So, I'm assuming that tomorrow Indian PM can make a claim that Canadian agents (CSIS?) was behind it and not provide any evidence. That'll be equivalent and acceptable right?
India has provided ample evidence including via Interpol (whatever the process is called, red something notice or whatever) regarding various Khalistanis and Canada hasn't acted. Culprits from Air India bombing in the 80s were acquitted since Canadian intelligence had decided to erase evidence. Just look at the videos of the Gurudwara in question, it has posters calling for assassination of Indian diplomats. Graffiti was painted in Hindu temples in Canada. Etc. Etc.
It is very clear that Canadian governments and politicians have a soft spot for Khalistanis since they constitute a sizeable vote bank. I believe NDP leader is also a Khalistan sympathizer, has to be if he wants Sikh votes in Canada.
Having said that, I still believe that this is not a rift between Hindus and Sikhs. This is limited to a vocal, but powerful, minority of Sikh diaspora. Khalistan is a non-issue within India, but can flare up which is why governments need to be careful.
> Culprits from Air India bombing in the 80s were acquitted since Canadian intelligence had decided to erase evidence.
The Air India bombing killed 268 Canadian citizens. I do not understand how anyone can begin to imply that the Canadian Government would be more interested in "protecting" Khalistani terrorists than providing justice for their own citizens.
Was it a catastrophic prosecution and investigation? Yes. But to jump to malice for something that every Canadian wanted justice for is ludicrous.
> Khalistan is a non-issue within India
Pretty sure it's a fairly significant issue inside Punjab. Or is your implication that the rest of Hindu India doesn't consider their opinion important? If so, you've just self-explained why the Khalistan movement exists in the first place.
> I have no idea how good/bad Canada's National Post is
The National Post was founded by one of the 2 main inspirations for the character of Logan Roy on succession. Overall they do not lean TOO conservative (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/national-post-media-bia...), however these days Justin Trudeau inspires INTENSE hatred from those even mildly conservative in Canada, and they foam at the mouth to criticism him for anything, especially when it fits into their narrative of him being Too Young, Too Arrogant, and Not Respected On The International Stage.
> I do not understand how anyone can begin to imply that the Canadian Government would be more interested in "protecting" Khalistani terrorists than providing justice for their own citizens.
Obviously because they are brown Canadians and their lives count for less. Anyone who saw the outcome of the Canadian "investigation" and the following court trials where witnesses were murdered, would say the same thing.
> Khalistan is a non-issue within India
Its not a non-issue, but Punjabi Sikhs don't care about it in India. Elections are never fought on this topic and candidates with Khalistani leanings always lose. Sikhs are well integrated into Hindu society because Sikhism itself is an offshoot sect of Hinduism (now a formal religion), no matter what the Sikhs say. There are Sikh Gurudwaras and holy places across India. Khalistan is an issue in India in the national security context. Indians want to see the government to be acting against forces threatening India.
> Pretty sure it's a fairly significant issue inside Punjab. Or is your implication that the rest of Hindu India doesn't consider their opinion important?
Do you have evidence to support that?
Khalistan has been a non-issue in Punjab since the late 80s or so. There is no militancy nor is this an issue during elections or in the manifesto of any political party. Akali Dal, which is kinda Sikh religious party is not in government for last 2-3 elections and before that I believe it was in coalition with BJP, the so called Hindu-nationalist party, which is currently in power in center. Current and previous state governments are from centrist national parties.
Whether or not it is discussed in hushed tones or not is something obviously I don’t know.
Can it flare up again? Sure it can, and that is the hope of the Khalistanis in Canada and fear of people in India, which is why the sensitivity.
May be a hyperbole, but when is comes to Khalistanis, Canada is playing with fire shattering these terrorists, many of whom have links with Punjabi organized crime and it is going to bite them hard.
Sikh Gurudwaras have banners calling for assassination of Indian diplomats. I don’t know of any other civilized nation that would allow that to happen.
It is genuinely impossible to find any information except from biased sources screaming that Sikhs don't want it.
I cannot find an impartial survey of Sikh support for Khalistan EXCEPT in the international diaspora. This of course is itself problematic. One take is the diaspora outside of India is the only one free to offer an honest perspective. The other equally correct side is that the opinion of the international diaspora is irrelevant. Only the opinions of Sikhs in Punjab matter.
I made an assumption and it might be flawed. I would love to find some concrete data.
> the other equally correct side is that the opinion of the international diaspora is irrelevant. Only the opinions of Sikhs in Punjab matter.
