I don’t have a dog in this fight but this is geopolitics. Unless you're absolutely sure, you cannot accuse other countries of planning and executing hits on people living in your country.
Now, on the other hand, a person living abroad, advocating for basically secession and creation of a new country, with a massive following also living abroad (+700,000), get gunned down in a country with some of the most restrictive gun control laws and there's no suspect in custody? It's odd, to say the least.
The world is getting more divided by the day. We're practically seeing in realtime the world is dividing itself into factions.
> advocating for basically secession and creation of a new country
Let's be really precise. What you just said is absolutely something that everyone in a free democracy should be free to do as much as they want to their heart's content.
The quirk here is that India and many Hindu nationals disagree that this is all he was doing, and they instead basically brand him as something closer to a terrorist responsible for murders.
Who is right I don't know. These are very difficult things to figure out even decades later, never mind at the current moment in time in history.
It is not in dispute that India has a complex and bloody history discriminating heavily against it's Sikh minority in Punjab. And it is not in dispute that the Khalistan movement is responsible for the murders of hundreds of civilians through bombings.
None of this should enable the Indian government to be able to murder a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil without repercussions.
But it's important to be precise that what you describe OUGHT to be legal, and what India accuses this man of doing OUGHT to not be.
> advocating for basically secession and creation of a new country
Let's be really precise. What you just said is absolutely something that everyone in a free democracy should be free to do as much as they want to their heart's content.
Not sure whether 'free democracy' allows for anything and everything.
BBC - Who was 'Nijjar ..in India, he was wanted under India's Terrorist Act for several cases, including a 2007 cinema bombing in Punjab that killed six people and injured 40, and the 2009 assassination of Sikh Indian politician Rulda Singh.. In 2020, a statement by the Indian government accused him of being actively involved in "operationalising, networking, training and financing" KTF members. He had also been accused of running terrorist training camps in British Columbia for supporters ready to carry out attacks in India.https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66860510#
Canada has a terrible track record in dealing with Khalistani terrorist activities. The bombing of Air India flight 182 that killed 329 civilians in 1985 was planned and executed from Canada (this is proven). Yet, the perpetrators walked free with practically no conviction or punishment that suits the crime. There was a recent event in Brampton where the Khalistanis put up a pageant reenacting their assassination of a previous Indian prime minister. Despite protests from India, it was downplayed as under 'right to free speech' - simply neglecting the fact that challenging the sovereignty of another nation is considered as a terrorist act and not as free speech in the modern world. At the minimum, it's a challenge to human dignity. Canada has proven time and again that it has scant regards for sovereignty of India or even basic human dignity when it concerns Khalistanis.
> If he was convicted, then he should've been extradited.
That applies only if Canada follows the minimum standard of justice. Do you honestly believe that Canada was going to arrest or prosecute an alleged cinema bomber when it tolerates all the activities I mentioned above?
> I don't have a lot of faith in India's Hindu-Nationalist government's judgement of Sikh separatists.
Then don't. But judging the stance of the Canadian government doesn't require you to depend on the opinions of the Hindu nationalist government. Canada's own actions speak loud enough.
I'm against these sorts of extra-judicial killings. But let's not pretend that Canada is a saint of sorts in this case. Their argument about sovereignty is just plain hypocritical. All this could have been avoided if they had reigned in an activity that's considered evil anywhere in the world.
> The bombing of Air India flight 182 that killed 329 civilians in 1985 was planned and executed from Canada (this is proven). Yet, the perpetrators walked free with practically no conviction or punishment that suits the crime.
The Air India trial was a travesty of a prosecution, but it was a fuck-up of royal proportions, not a top-down conspiracy theory from "Canada".
This is what people who don't live in a democracy don't understand. The trial embarrassed everyone in Canada, from the people involved, to the other Canadians who saw justice not being achieved. But "Canada" could not have guaranteed a conviction, nor could it have done anything to prevent one from happening.
> There was a recent event in Brampton where the Khalistanis put up a pageant reenacting their assassination of a previous Indian prime minister. Despite protests from India, it was downplayed as under 'right to free speech'
Again, sorry to disappoint people who don't live in a country with free expression, but that is exactly what that is.
> simply neglecting the fact that challenging the sovereignty of another nation is considered as a terrorist act and not as free speech in the modern world
I think we would have to first agree on what is the definition of "challenging the sovereignty of another nation", then whether allowing people to demonstrate for it is the same as challenging, then whether internal border/disputes qualify. And even if we agreed the most extreme version of each of these questions (which we wouldn't), I still would like to see a source for this claim. I don't think it's true?
