Like many people across the United Kingdom, I was shocked and deeply saddened by the death of Henry Nowak.
My heartfelt condolences go to Henry’s family, friends and loved ones. A young life has been lost, and the pain his family must be experiencing is unimaginable. My heart goes out to them.
The details that have emerged from this case have rightly caused outrage. Justice has taken its course, and that the killer will be sentenced on 1st June, having been found guilty of murdering Henry and convicted of carrying a larger blade as a weapon.
As a Sikh, I also feel compelled to say something that many Sikhs across Britain will be feeling:
This is not the Sikh way.
Anyone who uses a kirpan and other ceremonial blades to unlawfully harm another person has betrayed the very principles of restraint, responsibility and protection that they are intended to represent.
The Sikh community across the UK unequivocally condemns violence. Such actions are fundamentally incompatible with Sikh teachings, which are rooted in the sanctity of life, humility, compassion and the duty to protect others. Violence of this nature is wholly contrary to those values.
A conversation has now started both within and outside the British Sikh community about the kirpan and other bladed articles and its place in modern Britain. That discussion is understandable. Whenever a tragedy involves a bladed article, questions will naturally follow.
For me, this discussion is personal.
Members of my own family wear a kirpan as part of their Sikh faith and identity, and throughout my life I have seen first-hand what it represents: responsibility, self-discipline, justice and service to others.
That is why this tragedy is so painful. The actions described in this case are wholly contrary to the values the kirpan is intended to embody.
It is also important to be precise about the facts presented in court. Killer Vickrum Digwa chose to carry a larger blade (shastar) with a 8inch blade ( in a sheath openly displayed over his clothing) in addition carrying a small kirpan (under his clothing and around his neck).
The moment any bladed article is used unlawfully to harm another person, it ceases to be a matter of religious observance and becomes a matter for the criminal law.
The kirpan must be understood in its proper cultural and religious context. It is not a weapon in the conventional sense, but one of the Five Ks worn by initiated Sikhs. It represents a moral commitment to justice, self-discipline and the defence of the vulnerable. Crucially, it symbolises restraint as much as responsibility.
For Amritdhari Sikhs, this responsibility is reinforced through the Rehat Maryada, the Sikh code of conduct, which places strong emphasis on self-control, accountability and ethical living. The expectation is that the kirpan is carried responsibly and never used unlawfully.
The importance of restraint is also reflected in the Nihang tradition, the historic warrior order of Sikhism. Nihang Singhs traditionally carry larger shastars than the smaller kirpan commonly worn by other Sikhs. They are renowned for their martial heritage, deep spirituality and unwavering commitment to defending the oppressed. Throughout Sikh history, they have been associated with courage, sacrifice and the protection of religious freedom. Their role has never been to intimidate, attack or harm innocent people. Rather, it has been to stand against tyranny and protect those who cannot protect themselves.
The Nihang way of life is built upon strict discipline, pious conduct and adherence to high moral standards. Their martial tradition exists alongside spiritual responsibility. The carrying of arms within that tradition is not a licence for violence but a reminder of duty, self-control and the obligation to defend righteousness when all other options have failed.
That distinction is important. Whether Nihang or mainstream Amritdhari, any individual who unlawfully uses a kirpan or any bladed article is acting contrary to the values that Sikh teachings seek to uphold. Such actions are not an expression of the Sikh warrior ethos; they are a betrayal of it.
The overwhelming majority of Sikhs who wear a kirpan do so discreetly, securely and lawfully. There is no evidence of widespread misuse in the United Kingdom. Incidents of this nature are exceptionally rare and should be recognised for what they are: individual criminal acts, not reflections of a faith or community.
It is also important to state clearly that the United Kingdom already has a robust and well-tested legal framework governing bladed articles.
Under Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, carrying a bladed article in public without good reason is an offence. The law explicitly recognises religious observance as a legitimate and lawful reason, including the wearing of a kirpan. This position is reinforced by the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, which strengthened controls on bladed items and enhanced police powers where any item is misused.
The law already provides police with full authority to intervene where any bladed article is used unlawfully, regardless of religious context. Criminal acts remain criminal acts. In short, a kirpan or shastar carried for genuine religious reasons may be protected by statutory exemptions, but once it is used as weapon in violence, those protections do not shield the user from criminal liability
These protections are not accidental. They are the result of decades of careful engagement between Sikh communities, government and law enforcement. The inclusion of religious exemptions reflects a deliberate commitment to balancing public safety with fundamental freedoms in a diverse and pluralistic society.
For those reasons, I do not believe that restricting or banning the kirpan is the right response, including proposals recently advanced by former Reform UK chairman Zia Yusuf.
Such proposals risk conflating a centuries-old article of faith, carried lawfully and responsibly by countless Sikhs, with the criminal actions of an individual. They also overlook the fact that the United Kingdom already has a robust legal framework governing bladed articles and provides police with the powers necessary to act where any item is misused.
