Ananya

Hi Team, I just saw the discussion on Satluj with Hartosh. I can understand the issue of inflated numbers and how that dilutes the battle for truth and reconciliation in Punjab. However, I was very disappointed with how the entire panel framed the issue as ‘propaganda’ and the kind of embarrassing parallels drawn to The Kashmir Files (which Hartosh admitted he had not watched!). I’d urge you to read Anurag Minus Verma's essay on The Kashmir Files in The Print and read more in detail about the politics of truth, realism, and propaganda in cinema to at least define these terms with an adequate sense of media literacy. Bad and good films can be propaganda! Propaganda is not bad in itself! Please read more about film history or at least include a film/cultural studies scholar (not a reviewer) on your panel if discussing a complex film like Satluj. PS: The Hathras docuseries is also on Zee5, and the UP elections are around the corner! Conspiracy anyone?

***

Balpreet 

I am writing to express my concern about your decision to bring Hartosh Singh Bal onto the show without offering any meaningful counterview or challenge to his perspective.

Given his family connection to KPS Gill, a highly controversial police officer whose role in Punjab remains deeply contested and painful for many, this context warranted serious scrutiny. Hartosh Singh Bal is reportedly Gill’s nephew. When discussing sensitive issues related to Punjab, Sikh politics, or state violence, such a connection can reasonably raise questions about perspective and potential bias.

The problem is not that he was invited. A credible journalistic platform should hear different viewpoints. The problem is presenting one perspective without an informed counterview, particularly on subjects involving serious allegations of human-rights abuses and historical trauma.

***

KT 

Hi Hafta,

Thank you for the discussion on the FIFA World Cup 2026 controversy in your last NL Hafta. I also love the series on football in “Let's Talk About” as well. A news organisation rarely covers in-depth analysis on football, and I am proud to be your subscriber. Keep up the good work!

I have a question for Abhinandan. I am witnessing a social media campaign against Lionel Messi and/or Argentina in this WC, i.e., that FIFA is favouring Messi and/or Argentina, even though we know how they won these matches. (We didn’t see a campaign like this in 2022).

Did you notice it, and what are your thoughts? Thanks! 

***

Navnoor 

Hi NL,

This one is going to be long, so I hope you can keep most parts intact. I think I was half expecting this, but inviting Hartosh Singh Bal to talk about human rights violations during counter-insurgency takes the cake for irony dying a thousand deaths, not unlike inviting an IDF commander’s son to talk about Gaza.

Hartosh seemed a bit more generous on his Hafta appearance, but he has defended his uncle ji's atrocious record more vehemently in a Scroll article he wrote for him in 2017, linked here.

Quoting from that article: “The credit for peace in Punjab goes almost entirely to the combination of his leadership and the political climate he was allowed to operate in. Moreover, those who accuse him of succeeding through unchecked force simply do not know what they are talking about.”

KPS Gill also went on to help the Sri Lankan government against the LTTE, which is parallel to the brutality in Punjab. Again, we are talking about someone who has been implicated in Human Rights violations by various organisations (Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, etc) and apparently in sexual assault as well. Read the piece here.

Hartosh also said that the Congress was elected in 1992 but conveniently forgot to mention that the 1992 election was boycotted by militants and various Sikh outfits (it had a 23.8 percent turnout).

Also, for Hartosh to associate Khalra’s sympathies with Khalistan with justification for ALL violence by Khalistani extremists is a tall claim, and the burden of proof is on him to prove that Khalra agreed with the killings of civilians, which is completely untrue. Political assassinations and indiscriminate killing of civilians are not the same. I think the most charitable interpretation of Khalra’s views is from a Liberation Theology perspective. You may disagree with it, and I certainly don’t fully agree with everything from his famous speech, but you cannot dismiss someone just because they are not a perfect victim (this need for perfect victims is questioned by many Palestinian academics as well).

The 25,000 figure was an estimate, and like all estimates, it is guesswork. Still, if there was an actual will for reconciliation, the government would have acknowledged the illegal cremations as a fact and presented its own findings, but even that isn’t remotely the case. Moreover, we will never even know the number of people who were not cremated but, like Khalra, were thrown into the rivers and canals to end up as “unidentified bodies” in Pakistan, Rajasthan and Haryana. I am unaware of any work done on this aspect of disappearances. 

I do not have a problem with listening to Hartosh’s arguments; it would have been better if they came from someone not so closely involved, but his arguments are the dominant narrative of the counter-insurgency. If you want to “both-side” this argument, I urge you to invite Inderjit Singh Jaijee or someone from Ensaaf.org - an organisation which documents forced disappearances.  Jaijee’s book, ‘The Legacy of Militancy in Punjab - Long Road to Normalcy’, is an excellent read, and so is ‘Reduced to Ashes’ by Ram Narayan Kumar. I have also linked reports from Amnesty and Human Rights Watch.

Also, something absent from this conversation was the fact that if, as a Sikh, you dare challenge the pro-state narrative in India, you will automatically be labelled as a Khalistani sympathiser and you will face considerable harassment from the state. 

What this conversation proved to me as a Sikh (and anyone else interested in Human Rights in India) is that you must do your research; otherwise, someone like Hartosh will do it for you. Hopefully, my arguments will be taken as constructive criticism and acted upon appropriately.

***

Abhijeet 

The combination of both Hafta and Charcha provided a fascinating contrast of opinions about Khalra, but if someone had watched only Hafta or Charcha, they would have come away with only one side of the story. I'm not asking for Godi-style shouting matches, but it would have been good to have the viewpoints debated more directly.

As always, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle (I’m not claiming to know it). In my opinion, Khalra raised a legitimate point about extrajudicial killings, even though he had some dubious political leanings. Given the brutal scenario in Punjab, some semblance of radicalisation is inevitable.

The discussion over the numbers was flirting with being outright distasteful (more so in Hafta). Sure, 25k is an inflated number, but 7k is an unimaginably bad number in itself. Also, exaggeration is often a legitimate tool for drawing attention to atrocities that would otherwise be ignored. Maybe that’s the right way to contextualise Khalra’s claims.

***
Rohit

I have signed up for the Book Club 3 times now, but I haven’t received any mail regarding it. Please let me know how I can sign up for it.

Small teams can do great things. All it takes is a subscription. Subscribe now and power Newslaundry’s work.