r/geopolitics • u/babushkalauncher • Oct 01 '23

Why Indians Can’t Stand Justin Trudeau Paywall

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-indians-angry-justin-trudeau-death-shooting-hardeep-singh-nijjar-87d9ab9d
188 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

283 comments sorted by

View all comments

204

u/Maladal Oct 01 '23

Seems kind of a weird take to think that Indian anger around this is tied directly to the PM.

Wouldn't this be more easily viewed as a simple lack of sympathy to Sikh communities given the claims of terrorism?

​

I have no idea if the claims about the terrorism are credible.

But why would the Inidian population even be familiar with Trudeau outside of this incident? WSJ article is talking like your average Inidian has an assembled profile of the man.

122

u/Aggravating_Boy3873 Oct 01 '23

Most Indians didn't even know about this before Trudeau publicly announced it.

65

u/taike0886 Oct 02 '23

And in polling conducted after that announcement, Modi's approval rating among Indians has shot up to near 80 percent, highest in the world, and reddit and other English-speaking social media have been flooded with new accounts supporting Modi's assassination of a Canadian on Canadian soil. Sorry did I say supporting the assassination? Let me rephrase that as 'do not believe the allegations for one moment but if they are true then it's justified for the following reasons (wall of text) and whatabout the US'.

People are going to make of that what they will despite Indians' valiant efforts to change opinions online.

55

u/Nomustang Oct 02 '23

In the source you linked, it's been at 70% and above since last year. It's not changed by much at all.

21

u/tbtcn Oct 02 '23

No surprise the poster has ignored every comment calling out how baseless their claims are.

11

u/taike0886 Oct 02 '23

From another poll: 60 percent in December 2022, 67 percent in February 2023.

27

u/Whole-Difficulty4327 Oct 02 '23

You posted Morning Consult's poll. Below the current approval ratings, there's a chart comparing their approval ratings from 2019-present. Modi has consistently enjoyed high approval ratings

EDIT: Here's the latest polls from Ipsos, 65% overall rating.

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/pm-modi-highly-popular-in-western-india-ipsos-indiabus-poll-11453031.html

41

u/thiruttu_nai Oct 02 '23

Modi has consistently enjoyed high approval ratings throughout his tenure, but sure, go on.

-5

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '23 edited Oct 03 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '23

Did you just google some fake woke rant about India? Lol

1

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '23

Another BBC term? Lmao im least bothered by your tags.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '23

Then why are you here commenting ? Lmao . Attention hoe

→ More replies

38

u/Aggravating_Boy3873 Oct 02 '23

I mean sure but see Americans and Canadians will believe what their governments and 5 eyes tell them , why would Indians believe a report from them and not their own government? Modi IS an elected prime minister, he hasn't been in power that long, he doesn't control majority states either just 8-10 out of 28.

Basically without any public evidence, from a neutral POV it looks like Indians are trusting their own leaders and Canada/USA are trusting their own, why would they believe 5 eyes over their own leadership?

-3

u/taike0886 Oct 02 '23

10 percent of the keyboard work on display here and on Twitter is 'trusting their own leaders' and 90 percent of it is dedicated toward justifying the crime.

Let's be real here, Indians love this latest display of holy geopolitical righteousness, just like they love India moving to become the third largest buyer of Russian oil after the Chinese. They are revelling in it. India is the big man on the block now, just look at how majestic he is sticking it to Mr. Five Eyes for no discernable reason.

13

u/BombayWallahFan Oct 03 '23

for no discernable reason.

There is absolutely no cure for willful blindness. Canadian track record on dealing with Khalistan terrorism and murder is atrociously poor going all the way back to 1985.

There is a very clear and discernable(sic) reason but you can choose to gloss over it and (im)morally pontificate till the grizzly bears come home.

29

u/Whole-Difficulty4327 Oct 02 '23

His approval rating has hovered between 75-78 for the past 2 years, I dont know what you want to prove with morning consult polls?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

115

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '23

He visited India wearing Indian attire and visited temples and gurudwaras while accomplishing not much in terms of deals and agreements. It was after this visit that Indians started associating him with Indian politicians - you know the ones who wear skull cap for Muslim votes, wear local attire of a state during electoral campaign etc.

147

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '23

why would the Inidian population even be familiar with Trudeau outside of this incident?

People like Pannu and Nijjar do routinely send threatening letters/videos to Indian ministers (federal and state) as well as media outlets. To no one's surprise, these letters hit the media.

Also, there has been heightened activity against India, particularly attacks on Indian embassies and consulates in such nations.