Public safety is essential, but effective policy should be evidence-based and proportionate. Restricting the lawful religious observance of an entire community in response to an isolated and deeply regrettable criminal act would not address the root causes of violence. It would, however, risk undermining religious freedom and alienating law-abiding citizens who have contributed enormously to British society.
We should be able to condemn a horrific crime unequivocally, support the victim and their family, and uphold the rule of law without drawing conclusions that unfairly implicate an entire faith community.
Britain has long sought to accommodate the religious practices of different faith communities whilst maintaining public safety. Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Sikh and other faith communities have all benefited from legal protections that allow individuals to practise and manifest their beliefs within the framework of the law.
The recognition afforded to Sikh articles of faith, including the kirpan, should be understood in that wider context. These protections are not special treatment. They are an expression of a broader British commitment to religious liberty, equality before the law and mutual respect between communities.
There is an important lesson from British political history that remains relevant today.
Writing after the death of Margaret Thatcher, Lord Patten recalled a 1976 Shadow Cabinet meeting that was interrupted by a vote concerning the rights of practising Sikhs to continue wearing turbans instead of motorcycle crash helmets.
According to Patten, Thatcher immediately left the meeting to support the exemption. When challenged, she reminded colleagues of the contribution Sikhs had made to Britain, saying: “These people fought for us in the war.”
Whatever one’s views of Margaret Thatcher, the sentiment behind those words remains important.
Sikhs are not outsiders to Britain’s story. Sikh soldiers fought and died for this country in two World Wars. Sikh communities have contributed enormously to British life through public service, healthcare, business, education, policing, the armed forces and countless acts of community service.
That history matters. It reminds us that legal recognition of Sikh articles of faith, including the kirpan, is not a loophole or a special privilege. It reflects a long-standing British commitment to balancing public safety, religious freedom and mutual respect.
In moments of tragedy, it is important not to lose sight of that principle.
There is also a continuing need for education.
Within Sikh communities, responsible observance and lawful conduct are reinforced through gurdwaras, families and community leadership. Equally, there is a responsibility across government, policing, education and public services to understand the significance of the kirpan and the values it represents. Greater understanding reduces misunderstanding, supports proportionate responses and strengthens community cohesion.
It is also encouraging that Sikh leaders and organisations are engaging in reflection following this tragedy. Discussions are taking place within the Sikh community about guidance relating to the carrying of kirpans and other ceremonial blades. That willingness to reflect, educate and, where necessary, review existing guidance demonstrates a community taking its responsibilities seriously.
Far from resisting scrutiny, many Sikhs recognise that moments like this require honest conversation. The appropriate response is not to abandon long-standing religious freedoms, but to ensure that those freedoms continue to be exercised responsibly, lawfully and in a manner that maintains public confidence.
The fact that these conversations are taking place within the Sikh community is itself significant. It reflects a recognition that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, and that maintaining public trust requires both openness and accountability.
At the same time, we should acknowledge the understandable concerns that incidents like this raise. Public safety is a shared interest, and any case involving a bladed article will create anxiety. Those concerns deserve to be addressed with clarity. The law is already strong, enforcement powers are clear and safeguards are in place.
What is neither necessary nor justified is to draw wider conclusions about an entire faith community based on an isolated and unrepresentative criminal act.
It is also important to address the risk of politicisation. There is understandable concern when tragic incidents are used to advance political narratives, create fear, or question long-standing religious freedoms that have existed responsibly for generations. Efforts to amplify division or target minority communities ultimately undermine social cohesion and trust.
As these discussions continue, it is also worth remembering the tragic case of Ronan Kanda. His family, like the family of Henry Nowak, have experienced the unimaginable pain of losing a loved one to knife violence. Their suffering reminds us that knife crime is not a Sikh issue, a Hindu issue, a Muslim issue or a Christian issue. It is a societal issue.
The Sikh community has a long and proud history of public service, civic responsibility and standing up against injustice across the United Kingdom. The kirpan itself is intrinsically linked to Sikh identity, equality and the historic duty to stand against oppression, not to cause harm.
The Equality Act 2010 protects the manifestation of religion for Sikhs, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus and people of all faiths, whilst operating alongside criminal law safeguards. Public safety and religious freedom are not competing objectives; both can and must coexist.
Ultimately, this case is about the tragic death of Henry Nowak. It is about a devastating criminal act. It is not a reflection of Sikhism, nor does it demonstrate a failure of legislation or of the Sikh community.
The UK’s legal framework is strong, balanced and effective. The appropriate response lies in upholding the law, supporting the victim’s family, continuing education and dialogue, learning the lessons from this tragedy, and resisting attempts to create division whilst maintaining confidence in both public safety and fundamental freedoms.
Most importantly, we should never lose sight of the young life that has been lost.
May Henry Nowak rest in peace. My thoughts remain with his family and all those who loved him.