> At the minimum, it's a challenge to human dignity.
Agreed. And again, permissible under free speech. You don't have to like it. You are free to counter-protest. You are free to react even stronger (Freedom of Speech vs Freedom From Consequences). But this is not something for the GOVERNMENT to get involved in.
> Canada has proven time and again that it has scant regards for sovereignty of India or even basic human dignity when it concerns Khalistanis.
> That applies only if Canada follows the minimum standard of justice. Do you honestly believe that Canada was going to arrest or prosecute an alleged cinema bomber when it tolerates all the activities I mentioned above?
> A summary of the case said Nijjar’s name had surfaced following the 2007 bombing of the Shingar Cinema in Punjab.
> Suspects arrested for the blast confessed they were “acting under the instruction of Hardeep Singh Nijjar,” according to the summary.
> Pannun, a Canadian lawyer and activist, said Nijjar was accused of conspiracy in the cinema bombing but all the other suspects were acquitted.
> I'm against these sorts of extra-judicial killings. But let's not pretend that Canada is a saint of sorts in this case. Their argument about sovereignty is just plain hypocritical. All this could have been avoided if they had reigned in an activity that's considered evil anywhere in the world.
George W. Bush: "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Even the most powerful military on the planet couldn't hold to this line else they would've invaded Saudi Arabia, or then invaded Canada for not helping them invade Iraq.
You cannot lobby accusations of terrorism at someone, offer weak evidence, carry out no judicial examination, then violate another country's territory to kill one of their citizens on their soil. For you to even begin to try to consider these analogous is ludicrous.
And let's be clear. It only even happened because India does not consider Canada strong. If he was in the US, India would've never had the gall.
CSIS agent was a co-conspirator of bombing Air India flight, that's why CSIS destroyed tapes under the guise that RCMP wouldn't protect anonymous informants. Of course, Canada can preach about "rule of law", "freedom of speech". The people who lost lives on that flight were brown people, that's why their lives are less worthy. Almost 300 times less worthy, according to the Canadian govt in the name of 'we f*cked it up'.
Another instance: the chief culprit Parmar behind that bomb blast was not extradited even before that blast. You know why? Trudeau's dad's reason: India was not deferential to the Queen.
TIL about the Parmar extradition, that definitely seems egregious from rudimentary looking around. Though I can't find any examples of "deferential" point. It seems more likely Trudeau just didn't want to and then used a loophole to deny that commonwealth extradition protocol should apply.
> The Governor General-in-Council in 2006 appointed the former Supreme Court Justice John C. Major to conduct a commission of inquiry. His report, which was completed and released on 17 June 2010, concluded that a "cascading series of errors" by the Government of Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) had allowed the terrorist attack to take place.
Note: nuanced phrasing here - "had allowed the terrorist attack to take place" means that their negligence and incompetence led to it not being stopped. Not that they knew it was going to happen and allowed it.
> "The CSIS investigation was so badly bungled that there was a near mutiny by CSIS officers involved in the probe," said the agent who destroyed the tapes once he had been granted anonymity in January 2000 by Globe and Mail journalists.[143] One agent "said he felt compelled to destroy the tapes (that were in his possession) because he was morally obliged to do everything in his power to protect the safety of his sources. '[I] decided it was a moral issue... If their identity had become known in the Sikh community, they would have been killed. There is no doubt in my mind about that.'"
I ultimately don't know what I would do in this situation. These moral choices are not black-and-white. Do you seek to improve the likelyhood of convicting someone of murder by X%, if it increases the likelyhood of more deaths by Y%?
I genuinely don't know. If you read on, the CSIS connection is also tenuous.
Again, the CSIS fucked up royally. Just like the CIA, FBI, and all the american intelligence agencies fucked up royally when they failed to prevent 9/11. These things do happen, but I do not believe for a second that it was a conspiracy.
Would the investigation have gone differently if the victims were white? Honestly, probably, yes. But to be clear, that is a problem of institutional racism within western democracies - not a geopolitical stance Canada has against India, Punjab, or Khalistan.
The distinction does matter. Because you're using Canadian incompetence in getting convictions in the Air India bombing to suggest that they have a vested desire to somehow protect, or enable Sikh terrorists.
But if you're saying that they fucked up the Air India trial is because of racism, then why would they want to protect Nijjar from India? Just throw him over the fence and make him India's problem.
Two descriptions of same phenomenon wrt CSIS and Air India: You and others claim that it is a fuc*k up; people in the deep say it is a malice, because CSIS wanted to protect its agent Surjan Singh Gill [0]
> This is what people who don't live in a democracy don't understand.
