Cinema Under Siege: SFJ’s War on Indian Culture in Canada

In a disturbing escalation of intimidation, pro-Khalistan extremists have brought their politics to the doorsteps of cultural expression. Over the past week, armed radicals linked to the banned organisation Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) reportedly opened fire at two cinemas in Ontario, Canada, attempting to stop the screening of Indian films. The incidents mark a dangerous convergence of hate propaganda, diaspora radicalisation, and targeted disruption of India’s soft power abroad.

According to reports carried by The Economic Times and other Canadian media outlets, the attacks occurred after SFJ’s self-styled leader Gurpatwant Singh Pannun released a video calling for a boycott of Indian films. Pannun described India’s cinema as political tools of the Indian government and urged his supporters to halt screenings by any means necessary. Within forty-eight hours of that message, masked men opened fire outside a cinema complex in Brampton and another in the town of Vaughan, sending moviegoers into panic and forcing temporary closure of the theatres.

Canadian authorities have confirmed that the incidents are being investigated under firearms and hate crime provisions. Local police sources have indicated the possibility of a coordinated attempt by a small group of radicalised individuals rather than random acts of vandalism. The timing, however, leaves little doubt about the motivation. SFJ’s call for violence against cultural symbols reflects a familiar pattern: when propaganda fails to gain legitimacy through debate, it turns to intimidation.

From Political Slogans to Cultural Vandalism

The attacks on Indian films are not isolated. They are part of a broader strategy by SFJ to weaponise every aspect of diaspora identity, from religion and politics to language and art, in service of its separatist campaign. Since 2019, Pannun and his followers have conducted several symbolic referendums across Western cities, each marked by disinformation, inflated turnout figures, and theatrical displays of anti-India rhetoric. These exercises were never recognised by any government, nor did they carry legal weight. Yet they helped SFJ manufacture visibility and sustain fundraising among disenchanted or misinformed segments of the diaspora.

With the referendum narrative losing steam, SFJ’s focus has shifted toward more provocative tactics. Cultural disruption is one such method. By targeting Indian cinema, SFJ seeks to project itself as the guardian of Sikh identity against what it portrays as an Indian state narrative. In reality, this is an assault on cultural freedom and an attempt to silence one of the few mediums that connect global Indians to their roots.

Cinema has long been India’s most effective ambassador of pluralism. From Punjab’s folk stories to Kashmir’s landscapes, Indian films have celebrated diversity rather than dominance. The very notion that art can be branded as a political weapon reveals the insecurity of extremist ideology. SFJ’s attacks are not about defending Sikhism or Punjabi pride; they are about denying India its voice and undermining the image of a confident, multicultural nation.

A Pattern of Threats and Intimidation

Gurpatwant Singh Pannun’s record of hate speech and incitement is well documented. Over the past two years, he has issued repeated threats to Indian diplomats, business leaders, and even international sporting events involving India. His videos routinely call for violence under the garb of resistance. Several of his associates, including Hardeep Singh Nijjar and more recently Inderjeet Singh Gosal, have been linked to firearms or violent activity in Canada. Gosal’s arrest by Ontario police on gun-related charges exposed what many already suspected: that SFJ’s networks are not limited to rhetoric but extend into criminal activity.

What makes this situation particularly dangerous is the tolerance such actors enjoy within pockets of the Canadian political system.

Under the pretext of protecting free speech, extremists have exploited democratic loopholes to build ecosystems of hate. The result is a toxic online and offline environment where dissent is replaced by intimidation. While the Canadian government has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to rule of law, enforcement on the ground has often been inconsistent. This selective vigilance allows radical outfits to flourish in the shadows of multiculturalism.

The Cost to Peaceful Diaspora Communities

The Sikh community in Canada, one of the most industrious and law-abiding diaspora populations, has been a silent victim of this radicalisation. The vast majority of Canadian Sikhs are proud of their Indian heritage and contribute significantly to both countries. They have repeatedly condemned acts of terror, separatism, and the misuse of religion for political gains. Yet, the noise created by a fringe group like SFJ often overshadows the majority’s voice.

Community leaders and gurdwara committees across Toronto, Vancouver, and Calgary have publicly distanced themselves from Pannun’s rhetoric. For them, the focus remains on education, enterprise, and civic participation. Unfortunately, every violent incident abroad, whether a threat to an Indian diplomat or an attack on a cinema, fuels suspicion and divides communities. This is precisely the outcome Pannun seeks. By manufacturing fear, he aims to insert himself into the mainstream discourse as a supposed representative of Sikh grievances, despite having no legitimacy within India or among responsible diaspora Sikhs.

India’s Soft Power and the Battle of Narratives

The assault on Indian films is more than an attack on theatres; it is an attack on India’s global image. For decades, Bollywood and regional cinema have shaped how the world perceives India as vibrant, diverse, and democratic. When SFJ targets these symbols, it is attempting to erode the emotional connection between India and its global citizens.

India’s soft power, however, is resilient. In the very week of the Ontario incidents, multiple film festivals in Europe and the Middle East showcased Indian cinema to full audiences. Actors of Sikh and Punjabi origin continue to thrive in mainstream Indian film industries, reflecting inclusivity rather than exclusion. The contrast could not be starker: while SFJ seeks to divide through violence, India continues to integrate through art.

Accountability and the Way Forward

The Canadian government now faces a decisive test. It can no longer treat SFJ’s actions as fringe provocations or diplomatic irritants. When guns are fired at theatres, the threat transcends political boundaries and enters the realm of public safety. Tolerance for extremism under the label of activism only emboldens violence. Real partnership with India requires not just statements of concern but visible measures such as prosecutions, deportations, and asset seizures against those who promote hate.

India, on its part, has consistently provided intelligence dossiers on SFJ operatives and their cross-border linkages. The onus now lies on partner nations to act on this evidence. At stake is not merely the safety of Indian nationals abroad but the credibility of democracies in confronting transnational extremism.

Conclusion

The cinema attacks in Ontario are a wake-up call. They reveal how extremist ideology, when left unchecked, can morph from rhetoric into terrorism. Gurpatwant Singh Pannun and SFJ represent the antithesis of Sikh values, where service, equality, and truth are replaced by hatred and deceit. Their self-proclaimed crusade for justice is in reality an enterprise of disruption, funded by falsehoods and sustained by fear.

India’s response must remain firm yet dignified. The country’s greatest strength lies in its openness, in its ability to tell its own story through films, music, and literature that speak of unity in diversity. No bullet or boycott can silence that narrative.

As the projectors in Ontario go dark for a moment, the larger screen of Indian democracy continues to shine, resilient, creative, and unafraid.