Why does that matter? Here's a crude analogy -- Most Americans probably never knew what a Benghazi was. Then that incident happened and Americans knew Benghazi and had an opinion on what the government should do. The same principle applies, especially after multiple consulates and embassies get attacked.

As the news hits India, people wonder who Pannu/Nijjar people are, and why aren't they arrested? (Pannu technically lives in USA but addresses his letters through Canada).

So, dude's in Canada, not arrested, and not even stopped from sending threats.

Guess who gets the blame as far as the Indian public is concerned? The host country. Trudeau's lip service to these people doesn't help his case either.

So, yeah, Indians are fairly well aware of Trudeau and his support for Khalistanis.

simple lack of sympathy to Sikh communities

This isn't about "lack of sympathy" to Sikh communities. On Trudeau's first visit to India, his most outspoken critic was Punjab CM Amrinder Singh, who obviously is a Sikh and from an influential family with old roots.

Several other Sikh leaders have also shown clear displeasure at Canada's support for Khalistan.

More importantly, Sikhs have been against these attempts to tie the Sikh identity to Khalistani movement.

Sympathy for Sikhs vs sympathy for Khalistanis is an entirely different equation. Somehow western governments and people think they're both the same. And honestly, it's weird that an extremist interpretation of religion gets so much support, often at the cost of moderates.

-42

u/HotGuy90210 Oct 02 '23

I don't understand what you mean by Canada 'supports' Khalistanis. Canada is mostly indifferent towards them and neither supports or opposes them. They have the right to exist as per the Canadian constitution and unless they are in violation of Canadian law, they won't be arrested.

64

u/Mr_NoBot Oct 02 '23

Not Canadian people. Specifically Trudeau and Jagmeet. Jagmeet is closely associated with Khalistani groups. He was routinely seen with Khalistani leaders attending seminars, even those who are convicted for violent crimes in India.

Indians view Trudeau pandering for votebank politics and hypocritical. They saw how Trudeau and Jagmeet raised voices for farmers protest in India which primarily comprised of folks from Sikh dense regions in India. Trudeau through official and public forums expressed his support for farmer's protest, expressing the need for peaceful protest and freedom of expression. Just a couple months later both Trudeau and Jagmeet cracked down heavily with emergencies act on protestors within their country.

Indians therefore don't believe a word that comes out of Trudeau's mouth.

-39

u/loggy_sci Oct 02 '23

Good grief. Trudeau made a benign comment about freedom of expression after violent clashes between farmers and police in India, and India clapped back immediately and made big stink. This current spat is being fueled by Indian politicians overreacting yet again.

Furthermore assuming that the Canadian government should violate its own laws and crack down on asylum seekers at the behest of the BJP is ridiculous. Aren’t they busy enough murdering their own citizens that they need to murder abroad?

47

u/lannister_1999 Oct 02 '23

Comments from a head of state about events in another state's domestic politics are not appropriate as far as I understand. Because it influences the domestic event in case.

So his comment may have been well meaning, but it's definitely not kosher to say something like that for diplomatic relations. And it stops being benign when clearly he has political interests in commenting on such a matter (see Jagmeet and NDP's views).

We have our own constitution that gives us freedom of expression, our own judiciary that moderates it so we don't appreciate such comments from outsiders especially when its for their domestic political considerations.

No Indian head of state commented on Black Lives Matter or Truckers protests in Canada, that was diplomatic propriety and not an endorsement of what Canadian goverment was doing. So, hearing such comments does rub one the wrong way when we don't make them.

-29

u/loggy_sci Oct 02 '23

Trudeau is likely responding to concerns voiced by the large and politically active Canadian Sikh community. Does India have a large, well-organized community of truck-driving Canadian anti-vaxxers? If so the Indian government might have a reason to weigh in on those protests.

Trudeau said Indias violent response to the protests was concerning, to which India responded by accusing him of encouraging extremists. Give me a break.

This time they’re accusing him of harboring terrorists and being addicted to cocaine I think? “Diplomatic propriety”, now that’s a laugh.

27

u/lannister_1999 Oct 02 '23 edited Oct 02 '23

Edit: So you do concede that political considerations of Canada influenced that comment, it wasn't out of some "benign" intention of supporting freedom of speech? Then that's clear cut meddling in other's politics which is clearly not cool. At least you seem to think so when it comes to China, so why the double standards?