> Again, sorry to disappoint people who don't live in a country with free expression
Oh! Please! Get off your high horse! It's tiring to see you pretending to be in some sort of democratic utopia. You are talking about countries which invaded other nations on very shaky grounds and left them under terrorist rule. And while the Khalistanis were getting a free reign, how much 'free speech' and 'free expression' were the indigenous people there allowed? From relocation of populations, to treatment of those who oppose oil sands mining and deforestation of heritage land, to residential school graves? The government supported cultural and literal genocide - by UN definitions. The freedoms that you are flexing about are applied selectively at best, and often misrepresented in cases like with the Khalistanis.
You're just deluding yourself with a grandeur and misguided western moral superiority complex. You might want to reflect on the humans rights records of your own country before lecturing others about free expression. You wouldn't be flexing here if you were one of those affected populations.
> not a top-down conspiracy theory from "Canada".
Canada is known to neglect very insidious activities due to political biases. In this case, it would have been easy to punish the perpetrators if it weren't for such biases. But again - keep deluding yourself.
> Again, sorry to disappoint people who don't live in a country with free expression, but that is exactly what that is.
Repeating falsehood doesn't make it correct. There is no definition of democracy and 'free expression' that tolerates separatism and violence in another country. Your condescending arguments are in very bad faith.
> I think we would have to first agree on what is the definition of "challenging the sovereignty of another nation", then whether allowing people to demonstrate for it is the same as challenging, then whether internal border/disputes qualify. And even if we agreed the most extreme version of each of these questions (which we wouldn't), I still would like to see a source for this claim. I don't think it's true?
I have given two examples of what is considered unacceptable. But you reject them under your self-defined standards that are not accepted internationally.
Ok then - I guess by your standards, the conspiracy that led to 9-11 in US was just an expression of 'free speech' in their country and that the same applies to Chinese interference in Canada.
> Agreed. And again, permissible under free speech. You don't have to like it.
Your 'free speech' has no limits. Hello! Real world doesn't work like that. It comes with consequences when it crosses a limit - when it affects the safety of others.
> If he was in the US, India would've never had the gall.
US for all its faults is not known to bend their political spine to separatists in another nation. (If you think Khalistanis are not terrorists and should be given full rights, have a look at your own government's list of terrorist entities). Heck! Even India's arch-rival Pakistan shows much more dignity in many of these matters. Canada on the other hand, is soon going to have a nice international label of being an offshore haven for separatists, saboteurs and terrorists. Enjoy your rep.
> You cannot lobby accusations of terrorism at someone, offer weak evidence, carry out no judicial examination,
Keep neglecting what is brewing in your backyard. Trust me, you will feel the consequences soon. At that time, remember all your 'free-speech' arguments here. If there is one thing Canada is well known for, it's for feeding snakes like these that come back later and bite.
> You are talking about countries which invaded other nations on very shaky grounds.
Who did Canada invade on shaky grounds?
> While the Khalistanis were getting a free reign, shall we talk about how Canada treats its indigenous people? From residential school graves to those who oppose land encroachment for oil mining?
Would love to. It's horrific, and Canada hasn't done enough to issue financial and societal reparations to it's first nations. I believe firmly that Canada should return significant "Crown Land" to first nations group (aka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Back). Should honor treaties, and never encroach on first nations land for mining or pipelines.
And if a Canadian First Nations Nijjar equivalent was in hiding in India while fighting for the rights of Indigenous Canadians and Canada killed him, there would be protests in the streets of Canada and I would be there with them.
OK, your turn.
> Canada is known to neglect very insidious activities due to political biases.
Non-Indian Citation Needed
> Ok then - I guess by your standards, the conspiracy that led to 9-11 in US was just an expression of 'free speech' in their country and that the same applies to Chinese interference in Canada.
I actually don't know enough about what the Chinese justification is for electoral interference. My possibly uninformed opinion is that China is attempting to dominate the 21st century politically, and in order to do so it attempts to influence the governments of every country in the world much as the US has in the 20th. I don't believe this is a good thing, but I also suspect they'll get away with it. As far as I know this is State-on-State brinksmanship. We're talking about the actions of individuals.
I don't know what you mean when you talk about the 9-11 conspiracy, however the historical narrative that 9-11 was in many ways a response to decades of US interventionism is pretty clear.
The rest of your post shows there is no point us continuing to go back and forth. You stated something is unacceptable to international norms and goes beyond freedom of expression. I asked you for evidence that it violates international norms which you did not. And I don't think my criteria for freedom of expression is unusual.
