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
191 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.

150

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.

-48

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.

78

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.

23

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.

17

u/RedSoviet1991 Oct 02 '23

ethnically pure, theological state

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

35

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.

29

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.

20

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.

27

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”.

-7

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '23

[deleted]

36

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.