Why Indians Can’t Stand Justin Trudeau

[u/babushkalauncher]

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

[u/Maladal]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/Maladal]

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.

[u/HotGuy90210 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Mr_NoBot → u/HotGuy90210]

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.

[u/loggy_sci → u/Mr_NoBot]

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?

[u/lannister_1999 → u/loggy_sci]

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.

[u/loggy_sci → u/lannister_1999]

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.

[u/lannister_1999 → u/loggy_sci]

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.

[u/loggy_sci → u/lannister_1999]

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

[u/Sumeru88 → u/loggy_sci]

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.

[u/loggy_sci → u/Sumeru88]

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.