> US for all its problems is not known to bend their political spine to separatists in another nation. Canada on the other hand, is soon going to have a nice international label of being an offshore haven for separatists, saboteurs and terrorists. Enjoy your rep.
The US is not the bar for hypocrisy or morality. Canada does not have this reputation from anyone except India.
Let's see how many of those had a good reason. I'm pretty sure that defense contractors in Canada consider it as a good enough reason.
> OK, your turn.
False equivalence. The Khalistanis in your country are your citizens fighting for a secession in another country. Foreign terrorists at best. The so-called Khalistani movement is not as popular in India as it is in Canada. It's basically an overseas separatist movement supported by Canada. Let's see how Canada reacts if another country - say China- wants to annex its territories.
> Non-Indian Citation Needed
No. Just common sense needed. Canada fucked up hard in the AI182 bombings case. Did the political leadership do anything to correct it? Did it atleast try to curb the activities that supported it? Do you think your fav US would allow similar activities to happen against them on your land?
> The rest of your post shows there is no point us continuing to go back and forth.
I have reached the same conclusion - because of you insistence that anything is justified in the name of 'freedom of expression'. Your entire argument on the other hand is based on that flaky, false and bad-faith premise. It's fundamentally accepted that freedoms are not absolute - they end where they start infringing on others' rights.
> Canada does not have this reputation from anyone except India.
Yeah. Keep telling yourself that. Canada is a PR disaster on the scale of a country. Have a look at its recent diplomatic relations. And in this case - India is accused of killing one person. Canada is accused of supporting terrorism by its citizens on Indian soil with causalities in the hundreds. Let's not neglect that part of this row.
I wasn't drawing an equivalence. You were trying to trap me with Whataboutism, and I was saying I agree with your criticisms. It's not a gotcha.
> The Khalistanis in your country are your citizens fighting for a secession in another country. Foreign terrorists at best. The so-called Khalistani movement is not as popular in India as it is in Canada.
I can't find a clear confirmation for this but my understanding is Nijjar had to give up his Indian citizenship when he got Canadian. So that he's "foreign" to India is a diplomatic technicality.
> It's basically an overseas separatist movement supported by Canada. Let's see how Canada reacts if another country - say China- wants to annex its territories.
Even if Canada, as a matter of international policy, was "supporting" this movement (which it isn't), how would this be a valid equivalence? Canada is not trying to annex any territories for itself...
Allowing human beings to express an opinion is not a tacit endorsement of them.
You could've just said Afghanistan and laid the responsibility of the re-conquering of that nation by the Taliban under Canada's responsibility rather than gish-galloping with a list of every single conflict since 1002 AD.
But keep in mind your point was that Canada has no credibility as a free and democratic institution because of it. I don't know what is the actual example but Afghanistan was controlled by the terrorist Taliban before the invasion, and it still is.
Rather than take action, Canadian authorities put terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar on ‘no-fly list’ in 2017-18, after New Delhi shared with them the details of over a dozen criminal cases of murder and other terrorist activities against him in India
Having cases against someone doesn't make them guilty. Having "dozens" of cases against someone doesn't make them any more guilty. Especially when the government has demonstrated repeatedly that they will optimize for Hindu nationals at the expense of any other racial/religious minority in the country.
If the Government of Canada believed that he was being unfairly targeted, what would you expect them to do with one of their citizens? Even an extradition discussion can't occur until he's CONVICTED of these cases.
Instead India has done things like designating him a terrorist under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Activities_(Preventio..., which is an extra-judicious approach much like the US Patriot Act. It allows the government to designate someone here without a trial.
So I ask you, what would you have expected Canada to do here?
> So I ask you, what would you have expected Canada to do here?
Cooperate for deeper investigation? I'm not able to understand in a democracy with free expression how does someone gets on a 'No-Fly' list without having done anything.
On 3 January 2020, Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian major general, was targeted and killed by a U.S. drone strike.. [1]
This major general perhaps was the most upright citizen of Iran.
> how does someone gets on a 'No-Fly' list without having done anything.
A diplomatic compromise to demonstrate to India that Canada is not doing "nothing" while not actually punishing him judiciously.
> Cooperate for deeper investigation?
India should have plenty of evidence to be able to charge him, try him, and convict him in absentia, then demand Canada extradite him. That they haven't done so is a strong hint that they don't have enough evidence that would hold up in a modern justice system.
