Rananjay Singh against Stuff
Case Number: 3737
Council Meeting: 28 April 2025
Decision: No Grounds to Proceed
Publication: Stuff
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Columns, Blogs, Opinion and Letters
Headlines and Captions
Corrections
Ruling Categories:
Stuff published an article March 18, 2025, headlined Explained: Indian PM’s ‘anti-India’ and ‘terrorist’ allegations.
The story set out to explain remarks made by India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi after his meeting with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in which he expressed his concern that there was “anti-India” and “illegal” terrorist activity in New Zealand.
Mr Modi said he trusted New Zealand would crack down on separatists, terrorists and radical elements.
The article set out to explain that Mr Modi appeared to be talking about the Khalistan movement which wants to establish an independent Sikh state. It reported a background of hostility between followers of the majority Hindu faith and Mr Modi’s Hindu nationalist movement, and the minority Sikh community. This has given rise to the Khalistan movement which wants to form a sovereign Sikh state in Northern India.
Their protests have been criminalised. It is illegal to call for secession and Mr Modi has called the Khalistan movement a terrorist organisation. The article noted that Sikhs in New Zealand and in other countries have protested the Indian Government’s treatment of Khalistan supporters.
Rananjay Singh complained the article’s explanation was superficial and misrepresented the situation. Only a small percentage of Sikhs supported the Khalistani movement and it was wrong to blame the Hindu nationalism for its rise. The Khalistan movement also had a history of terrorist activity including the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984 and an aircraft bombing the following year.
He said the heading implied an in-depth and unbiased analysis which was lacking in this case. It was inaccurate, lacked essential details and should have been labelled as opinion rather than factual explanation. It was also misleading and discriminatory against millions of Hindus and Sikhs.
Stuff said they never set out in to cover or determine the finer details that Mr Singh suggests were missing from the story. Nor did the article blame Hindus in any way or suggest all Sikhs were seeking an independent state.
Mr Singh complained the article breached Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (4) Comment and Fact, (5) Columns, Blogs, Opinion and Letters, (6) Headlines and Captions and (12) Corrections.
The Council does not believe a case has been made to support this complaint. The Council considered the article provided a brief explanation of Mr Modi’s reference to terrorists in New Zealand and gave some background to an issue he raised at his meeting with Mr Luxon. It set out in simple terms that the Khalistan movement wants a sovereign Sikh state and that the Indian Government says it is a terrorist organisation. It also reports that it has support amongst the Indian Sikh community in New Zealand.
The article had a neutral tone and summarised what the Khalistan movement is about. It did not purport to be a full run-down. It included comment made by Mr Luxon and Mr Modi and there was no evidence it was inaccurate or unbalanced.
While it did not contain the detail Mr Singh thought it should, it did not deliberately mislead readers by commission or omission in breach of Principle (1). Nor was there a breach of the other Principles mentioned.
Decision: No grounds to proceed.
The story set out to explain remarks made by India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi after his meeting with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in which he expressed his concern that there was “anti-India” and “illegal” terrorist activity in New Zealand.
Mr Modi said he trusted New Zealand would crack down on separatists, terrorists and radical elements.
The article set out to explain that Mr Modi appeared to be talking about the Khalistan movement which wants to establish an independent Sikh state. It reported a background of hostility between followers of the majority Hindu faith and Mr Modi’s Hindu nationalist movement, and the minority Sikh community. This has given rise to the Khalistan movement which wants to form a sovereign Sikh state in Northern India.
Their protests have been criminalised. It is illegal to call for secession and Mr Modi has called the Khalistan movement a terrorist organisation. The article noted that Sikhs in New Zealand and in other countries have protested the Indian Government’s treatment of Khalistan supporters.
Rananjay Singh complained the article’s explanation was superficial and misrepresented the situation. Only a small percentage of Sikhs supported the Khalistani movement and it was wrong to blame the Hindu nationalism for its rise. The Khalistan movement also had a history of terrorist activity including the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984 and an aircraft bombing the following year.
He said the heading implied an in-depth and unbiased analysis which was lacking in this case. It was inaccurate, lacked essential details and should have been labelled as opinion rather than factual explanation. It was also misleading and discriminatory against millions of Hindus and Sikhs.
Stuff said they never set out in to cover or determine the finer details that Mr Singh suggests were missing from the story. Nor did the article blame Hindus in any way or suggest all Sikhs were seeking an independent state.
Mr Singh complained the article breached Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (4) Comment and Fact, (5) Columns, Blogs, Opinion and Letters, (6) Headlines and Captions and (12) Corrections.
The Council does not believe a case has been made to support this complaint. The Council considered the article provided a brief explanation of Mr Modi’s reference to terrorists in New Zealand and gave some background to an issue he raised at his meeting with Mr Luxon. It set out in simple terms that the Khalistan movement wants a sovereign Sikh state and that the Indian Government says it is a terrorist organisation. It also reports that it has support amongst the Indian Sikh community in New Zealand.
The article had a neutral tone and summarised what the Khalistan movement is about. It did not purport to be a full run-down. It included comment made by Mr Luxon and Mr Modi and there was no evidence it was inaccurate or unbalanced.
While it did not contain the detail Mr Singh thought it should, it did not deliberately mislead readers by commission or omission in breach of Principle (1). Nor was there a breach of the other Principles mentioned.
Decision: No grounds to proceed.