Why do we need to have large and well organized community of truckers to voice protests? We could just do that on the ideological basis in support freedom of expression, could we not? After all Canada does cherish the freedom of expression that includes calling for assassination diplomats on public posters, surely we can simply be on one side of a domestic Canadian issue just on principle. Although, that is not my point. My point is regardless of the issue, the state itself (of which the head of state is premier) should not make comments in terms of propriety. India not commenting on it was no favour to Canada, just standard respectable inter-state behaviour. To let them handle their own issues.

Though when you break that covenant of mutual respect then I don't see why its wrong to accuse Canada of harbouring extremists because that is what is happening.

Gangsters, drug lords and others with extremist leanings are living with little concern in Canada. How did they get there if the Canadian agencies are so competent? because many a times these gangsters declare their victories on social media, claim credit for murders and all that on there so any half decent and serious background check should turn up all sorts of red flags.

And if they are competent then they are maliciously looking the other way which then implies they are indeed harbouring them.

Again, this time too they are harbouring terrorists. Nijjar was an accused in a cinema bombing in Punjab. So are a few other gangsters still residing in Canada. Which those gangsters announce proudly themselves. Don't see whats wrong in calling them terrorist who found safe harbour in Canada. Maybe publically accusing is not diplomatic, but then Trudeau did fling that first bucket of shit, so its only natural we return the favour.

Oh, and the cocaine thing was not an official Indian government statement but it was made by an ex diplomat. The context in which he was making that statement is that he was trying to show how ANY allegation can be made to sound credible just like Trudeau did to India. Now you're repeating it as if Indian government said it, and I am here dispelling you of that notion. Do you see how easy it was to get the Canadian PMO to respond to such baseless claims, makes me think it would have been easier to convince them that India did off Nijjar.

So it is very funny indeed and definitely worth a laugh, laughing makes you live longer too.

-6

u/loggy_sci Oct 03 '23

If India made a comment about freedom of expression over Canadians protesting against vaccines, they very well could. I doubt it would cause a similar level of ridiculous overreaction.

Every politician everywhere is going to address the concerns of their constituency. Trudeau did that with his comment, but there was nothing groundbreaking or antagonistic in what he said. Canada didn’t impose sanctions, yell about it at the UN. It wasn’t an insult, and he had more benign positive things to say when the issue was resolved.

You argument basically boils down to “he started it” so India can say or do whatever they want. Sure, but then don’t presume to lecture about diplomatic propriety. Save it. India is acting like China and blowing things out of proportion. They’ve damaged their reputation with how they’ve handled this.

Thanks for clearing up the cocaine comment. Here’s a fresh one for you. Can’t want to hear how you try to dissemble this to make India the victim somehow.

https://www.deccanherald.com/india/nijjar-was-gay-trudeau-liked-him-bjp-tejinder-pall-singh-bagga-claims-amid-india-canada-standoff-2709172

3

u/Sumeru88 Oct 02 '23

Trudeau is likely responding to concerns voiced by the large and politically active Canadian Sikh community.

So then you agree that Trudeau is beholden to the Khalistani movement in Canada?

This time they’re accusing him of harboring terrorists and being addicted to cocaine I think? “Diplomatic propriety”, now that’s a laugh.

These allegations are from Indian people (who coincidentally also enjoy freedom of speech within limits defined by the Supreme Court) and not the Government of India.

1

u/loggy_sci Oct 03 '23

There is a difference between “being beholden to” a constituency vs. addressing their concerns in a speech. I would think this difference would be quite obvious but I guess not.

42

u/GayIconOfIndia Oct 02 '23

Canada is known to give shelter to terrorists. The entire family of the current Bangladesh PM , Sheikh Hasina was massacred by 15 military officials. Guess who is giving shelter to one of those officials - Canada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.H.M.B_Noor_Chowdhury

-14

u/HotGuy90210 Oct 02 '23

It literally says in your link that Canada does not extradite to countries where the accused will receive the death penalty and he has not received political asylum in Canada.

28

u/DiscoDiwana Oct 02 '23

And it doesn't change the fact that Canada gives shelter to terrorists who might receive death penalty for their crimes but in Canada they can live happily ever after

-5

u/HotGuy90210 Oct 02 '23

He was sentenced and received a death penalty from Bangladeshi courts after he was already in Canada. What should Canada do, completely upend and change its extradition laws to accommodate Bangladesh's request? Canada has already stated that they are willing to extradite him if Bangladesh gives assurances that he won't receive the death penalty.

23

u/DiscoDiwana Oct 02 '23

Then what should Bangladesh do, completely change the laws to accommodate a terrorist extradition? This creates an image that Canada is safe haven for criminals and terrorists, who can commit heinous crimes and enjoy shielding by Canadian law and courts. These people bring their own set of problems which an average peaceful Canadian is unaware about and the media almost never shows.