> On 3 January 2020, Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian major general, was targeted and killed by a U.S. drone strike.. [1]
I in no way defend or excuse the United States' history of extra-judicial killings around the world. The US is absolutely hypocritical when it comes to international relations, has done much to destabilize democratic institutions in the world (mostly to keep them from embracing more leftist/communist ideologies that would threaten American Capitalist economic interests)
The assassination of this general will be remembered as an egregious act of the Trump administration, however it is only the latest in a long line of these kind of actions under the administrations of both political parties.
The US gets away with it because it's the most powerful economy and military in the world. Noone else does, nor should they.
> India should have plenty of evidence to be able to charge him, try him, and convict him in absentia, then demand Canada extradite him. That they haven't done so is a strong hint that they don't have enough evidence that would hold up in a modern justice system.
You really need to read up on Indian laws and history. In absentia conviction isn't a thing in Indian law.
But this is just smoke and mirrors. People in the West don't care for Indian legal system. Because "freedom of expression", "Hindu nationalists" and what not. So, this isn't going to help anyways.
But I also think you underestimate the West's perception of India. By and large, people do see the country as a democratic, powerful, diverse, proud empire.
I'm not speaking for the racists, but those are the same everywhere.
What people DON'T care for is Modi's Hindutva, his populist movement that makes people so angry online, or the extra-judicial policies that they've followed to just name certain people (like Nijjar) as terrorists, and then make no other effort to prove their guilt.
It is pretty much clear how India is perceived from your comments. Someone who is doesn't know Indian laws but trying to make assured judgments about India's justice system and telling people how they should approach situations.
At least that is how things are perceived in India. Racist or not. That is the line which is being toed by Modi.
Consider this - If this whole situation was such a perceived issue, India wouldn't have taken this strong stance. If these online angry people were the majority - India wouldn't have taken this stance.
As for the whole Modi's Hindutva agenda, no one seems to ask a basic question - Why does his populist movement which apparently is so hated online, I mean even Trump's right wing agenda isn't hated as much, is so successful? He won the elections. Twice. Not even Trump's right wingers could do that. Why do the majority still side with him?
Every "democracy" is not the same. I bet you would say something different if your country was fighting a civil war with secessionist insurgents in parts of your country. Even more so if the secession in question had been settled 30 years ago. Most people don't realise that the world does not revolve around them and their situation, for some reason.
Secession in the western world simply cannot be compared. Historically western countries (not all obviously) have been imperial powers and so when imperialism collapsed after WW2, secession and referendum have been the way to go for people seeking self determination where they feel they are not getting the deserved representation.
Jatt Sikh separatism was extremely violent and was engineered by the cynicism and short sightedness of the people running India at the time and the opportunism of Pakistan which wanted to "get" India after their own country was bifurcated in the 1971 war. And you might think this civil war was fought between Hindus and Sikhs. But you would be clueless. Both the parties were Sikh ie the Government forces in Punjab were overwhelmingly Sikh and they recognised the movement as a cover for organised crime and fought and defeated it.
A lot of people (1000s) ended up dead. This question was not settled over some maple syrup and a friendly, fair referendum. So now when the population has moved past this demand, re-raising the issue will not be taken kindly.
Again, I have to question whether the dominant HINDU population has moved past this demand, or if the discriminated-against Sikh population in Punjab has moved on.
Watching Americans map their ideas around rabid white nationalism onto Hindus says more about the naturally violent tendencies of the west than it does about Indians.
Typing hindu in all caps does not change the heterogeneity of the people and it doesn't change the millenia long welcoming nature of the native people of this land.
The HINDU only exists in the imagination of the western academic.
When the article moves from the the editorialized introduction to their stated goals, it doesn't sound as bad.
> Replace "pseudo-secularism" with "true secularism", the latter being the Western-style separation of religion and state. Decentralize and reform the Indian economy, end the socialist, centrally-planned, state-owned economic model. Address Christian and Islamic proselytization, religious conversion practices and the arithmetic of religious communities in India; insist that Muslims and Christians accept its doctrine of equality of religions.
Your framing is uninformed (if one were charitable, malicious if one weren't)
Hindus are a minority in Punjab, and Sikhs are dominant. At the time when the Jatt Sikh militancy broke out, Punjab was one of India's richest states with the politics and the economy being "dominated" by the Jat Sikhs. While Punjab's economy is a shadow of those times, it is still "dominated" by Jatt Sikhs.
I think I've already answered that India's Sikhs don't want anything to do with Khalistan. As to why, the answer is simple: without the rest of India and it's unified market and the rights available to citizens, Punjab will be an economic basket case, as would almost any other Indian state. Not to mention they will certainly be cut off from their temples and monuments established in other parts of the country. Communities established in the rest of the country will be likely forcibly expelled to the new state.
