India has forbidden the release of a film about the murder of a Sikh rights advocate in Canada.

India has forbidden the release of a film about the murder of a Sikh rights advocate in Canada.

India has ordered prominent video-sharing platforms to block access to a new Canadian documentary probing the assassination of a prominent Sikh activist in Vancouver, in a move that highlights India’s mounting frustration with the allegations its government was behind the high-profile killing.

The request marks the second time in just over a year that India has sought to block a documentary critical of the Indian government or its leader, Narendra Modi. In 2023, India used emergency laws to block the distribution of the BBC documentary India: The Modi Question.

Last week, the CBC’s investigative unit, the Fifth Estate, broadcasted a 43-minute documentary titled Contract to Kill, which focused on the homicide of Hardeep Singh Nijjar.

Nijjar, who held Canadian citizenship, was shot and killed in a parking lot in suburban Vancouver. The murder, and subsequent investigation by Canada’s national security apparatus, prompted the prime minister, Justin Trudeau, in September to tell the country’s parliament there were “credible allegations” that “agents of the Indian government” were behind the killing. India has rejected Canada’s allegations, and relations between the two countries remain strained.

At the beginning of this week, the CBC was informed by YouTube that it had been instructed by India’s ministry of electronics and information technology to restrict access to the video of the story on its platform.

The platform for sharing videos has stated that the content is now inaccessible on the YouTube site for India, but can still be accessed from outside the country.

The Indian government mentioned the Information Technology Act of 2000 as the basis for its request. This act allows the government to access and decipher any information that is created, sent, received, or stored on a computer resource.

India also made a request to the social media site X, formerly Twitter, requesting it block access to the documentary.

According to a communication sent to the CBC, X is required by Indian law to restrict access to this content in India. However, the content can still be accessed in other locations. X disagrees with this decision and believes that freedom of expression should apply to these posts. They are currently engaging with Indian authorities in compliance with legal procedures.

The film contains surveillance footage of Nijjar departing from the parking lot of the Guru Nanak Sikh Gurdwara temple on an evening in June. As he nears the exit, a white car obstructs his truck and two individuals, wearing hooded sweatshirts, come towards the truck and fire at Nijjar.

ignore newsletter advertising

The Fifth Estate’s statement, as conveyed by Chuck Thompson, CBC’s head of public affairs, defends the integrity of their journalism regarding this particular story. In order to uphold impartiality and diversity, the documentary featured a variety of perspectives, testimonies, and specialists. Additionally, Contract to Kill, like all Fifth Estate stories, underwent extensive research, evaluation by senior editorial authorities, and adheres to our journalistic criteria.

Canada has accused India of being responsible for the assassination, but so far, no one has been arrested even though the police are still investigating. This week, the accusations came up again when New Zealand’s deputy prime minister, Winston Peters, seemed to question Canada’s statement.

As reported by the Indian Express newspaper, Peters spoke to the media during a recent trip to India. He allegedly questioned, “Where is the evidence? Where is the concrete result at this moment? There is none.”

John Tulloch, the senior press secretary for Peters’ office, stated that New Zealand’s stance on the allegations remains the same. He emphasized that if the accusations are confirmed to be true, it would be a matter of great concern. According to Tulloch, Peters’ main point is that the investigation into this matter is still ongoing and must be allowed to reach its conclusion before any definitive statements can be made.

Source: theguardian.com