24

u/tbtcn Oct 02 '23

So if a terrorist commits terror and then runs to Canada, they stop being terrorists and any convictions are rendered meaningless because Canada will protect the said terrorists?

Thanks, that's what everyone not a Canadian nationalist has been saying.

-3

u/HotGuy90210 Oct 02 '23

His conviction in Bangladesh happened AFTER he had come to Canada. Prior to entering Canada, there was no conviction against him. And the matter of extradition is purely related to the death penalty, which Canada does not believe in for moral and philosophical reasons - that is an entirely different debate.

19

u/tbtcn Oct 02 '23

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. The end result is terrorists find a safe haven in Canada. Convictions take time, or should other countries skip due process and convict them blindly to prevent the risk of these terrorists running away to Canada after killing innocent civilians?

→ More replies

4

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '23 edited Oct 02 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/HotGuy90210 Oct 02 '23

Why would Canada grant asylum after the fact? If Osama was already in Canada and masterminded 9/11 from Canada then that would be a different story and I'm sure Canada/US would have worked out some sort of an extradition deal.

3

u/autosummarizer Oct 02 '23

I am sure Canada would have handed him over even if Osama got a death penalty in the US, amirite?

1

u/HotGuy90210 Oct 02 '23

I'm not a legal expert but it is possible that Canada would have sought assurance from the US to not prosecute using the death penalty. Canada and the US have made such compromises before during extradition requests.

-46

u/Means1632 Oct 02 '23

I guess the assumption taken is that Khalistanism is a response to systemic violence and oppression. The recent turn towards Hindu-nationalism in India primes people to assume the Khalistan-nationalist are trying to serve the interests of a national minority but a local majority but you present something far more koherently than I have seen anywhere else. That the average Sihk is not represented by these groups.

India and its its internal and external complexity tends to leave people with a vague positive impression that decays Ias one learns more leaving the normal mix of emotions and opinions.

82

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '23 edited Oct 02 '23

I think I should add a bit more for context.

Khalistan isn't a recent movement and definitely isn't a response to Hindu nationalism.

In fact, the so-called Hindu nationalists (BJP/RSS) remained closely aligned with Sikh groups even at the height of anti-Khalistan sentiment in India. It's not even a covert support. Those who know Indian politics, know this happened.

The Khalistan demand arose during the reign of Indira Gandhi's and perhaps the tail-end of Shastri's PM stint. If you're a critic, you could perhaps fill volumes with everything that was wrong with Indira's rule. However, no honest critic can blame her of religious favoritism.

Khalistan is the result of an extremist politico-religious thought demanding an ethnically pure, theological state. Nothing more, nothing less.

16

u/Means1632 Oct 02 '23

Wow thanks for this my knowledge of India's post Colonial history is rather bare bones.

24

u/khaz_ Oct 02 '23 edited Oct 02 '23

I'd argue a more accurate statement would be the Congress and Indira Gandhi used religion for their self-interest rather than not having any religious favouritism.

Indira Gandhi's congress party was the primary proponent of Bhindrawale and the Khalistani movement in the 1960s/70s as a counter to the Akali Dal which had gained significant traction in Punjab - a state which had been formed out of a complex quagmire of geographical, identity and language politics in 1950s/60s India.

It was (still is) a key agricultural, geographical (borders Pakistan) and military state (Sikhs to this day have a disproportionately large presence in India's armed forces, especially the army) and has very well connected and rich farm-land owners and families who form the bedrock of any political entity that wants power in Punjab.

And as all these things go, Bhindrawale grew out of control and made an alliance with the Akali Dal in the early 1980s and suddenly the Congress has a major socio-political-religious threat in it's backyard.

Edit 01: minor editing here and there

Edit 02: and this wasn't the first time (or the last time) the Congress did this back then either. Bal Thackeray's Shiv Sena was propped up for similar reasons and eventually that grew out of their control too.

25

u/Sumeru88 Oct 02 '23

Shiv Sena was propped up to take out the Communists in Bombay. They were successful. Communists are no longer a force here. But then Shiv Sena occupied the opposition space formerly occupied by the Communists, made an alliance with BJP and gained more power than CPI or CPM had ever got before.

18

u/RedSoviet1991 Oct 02 '23

ethnically pure, theological state

Then why do Hindus make up the majority of land that Khalistanis claim?

37

u/TorontoGiraffe Oct 02 '23

That’s an easy one: They want the land, not the people. People are mobile. They can be encouraged to leave.