(Edit: I'm not wishing this would happen. But given India's history with partition on religious grounds, this kind of displacement on a more thorough scale is exactly what is going to happen. My argument is that Sikhs and every community knows this, and that is why I have pointed out that it was the Sikhs who fought the Khalistanis and either eliminated or drove them away)
It is only a small section of Commonwealth Sikhs who use this Khalistan thing as a cover for their criminal activities. One only needs to examine the circumstances in which these "activists" left India and the present company they keep to realise this. It is possible some of them are still rightfully pissed off about the raid on the Golden Temple in '84. But formation of Khalistan does not serve their interests.
> Your framing is uninformed (if one were charitable, malicious if one weren't)
I deserve this call-out. I acknowledge I'm uninformed, and I am attempting to get more informed through the various discussions on this thread.
But it's VERY hard to fact-check a lot of the things being said. Some are leading with obvious bias. You are not. I'm inclined to believe more of what you have to say.
I assure you I am not malicious. I have a great respect for India, Hindus, Sikhs, Punjabs, and Canadians. I have a great disrespect for Narendra Modi and his policies. I do not support terrorism, but I also fall short of saying that non-violent resistance is the only path to liberation. History has vindicated violence as a means to achieve freedom in many contexts.
My understanding of the history of tensions within India between Sikhs and the rest of the country is painted based on broad incidents, like the assassinations of leaders, Golden Temple, etc. I gather my instincts from that.
But for modern perspectives, it is incredibly hard for me from my western bubble to get accurate impartial information or statistics. What percentage of Punjab citizens want independence? What percentage of Punjabi Canadians in the diaspora? What percentage support violence to achieve Khalistan?
I would like to learn.
Many threads have drawn comparisons to Quebec. I moved to Canada as an immigrant in 1995. I was infatuated with the country. And I was immediately confronted with the country's 2nd largest subdivision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum coming inches within 0.6% of voting to leave. I was furious. I didn't understand. I spent the next decade of my youth joking to anyone who would hear that "Canada should've kicked Quebec out for the vote being so close. They would have died economically, and they would've crawled back begging."
Then I looked into the actual history of Quebec and Canada. And I understood just how much propaganda and misinformation exists in English-language Canada that mocks Quebecois uniqueness and interests.
And I decided I actually understand why so many Quebecers wanted to separate, but that I wanted them to stay because their uniqueness is vital to the Canadian spirit. I can't imagine what I would think if the history was as violent as it was with Sikhs within India.
Which is why I keep doubting the premise that these sentiments only exist in the diaspora outside of Punjab.
Reading this is so frustrating I don't even know where to begin. I was writing a long reply to you some time back.. and I just deleted it all. I thought there is no point.
I don't think you are insincere. I'm certain that you are a very good person. But there is a certain arrogance in trying to understand things you are not equipped to understand. Not being equipped to understand things is not always a bad thing. And it certainly does not mean that things are always out of your control.
I must admit that I'm not articulate or authoritative to present this myself. I would recommend listening to this conversation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpa597jg4uY with as much open mindedness as you can muster.
Pew is the most respected non-partisan global survey corp, and 95% Sikhs said they were proud to be Indian. There simply isn't a desire for it in India.
Read all your replies. I can only conclude that have no understanding of Hindus, Sikhs or even India. Forget understanding Modi. That is not your cup of tea. I see a lot of comments on HN mindlessly bash Modi based on the ridiculous, perverted view presented by Western Media. That is what is driving your conclusions. Indians know better as to what exactly is happening in India and why we voted Modi. The West will never understand either the political landscape of India or the dynamics of demographic politics. For starters, majority of the "oppression" BS in India (be it on religious, caste or gender lines) is manufactured by all parties (representing all strata of society) to garner sympathy and votes from gullible voters. The actual reality is quite the opposite. You cannot have a prosperous economy, in a Democratic setup, with continuous oppression. Just because few riots happened in some parts of the Country, does not mean the Government is authoritarian. Do not forget that India is a country of 1.4 Billion People. It would be ridiculous to generalize the Nation, its Elected Government or the People based on extreme issues (which are bound to happen considering how vast the Country is and how huge the population is).
Either ways, as sibling comments have rightfully noted, you are unable to grasp the true psyche of India and Indians. For you to truly understand India, you will have to stop referring to Western publications of India (which are so out of touch with ground reality it is hilarious) and move to India and live her for at least a decade. You will reach the same conclusions as Indians then.
> The quirk here is that India and many Hindu nationals disagree that this is all he was doing, and they instead basically brand him as something closer to a terrorist responsible for murders.