Yes, because the ones who migrated and cry out for Khalistan are a bunch of cowards seeking refuge in the West in the name of oppression. If they were actually interested in freedom, they would have stayed in India and carried on the fight. At least the majority of Kashmiris had the courage to stay back and carry on the fight, even under the covers, and not migrate en masse.
I had attended an event for the Sikh community a few years back, which was attended by Sikhs from all over the world, including from USA, Australia, the UK and India. Nowhere in another community have I seen a strong culture of brotherliness and felicitation for good. And while there were a few Canadian Sikh families, they were far too few to be countable in one hand. Tells a lot about the kind of Sikhs that Canada is harboring, tbh.
History is full of figures that have eventually only succeed in liberating some oppressed people from exile.
Not saying that's the situation with Sikhs or that's who Nijjar is.
But it does seem like he would have good reason to believe that advocating for Khalistan from inside India would get him into jail or worse.
And if the work is important to the Sikhs in Punjab, it would definitely stand to reason that he might have had to do it from Canada.
> I had attended an event for the Sikh community a few years back, which was attended by Sikhs from all over the world, including from USA, Australia, the UK and India. Nowhere in another community have I seen a strong culture of brotherliness and felicitation for good. And while there were a few Canadian Sikh families, they were far too few to be countable in one hand. Tells a lot about the kind of Sikhs that Canada is harboring, tbh.
Is your criticism that Canadian Sikhs do not engage with the international Sikh diaspora? Not being a part of that community I guess I don't know why that might be. But since Canada contains the largest Sikh population outside of India, it's possible that they have their own self-reinforcing community (That amongst Canadians has exactly the same reputation as you mentioned - "a strong culture of brotherliness and felicitation for good") that they've disconnected from the international or Punjab Sikh community? That's not necessarily a problem - African Americans don't have a strong connection to Africans.
If there is a secessionist terrorist equivalent like Nijjar in the US, do you think he would be left to walk free? Unlike the Commonwealth countries of UK, Canada and Australia, India and the US both have constitutions which clearly state that once you're in, you can't get out (iirc, the Indian one was based on the US one for the federalist aspects). The US would equally take care of such an anti-social element rapidly, because secession from the union is an act of war - in fact, India's response was damningly slow.
On the other hand, there are peaceful movements in India that are still happening for separate statehood, or at minimum the removal of certain extremely biased and abusive Acts (such as the AFPSA). Irom Sharmila, for instance, fought against the Indian government with a fast unto death, was constantly arrested, released and rearrested. There was a successful decades long movement for the creation of a separate state for the state of Telangana. There is currently another peaceful decades long movement for the creation of a separate state for the eastern part of Uttar Pradesh, where the current Prime Minister contested his seat from. I don't see people from either of those movements being oppressed in the 21st century.
The core reason why other Sikhs don't stand for Khalistani Sikhs is because Khalistan is in essence a theocracy in Punjab. Khalistanis want a separate nation that is firmly rooted in Sikh religious principles, something which the majority of Sikhs in India don't really want. Even in the diaspora, apart from Canada, Khalistanism is a fringe element, simply because most countries except Canada don't allow refugee status based on claims of "oppression" by an Indian government in this century (they would have had more standing in the 80s for that claim). And like others mentioned, the ones migrating to Canada are often part of the leadership of various gangs and mafias in Punjab, something that another country like the US would easily prevent from entering their soil.
> The US would equally take care of such an anti-social element rapidly, because secession from the union is an act of war - in fact, India's response was damningly slow.
Are you asking if Nijjar was advocating for secession from the US, or if he was in the US instead of Canada?
If it's the latter, I think the US would've done exactly as Canada.
If you're asking what the US would've done if it was in India's shoes, you're absolutely right - it would've successfully pressured Canada into giving him up.
However, this is not a gotcha. That the US is insecure enough in it's freedom that it overreacts to "protect" it (see, the 2000's and the invasion of Iraq) is one of the reasons it is a flawed democracy. If the US had done what India has done, Canada might've cooperated, but the uproar from our citizens (and from me here), would've been identical.
> The core reason why other Sikhs don't stand for Khalistani Sikhs is because Khalistan is in essence a theocracy in Punjab. Khalistanis want a separate nation that is firmly rooted in Sikh religious principles, something which the majority of Sikhs in India don't really want. Even in the diaspora, apart from Canada, Khalistanism is a fringe element, simply because most countries except Canada don't allow refugee status based on claims of "oppression" by an Indian government in this century (they would have had more standing in the 80s for that claim). And like others mentioned, the ones migrating to Canada are often part of the leadership of various gangs and mafias in Punjab, something that another country like the US would easily prevent from entering their soil.
