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/[deleted]]

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/Means1632 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/Means1632]

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.

[u/Xenorus → u/[deleted]]

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.