Sikh separatists active in Canada and the U.S. often draw parallels between their struggle for Khalistan and the armed resistance launched by freedom fighters against the British occupation of India. They use this argument to justify the violence that gripped Punjab, India from the early 1980s to the early 1990s.

That struggle was aimed at securing a separate homeland, or Khalistan, for the Sikhs and was a byproduct of some major political events that created a sense of alienation among the Sikh minority in India. Indeed, one nation’s terrorist can be an other nation’s freedom fighter; but, the two movements cannot be equated on ideological grounds.

One group that believed in armed struggle against the British rule was the Gadar Party, which was formed in America in 1913. Its members had come to North America as British subjects for economic reasons, but racism turned them into revolutionaries.

It dawned on them that only freedom back home would free them from humiliation in their adopted land. Subsequently, they formed the Gadar Party, which was secular in nature despite the fact that most of its members were Sikhs.

The party’s constitution demanded that its members keep their religion and their political beliefs apart, and work unitedly against the foreign occupation of their homeland.

The gurdwaras, or the Sikh temples, built in British Columbia and California served as community centers where Gadar Party supporters from other faith groups also worked toward a common goal. Among them was the Stockton Sikh Temple in California.

I had an opportunity to visit this place last week. My visit coincided with the anniversary of the martyrdom of seven members of the Gadar Party who were hanged separately in 1915. Their pictures hang from the walls of temple. Two of them were non-Sikhs - one Hindu and the other Muslim.

The irony of the moment was that there was a large banner reading "Long Live Khalistan" hanging alongside these pictures. On the walls of the community kitchen hall hang the pictures of Khalistani militants. The temple came under the control of pro-Khalistan management during the days of Sikh militancy and the status quo has remained unchanged since.

As the imagined Khalistan would be a theocratic state, any movement in its support cannot be equated with a secular freedom struggle against foreign rule.

Of course, the Indian establishment should redress the genuine grievances of the Sikhs - or for that matter any other minority and economically weaker group - to end this sense of hostility, but history must be presented in its right perspective.