Jagmeet Singh (right), deputy leader of Canada’s New Democratic Party. His backers say he could eventually pose a political threat to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (left) and the governing Liberal Party.
by Neera Kuckreja Sohoni 4 November 2023
On October 19, the unprecedented happened with Canada removing 41 diplomats from India in one go. The move responded to India’s demand to reach parity in diplomatic representation with Canada. The real cause underlying the withdrawal was different.
The rupture between the two countries occurred following Canadian allegation of India’s involvement in the murder of a Canadian national suspected of being a Sikh separatist, and India’s denial of any such involvement. Canada’s hasty expulsion of an Indian diplomat elicited reciprocal expulsion of a Canadian diplomat, except India went further. It suspended all visa services for Canadians and asked Ottawa to pare down its diplomatic presence in India to match India’s diplomatic strength in Canada.
For long, the Sikh separatist movement has been an irritant to India along with those in the overseas-based Sikh community who, aspiring to set up a new Sikh nation of Khalistan, have been providing fuel to keep the movement going. With Prime Minister Trudeau’s government resting on Sikh support for survival, it makes sense for Trudeau to not cross swords with Canada’s Sikh community sympathetic to Khalistan.
Typically, political movements are judged in binary terms as protests or insurrections, and their followers as freedom fighters or terrorists. Between the opposing optics there is no meeting ground as seen in America where the January 6th 2021 breach of the US Capitol by Trump supporters is differently processed by opposing sides – as a protest which turned riotous, or as a well-planned insurrection.
It is puzzling why governments which are so sensitive and vigilant to restrain opposition internally have no qualms about covertly or overtly championing separatist forces abroad. While advanced countries – liberal and Communist impassively witness and permit separatists gnawing at less developed nations’ territories, they would aggressively oppose any suggestion to relinquish some of their own treasured turf to host separatists.
In India’s case, what is exceptionally unjust and objectionable is that even after a hard-won freedom following centuries of painful alien rule, a unified independent India still confronts threats to its integrity, most of them fanned and fed by foreign countries and expatriates. The colonial mindset of viewing ex-colonies as their realms or dominions persists and continues to infect current international behavior, the horrendous consequences of which the world is currently seeing in the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine wars.
The origin of the Khalistan movement, similar to the rise of post world war Arab nationalism and Muslim separatism which led to Arab region’s division and India’s partitioning, can be traced to the abusive colonial policy of divide and rule which the British astutely used to foster and cement separate identities. Segmenting Indians by faith, class, caste, and region, they even added new indicators which they supported by cleverly crafted anthropological and geographical atlases and censuses. Even the military was set up along identity with regiments labeled as Sikh, Rajput, Maratha and Gurkhas, which the British played against each other. Sikh soldiers, for example, were recruited and deployed against Hindu rebel kingdoms. Ironically, Indian forces still operate under those original nomenclatures!
Post-colonial India is hardly blame-free for allowing national unity to be undermined by identity politics. Following independence, as the aura of unity faded, parochial politics and partisan interests emerged to ace national integrity, causing serious grievances and in some cases lasting fissures among Indians. Sikhs, for instance, felt deeply wounded when in 1966, Punjab which had already been severed in 1947 and forced to yield good chunks to enable the formation of Pakistan, was now trifurcated to form three separate states of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh.
While Punjab being mainly Sikh and the other two states being predominantly Hindu certainly proved beneficial because it gave the people and their state a defined identity and political base, it also seriously undercut national unity by crystallizing the faith and ethnic divide. Resentment over Punjab’s trifurcation was aggravated by the perceived unfairness of Punjab having to share its capital city and its treasured water resources with Haryana. Adding to those grudges was the rumor that Sikh faith would be slighted in an overwhelmingly Hindu India, unfounded as it overlooked that India is constitutionally committed to being a secular democratic republic.
Faith when threatened becomes a driving force turning a grievance into a cause and eventually a crusade. Suddenly politics became personal. That is how Khalistan gained momentum. But to acquire the desired visibility the movement turned to activist tactics including riotous agitations and disruptive violence, in turn leading to brutal terrorism on one side and harsh repression on the other.
The volcano erupted when on June 6, 1984 then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi ordered the armed forces to enter the sacred site of Golden Temple, the Sikh Gurdwara in Amritsar to vacate the militants suspected of being sheltered there. The unacceptable breach of holy ground was a breaking point, leading to Indira Gandhi’s assassination on October 31, 1984 by her own trusted Sikh guards.
The passions following ‘the felling of the big tree’ were not let go when her son and successor Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and his party, instead of calming the waters heeded the call to avenge. They silently stood by to watch the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent Sikhs who had to relive the horrors of the partition of India and Pakistan that millions of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs had to endure.
Since no movement survives without a following and funds. India feels convinced that the Khalistan movement has received financial and logistical support from overseas sympathizers based in numerous countries claiming to be India’s allies ranging from Australia, New Zealand and England to Canada and America. China, Pakistan and other ill-wishers undoubtedly must also be adding their might to this planned erosion and dismemberment of India.
India’s conviction is shared by some foreign scholars such as analyst Christine Fair who asserts, “[t]he involvement of the diaspora was an important dimension of the Sikh insurgency. Not only was it a source of diplomatic and financial support but also of military assistance.” In a 1988 article ‘Holy War Against India’, the author Connor Cruise O’Brien had concluded, “More than anything else, Khalistan is a project for bringing about the destruction of the Indian state in a welter of communal disturbances…”.
Ethnic and racial chasms provide fertile ground for vote-seeking politicians everywhere, not just in India. The desire for revenge is strong and eventually excites people to slash and burn existing institutions and renounce inherited behavioral norms and cultural traditions. We are witnessing the same defilement in America following the aggressive rise of Black ‘Wokeism’ and revival of White ‘racial imperialism’.
Together both ideologies are gnawing at the integrity of this country as surely as separatists are endeavoring to break up India. Canada could take heed and revisit its stance on legitimizing disruptive forces.
Not every hill is worth dying on and certainly not worth trading another nation’s sovereignty.