See this is a fascinating paragraph. Because the whole time until the last sentence, I was nodding along, learning more about the situation, and gathering a more nuanced worldview. Then you finish it with a blanket dismissal of Sikhs in Canada as gangsters and mafios. Punjabi Organized Crime is huge in Canada. And the Punjabi diaspora in Canada is likewise large. (Almost 3% of the Canadian population).
It shows a clear bias you have against the potential for peace from any Punjabi Canadians.
You decided to hinge on the last bit, which was actually a small additive statement and not the whole point of my assertion. Reading back, I understand that I worded that last sentence extremely incorrectly in haste to finish up typing a long monologue.
I'm not painting all Canadian Sikhs as gangsters and mafiosos. What I said was that, compared to other places such as Australia and the UK, Canada has a lower barrier to entry for someone claiming to be a refugee. A Khalistani Sikh cannot obtain refugee status in either Australia or the UK, simply because the bar for claiming refugee status is much higher, and it's very difficult to show "oppression" in a country where the former Prime Minister was a Sikh. In Canada, the barrier is much lower and the existing Sikh community was connected enough, so you have all sorts of people passing through, including many of the gang leaders and members involved in the drug mafia. They find safe refuge in Canada, simply because they find a lower barrier to entry compared to the US or the other commonwealth countries.
This situation is effectively the exact same one as Pakistan harboring Osama bin Laden, then USA killing him on Pakistani soil, in spite of the two of them being "allies". Replace Pakistan and USA with Canada and India respectively.
Fair enough! I'll dismiss that statement of yours.
> This situation is effectively the exact same one as Pakistan harboring Osama bin Laden, then USA killing him on Pakistani soil, in spite of the two of them being "allies". Replace Pakistan and USA with Canada and India respectively.
There was absolutely no dispute in the international community about the guilt of Osama bin Laden and the direct connection between him, Al Queda, and dozens of terrorists attacks including 9/11.
As far as I understand, the same is not the case about Nijjar, and he is in no way believed to be the core "mastermind" the way Osama was.
> It is genuinely impossible to find any information except from biased sources screaming that Sikhs don't want it.
>I made an assumption and it might be flawed. I would love to find some concrete data.
These two together don't compute. You obviously have a tilt that anything coming out of India is "biased source" while international one is unbiased somehow. So, why even pretend that you want some concrete data.
And that basically is the issue. Indian evidence, data and proofs are treated with suspicion. While Western data is somehow clean. If this is not a classist mindset I don't know what is.
I said the ones that I found seem biased because they bring in a lot of clear opinion into the matter.
Consider the same is true about the US - if you try to find information and land on FOX News and the Wall Street Journal Opinion page, you will see a lot of bias.
I see the same with the Indian news stories I find. I can see the bias.
Is there a Indian equivalent Reuters or Associated Press that has data on internal opinions on Khalistan?
The party shifted to a moderate agenda in the 90s. Funnily enough, this party has been working with Modi's Hindutva party or BJP.
In comparison, J&K demands were raised by a party called National Conference. This party has never shifted its agenda and continued with demand for sometimes separatism and sometimes special status for J&K.
Politics runs on supporting specific agendas. J&K agenda is still supported. No one denies that. You will not find any Indian sources claiming that. While there is no popular party supporting the Khalistani agenda. So, Indian sources claim that.
While there are parties in Canada supporting and pushing this. So, you'd surely find facts in the international media saying there is support.
India has provided ample evidence including via Interpol (whatever the process is called, red something notice or whatever) regarding various Khalistanis and Canada hasn't acted. Culprits from Air India bombing in the 80s were acquitted since Canadian intelligence had decided to erase evidence. Just look at the videos of the Gurudwara in question, it has posters calling for assassination of Indian diplomats. Graffiti was painted in Hindu temples in Canada. Etc. Etc.
It is very clear that Canadian governments and politicians have a soft spot for Khalistanis since they constitute a sizeable vote bank. I believe NDP leader is also a Khalistan sympathizer, has to be if he wants Sikh votes in Canada.
Having said that, I still believe that this is not a rift between Hindus and Sikhs. This is limited to a vocal, but powerful, minority of Sikh diaspora. Khalistan is a non-issue within India, but can flare up which is why governments need to be careful.
Edit: I have no idea how good/bad Canada's National Post is, but I found this to be a rather logical opinion piece : https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canadas-remarkably-slapdash...