It seems you are ignorant of the history behind this issue. The Khalistan movement wanted to stay in India and get special status (like J&K did which was removed later). If these powers were not granted then they wanted to secede. The Union of India happened with a lot of effort. Nearly everyone wanted a special status (and politically there are still fights for special status of different kind but no one threatens to secede). Even J&K special status nearly fractured the ruling party (Congress which is not "Hindu nationalist party" as per today's Western agenda) with many leaders refusing to be part of it. Khalistan had no chance and wasn't granted that exception too. They took to arms and captured the Golden temple.
It was the Congress leader which had ordered an army attack on the Sikh sacred ground - The Golden Temple in Amristar. When the Air India bombing happened, even then Congress was in charge.
The larger point is that West is ignorant of India's concerns. Previously, it was an issue of "botched" investigation and Indian justice and legal system. Now the garb is "Hindu nationalists".
At the end there is always some story about "freedom of expression" as well. It is nothing new.
|It is not in dispute that India has a complex and bloody history discriminating heavily against it's Sikh minority in Punjab
It is in dispute, what is not in dispute is killing of sikhs in delhi incited by party members of than ruling govt.
Sikh's are not in minority in punjab they are in majority or do you mean punjab region itself is discriminated by federal govt?
Also you need to make distinction between sikhs(followers of religion) and khalistani(people demanding separate statehood). In punjab there was genocide against minority(hindus) by khalistanis NOT sikhs(they were protectors and some even laid their lives against it) but it is inconvenient to talk about so doesn't get much mind share.
I generally refrain talking about india because whenever i try to dig deeper it becomes more and more complex that i simply give up on finding what is true. What i do know is to treat popular narrative with skepticism.
Also, important to note that Khalistani movement does not exist because there is any discrimination against Sikhs in any way shape or form. It's entirely a foreign intelligence operation, and not by one single nation state, and unfortunately for them, it does not resonate with the local population at all, specially now. So, the idea that India killed him is absurd. I would look to foreign intelligence who are looking to escalate tensions.
> Sikh's are not in minority in punjab they are in majority or do you mean punjab region itself is discriminated by federal govt?
Let's be frank, regardless of who rules at the center, the non-Hindi states have always been discriminated against in every facet, while shit hole states like BIMARU get a pass. It's damning for India when a southern relatively right wing leaning state (although ruled by a secular party) has to promulgate a law stating that bank services have to be delivered in Kannada, their mother tongue, in addition to Hindi. That itself shows how much the Hindi belt takes the rest of the country for granted.
Holy sh*t, you're supposed to reserve the rabid mask off racism for private spaces.
UP and Bihar were run by local minoritarian govts, mostly allied with the national minoritarian party. They ran criminal govts for decades, because India has a system with a 'weak center' and any fair but targeted retaliation would be seen as targeting specific communities.
The reality of things is that you can't run an underdeveloped heterogenous society like a homogenous rich country in the west.
There is something uniquely wrong culturally in those states, and it permeates all the way down to the lowest levels. That something is a rampant culture of corruption and oppression of minorities and lower caste peoples. In some states, there's only corruption and dishonesty in the upper levels (or little of it like Kerala and HP). In most states, there's corruption in the upper and middle levels. But in the BIMARU belt and Karnataka, it's practically every where. Every one is looking to scam and cheat you regardless of where you are. Karnataka was "saved" thanks to the IT boom, but without that happening, it would have remained an extremely corrupt mining state. But for the others, it's telling when you get in a lot more Central funding and still have nothing to show for it.
IMO, most of those states should be split for good reason, to make administration easier and more easy to monitor. UP should be 3 states, Rajasthan should be 2, MP should be 2. Even worse, looking at the split away states such as Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh or Jharkhand, they're all now currently better run than their parent states.
Yeah, 1000 years of being the easiest target of foreign raids erodes all culture down to the bone.
I don't think it has much to do with minority oppression. If anything, these states have been run through minority favored govts for a long time. SP favored the Muslims, BSP favored lower castes, Lalu favored the OBCs, and Nitish a combination of them all.
> IMO, most of those states should be split for good reason, to make administration easier and more easy to monitor. UP should be 3 states, Rajasthan should be 2, MP should be 2
Whole heartedly agreed, 50 million is near the upper bound of how many people can be sanely governed by a single entity.
Punjab and Haryana are the gateway for any foreign invasions, yet while corrupt, they don't have anywhere close to the corruption that those states have. Besides, Malwa (where MP is) was often not conquered soon enough because of the hilly Vindhyas and the presence of powerful ruling states in that region. So I don't buy the foreign invasion argument.