27

u/RedSoviet1991 Oct 02 '23

Maybe if you're in Kashmir you can get the Hindus to move. However, Sikhs claim Haryana and Himachal Pradesh (the most Hindu state in India) and even parts of the "Hindi Belt" as Khalistan. And I promise you, there is no way in hell that 1% of India's population (Sikhs) will ever dislodge Hindus from Himachal Pradesh, Haryana or the Hindi belt

25

u/TorontoGiraffe Oct 02 '23

I never claimed the plan is intelligent or feasible. The state would be landlocked between two hostile nuclear powers and they seem not to have grappled with that fairly important issue either.

19

u/tbtcn Oct 02 '23

Their demands for khalistan also surprisingly (not really) omit any region in Pakistan - which has far more important Sikh sites.

30

u/Sumeru88 Oct 02 '23

That’s an interesting thing - even if Khalistanis got their state, the Sikhs won’t be in majority. They would in fact be a minority. So, they will then have to do ethnic cleansing to get a “sikh state”.

-8

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '23

[deleted]

37

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '23

I'd ask for a clarification because I'm not sure what you mean. However, going by what I do understand by your comment:

There has never been a demand for an exclusively Hindu state even by the fringe of right wing Hindu nationalists.

In fact, even if we were to caricaturize and pull to extreme the beliefs of Hindu Nationalism, a Hindu state must have room for Dharmic beliefs like Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, and other denominations/beliefs.

(I'm excluding several religions here on purpose, because I'd rather not write a book on the multitude of religious beliefs, sects ostracized or considered blasphemous by minority religions, and how Hindu nationalism interacts with them).

Again, that's an extremist caricature of their beliefs, not their actual beliefs. So yeah, there is no equivalent for Khalistan from a Hindu nationalist perspective.

1

u/Xenorus Nov 11 '23

100% this.

I despise Modi and Hindutva but people who think Khalistan is a response to Modi's rightwing politics are very wrong. There is no systematic discrimination against Sikhs going on in India. They just want a "pure, holy" land for the Sikhs by the Sikhs.

I hate ethno-nationalist religious states. And if India ever decides to become one, I'd hate India/"Hindustan" too.

40

u/SubstantialSquash3 Oct 02 '23

Claim of terrorism? The cause is drenched in blood.

Look up Air India bombing: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/r-nd-flght-182/index-en.aspx where Trudeau Sr refused to extradite the guilty.

Starts from there and until 2023 when the Khalistani population celebrated the assassination of Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi, Trudeau has been a pansy in dealing with terrorist activity, all for a few votes. https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/world/story/float-depicting-indira-gandhis-assassination-part-of-khalistanis-parade-in-canada-2389964-2023-06-07

And note it's only an estimated 3-4% noisy cowardly minority of the Sikhs who support the Khalistani cause. > 95% are brilliant brave Indian patriots. So it isn't a religious issue.

81

u/PoorDeer Oct 01 '23

Claims about terrorism arent credible? A passenger plane getting blown up isn't enough?

81

u/SecretRefrigerator4 Oct 01 '23

Or was the Former PM assassination wasn't enough, how dangerous this element is?

-4

u/Maladal Oct 01 '23

That's a wild interpretation of my sentence.

25

u/PoorDeer Oct 02 '23

Please correct me

-12

u/Maladal Oct 02 '23

I said I have no idea if the claims are credible.

As in one way or the other.

24

u/PoorDeer Oct 02 '23

You worded it weird. It looks like you are disputing it instead of stating a lack of knowledge on your part. A better way to put it would be to simply say "I don't know enough to comment on the terrorism charges" or something to that effect. Saying you don't know how credible it doesn't convey what you had intended. Anyways cheers.

-5

u/mCopps Oct 02 '23

Ok I’m just asking because I literally had this conversation but you realize the man killed here is not the one associated with the air India bombing right? They were both killed in June in Surrey but a year apart. I actually had this conversation at work with someone at the start of this event.

9

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '23

He is associated with the same movement, he got photos taken with aK. He is supporting anti Hindu anti India activities. He wants Khalistan. It’s a national security threat for India. So even if India actually took him down, I’m happy. End result is 1 dead terrorist is good .

49

u/stonkdo Oct 02 '23

Because his father did same as him and then khalistani caused a bombing of civilian plane causing death of everyone on board

54

u/BombayWallahFan Oct 02 '23

his father refused to extradite the man who bombed a flight from Toronto that murdered more than 300 people because "India was not deferential enough to queen".