity, particularly as it strives to strengthen its trade and political relationship with India.
The presence of Avtar Singh Pannu, a US-based leader of Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), has amplified tensions after he spearheaded a rally in Auckland on October 19, which included inflammatory acts such as hate speech and the desecration of the Indian flag.
Such provocations, though allowed under the guise of free speech, are not without consequences and put New Zealand in a difficult position with regard to its relationship with India, a key partner in both trade and international cooperation.
New Zealand, a nation that proudly upholds freedom of expression, now faces the challenge of balancing this commitment with the practical demands of diplomacy. India has long regarded the SFJ as a terrorist organisation, citing the group’s active support for separatist ambitions in Punjab, which undermine India’s territorial integrity.
By allowing the SFJ and its supporters to hold provocative and inflammatory rallies, New Zealand’s own commitment to peace, inclusivity, and respect for diversity is at stake. The government appears to be turning a blind eye to actions that directly violate its own principles.
In terms of bilateral relations, allowing foreign nationals to enter New Zealand and promote separatist sentiments directly jeopardises the growing warmth between New Zealand and India.
The New Zealand Indian Central Association (NZICA), one of the country’s oldest Indian associations, has raised the alarm, calling the police’s inaction disappointing and urging government officials to address the potential threat posed by the activities of Pannu and his supporters.
This situation does not simply pose a local policing challenge but represents a broader geopolitical risk. Recently, New Zealand has made a series of diplomatic overtures toward India, as evidenced by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s recent meetings with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to strengthen bilateral trade and cooperation.
Yet, in the face of these diplomatic advances, the presence and activities of individuals promoting separatism against India send a contradictory message to New Delhi. New Zealand’s current approach could not only erode trust but also reduce the likelihood of future Indian investment and collaboration.
The inaction risks not only straining diplomatic relations but also reducing the credibility of New Zealand’s commitment to fair international partnerships.
In this context, New Zealand’s path forward demands careful consideration. On the one hand, free speech is foundational, but there are inherent limits when that freedom enables advocacy for the destabilisation of a sovereign state by blatantly undermining the territorial integrity of another nation.
By failing to draw a line, New Zealand risks appearing to condone separatist actions, which could send negative ripples through its diplomatic standing. New Zealand needs to revise its stance and ensure clearer operational guidelines for law enforcement agencies like its police force, ensuring that incidents like flag desecration and hate-filled rallies are effectively managed and that protests do not cross into unlawful territory, potentially leading to violence.
To address this situation, New Zealand must engage in active diplomacy, reassuring India of its respect for territorial sovereignty. Diplomats and lawmakers need to actively communicate with the Indian community in New Zealand, underscoring the government’s commitment to lawful conduct while fostering a respectful multicultural environment.
By taking a decisive yet measured stance, New Zealand can safeguard both its international reputation and the values of inclusivity and respect it holds dear.
New Zealand’s Indian community, an integral part of the nation’s multicultural fabric, deserves assurance that the country will protect not just freedom of speech but also freedom from intimidation and division. It is crucial for New Zealand to establish clear boundaries that permit free speech while prohibiting actions that explicitly aim to erode the sovereignty of other nations.
New Zealand’s best path forward is one of pragmatic diplomacy: taking a firmer stance on foreign-led provocations and demonstrating to India—and indeed the world—that it values meaningful, stable relations over appeasement of groups that propagate discord.
ISSUE