I didn't say that the corrupt culture has much to do with the oppression of minorities. By that factor, Gujarat should have been doing severely poorly. But oppressing minorities seems to be something all of these states tend to want to do some time or the other. That's just something that's bad for business and economic growth, but still doesn't explain why these states are uniformly corrupt, even worse so than poorer states like Sikkim or Odisha.
>> advocating for basically secession and creation of a new country
> Let's be really precise. What you just said is absolutely something that everyone in a free democracy should be free to do as much as they want to their heart's content.
Let's be really precise. Democracy isn't a free ticket to do anything someone wants. And no democracy in the world tolerates challenges to their sovereignty and integrity. I'm seeing this trend of misrepresenting the meaning of democracy to justify international secessionist and often outright terrorist activities.
> It is not in dispute that India has a complex and bloody history discriminating heavily against it's Sikh minority in Punjab.
I am not entirely aware of what happened during the 80s. But India was ruled by Congress party under Indira Gandhi, not the current "Hindu nationalist" BJP. When the farmers protest happened recently, even though the farmers (most of them Sikhs) were literally chasing away policemen with swords and tractors, the government didn't do any violence (beating protesters with batons, water cannons don't really count since its a standard practice in my South Indian state as well). In South India, the local government literally used police snipers to kill 12 protesters when people were protesting against pollution by a factory [1]. So, when compared to that, the farmer protesters (majority Sikh) were pampered.
If the government has actually killed him, and if it would prevent the deaths of 1000s in the future, it is definitely worth it.
The current Hindu nationalist government didn't resort to violence against the Sikh farmers. Compare that to what they did in Gurgaon after the religious riots, where they practically demolished the homes of the entire Muslim community.
Also, Operation Blue Star was carried out by a secular but hardline government led by a pseudo dictator. Although looking back, it was probably justified considering the Pakistani support for Khali Stan even today. And the Prime Minister lost her life for those actions.
> Let's be really precise. What you just said is absolutely something that everyone in a free democracy should be free to do as much as they want to their heart's content.
I don't think that's remotely true at all.
Democracies abide the rule of law, and this means following basic principles such as not toleraring treasonous, sedition, and subversive activities. Democracies are not a free-for-all, where vocal minorities get to impose their will upon others.
This might be the only case over a decade of Modi's term where the entire Indian political class is united. The Sikh insurgency happened during the term of a party that's famously minoritarian. Indira Gandhi's, she was half-Parsi, half atheist-hindu, her president was Sikh, her body guards (who assassinated her) were Sikh and many of her most trusted generals in her most important moment (1971 war) were Sikhs.
Could you give me examples of Hindus having a bone to pick with Sikhs ? Or is it just Indians in general disliking violent terrorists.
The Khalistan/Sikh insurgency was practiced by a minority of Sikhs, and imposed themselves on mostly peaceful Sikhs of Punjab. Hindus suffered in the insurgency, but peaceful Sikhs were the majority victims.
Remember, India has been very accommodating of opposing views. Dravidian nationalists have controlled Tamil Nadu for decades and communists have controlled Kerala since independence. They all fight fair elections and the national govt. (NDA or INC) integrates one of their splinter groups into its wider big tent. The same has been true of Sikh groups such as the Akali dal.
The idea of India being a hostile place for Sikhs is somewhere between laughable to outright propaganda.
> discriminating heavily against it's Sikh minority in Punjab.
Could you give me examples ?
Sikhs are strongly represented across the wealthy and polical class of India. They have the same rights and more, at least more than the resident Hindus. (Because of how the Indian constitution gives extra protection to minorities for how they run their religious institutions).
Their state has been run by a Sikh for decades now. They were the biggest beneficiries of the 1960s green revolution by the federal govt, propelling them to the richest medium sized state in India.
Punjab has continued to unilaterally derail all agricultural reform in India, wile seeing their own Sikh leaders commandeer 30 years of economic underperformance as they refuse to move past ancient practices in agriculture. They were able to non-democratically storm arm the govt into revoking a bill with massive public and democratic support. They raided the red fort (closest thing to white house lawn) and replaced the Indian flag with a flag of Khalistan, without facing any repurcussions.
The idea that what's honestly an priviledged population is discriminated against in the country is ridiculous.
Now, on the other hand, a person living abroad, advocating for basically secession and creation of a new country, with a massive following also living abroad (+700,000), get gunned down in a country with some of the most restrictive gun control laws and there's no suspect in custody? It's odd, to say the least.
The world is getting more divided by the day. We're practically seeing in realtime the world is dividing itself into factions.
Interesting times indeed.