By Uzma Ehtasham
A controversial proposal by the Sikh advocacy group, Sikh for Justice, has reignited debates over minority rights, territorial sovereignty, and international intervention in India. The organization has called for the creation of a “safe homeland” for Christians in northeastern India, an area it has dubbed “Trump Land” in an unusual tribute to former US President Donald J. Trump. The plan, presented alongside a detailed map of the proposed territory, seeks to establish a secure enclave for India’s Christian communities, citing the United Nations-recognized right to self-determination. Sikh for Justice, already known for its campaign advocating a global Khalistan referendum, has now extended its advocacy to the Christian population of India’s so-called Seven Sisters states: Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, and Assam. These northeastern states are home to sizeable Christian communities, whose religious and cultural identities have been distinct for generations.
According to the group, these populations have endured systemic discrimination, coerced evictions, and attacks on churches, justifying the creation of a protected corridor where religious freedom could be guaranteed. The organization’s leader, Gurpatwant Singh Pannu, directly appealed to Donald Trump for support, framing the initiative as a plea for international recognition and intervention. “While the world celebrated Christmas, Christians in India continued to face organized violence and state-sanctioned coercion,” Pannu argued. He also highlighted the perceived threats faced by Sikh communities in Punjab, asserting that the current Indian administration under Prime Minister Narendra Modi posed risks to religious minorities across the country. The proposal’s timing and symbolism are noteworthy.
Linking the initiative to a former US president is an unusual and highly provocative step, one that reflects a broader strategy to attract international attention and lend the campaign a degree of political visibility outside India. Yet it also invites scepticism. Critics argue that the idea of naming a territory after a living, controversial foreign leader risks undermining the seriousness of the claims and detracts from the urgent human rights issues at stake. Moreover, the practicality of establishing a “safe homeland” within the sovereign territory of India is fraught with political, legal, and diplomatic complexities. India’s northeastern states have long been marked by ethnic, religious, and linguistic diversity, as well as a history of insurgencies, border disputes, and regional autonomy movements. While Christians constitute significant communities in the region, the social fabric is intertwined with indigenous tribal populations and longstanding local governance structures.
The creation of a separate enclave, even one framed as protective, would inevitably intersect with issues of land rights, administrative control, and the delicate balance between national sovereignty and minority protections. The claims by Sikh for Justice also shed light on broader tensions within India over the treatment of religious minorities. Reports of attacks on churches, coerced conversions, and social exclusion have occasionally surfaced in the media, raising questions about the ability of the state to guarantee equal protection under the law. By invoking international legal principles and framing the proposed enclave within the language of the UN Charter, the group positions itself at the intersection of human rights advocacy and geopolitics, drawing attention to alleged abuses while challenging India’s domestic policy frameworks.
Nevertheless, the proposal is likely to encounter substantial opposition both domestically and internationally. Within India, the Modi government has consistently rejected foreign interference in its internal affairs and maintains a strong commitment to the principle of territorial integrity. Any attempt to carve out a territory for religious minorities could be perceived as an infringement on national sovereignty and provoke political backlash, not only from the central government but also from regional actors invested in preserving the current administrative order. Internationally, the use of a former US president’s name as a symbol for the territory adds another layer of complexity. While the gesture is designed to attract attention and potentially leverage diplomatic influence, it also risks politicizing the humanitarian concerns underpinning the proposal.
Observers may question whether the initiative prioritizes strategic messaging over concrete solutions for the communities it aims to protect. Such critiques highlight the delicate balance between advocacy, diplomacy, and the practicalities of implementing protective measures in a highly populated and politically sensitive region. Beyond immediate political considerations, the “Trump Land” proposal raises fundamental questions about the rights of religious and ethnic minorities in pluralistic societies. How should states respond when citizens face systematic discrimination? What role, if any, should international actors play in mediating or intervening in domestic conflicts over identity and security? These are questions that extend far beyond northeastern India, resonating across countries grappling with similar challenges of inclusion, minority protection, and governance in diverse societies.
(The writer is a public health professional, journalist, and possesses expertise in health communication, having keen interest in national and international affairs, can be reached at uzma@metro-morning.com)
