8 ms·

I don’t have a dog in this fight but this is geopolitics. Unless you're absolutely sure, you cannot accuse other countries of planning and executing hits on peo

I don’t have a dog in this fight but this is geopolitics. Unless you're absolutely sure, you cannot accuse other countries of planning and executing hits on people living in your country. Now, on the other hand, a person living abroad, advocating for basically secession and creation of a new country, with a massive following also living abroad (+700,000), get gunned down in a country with some of the most restrictive gun control laws and there's no suspect in custody? It's odd, to say the least. The world is getting more divided by the day. We're practically seeing in realtime the world is dividing itself into factions. Interesting times indeed.

deanCommie 3y ago
> advocating for basically secession and creation of a new country Let's be really precise. What you just said is absolutely something that everyone in a free democracy should be free to do as much as they want to their heart's content. The quirk here is that India and many Hindu nationals disagree that this is all he was doing, and they instead basically brand him as something closer to a terrorist responsible for murders. Who is right I don't know. These are very difficult things to figure out even decades later, never mind at the current moment in time in history. It is not in dispute that India has a complex and bloody history discriminating heavily against it's Sikh minority in Punjab. And it is not in dispute that the Khalistan movement is responsible for the murders of hundreds of civilians through bombings. None of this should enable the Indian government to be able to murder a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil without repercussions. But it's important to be precise that what you describe OUGHT to be legal, and what India accuses this man of doing OUGHT to not be. I dunno if any of this matters.
- newusertoday 3y ago
  |It is not in dispute that India has a complex and bloody history discriminating heavily against it's Sikh minority in Punjab It is in dispute, what is not in dispute is killing of sikhs in delhi incited by party members of than ruling govt. Sikh's are not in minority in punjab they are in majority or do you mean punjab region itself is discriminated by federal govt? Also you need to make distinction between sikhs(followers of religion) and khalistani(people demanding separate statehood). In punjab there was genocide against minority(hindus) by khalistanis NOT sikhs(they were protectors and some even laid their lives against it) but it is inconvenient to talk about so doesn't get much mind share. I generally refrain talking about india because whenever i try to dig deeper it becomes more and more complex that i simply give up on finding what is true. What i do know is to treat popular narrative with skepticism.
  - known 3y ago
    [dead]
  - Rodmine 3y ago
    Also, important to note that Khalistani movement does not exist because there is any discrimination against Sikhs in any way shape or form. It's entirely a foreign intelligence operation, and not by one single nation state, and unfortunately for them, it does not resonate with the local population at all, specially now. So, the idea that India killed him is absurd. I would look to foreign intelligence who are looking to escalate tensions.
  - fakedang 3y ago
    > Sikh's are not in minority in punjab they are in majority or do you mean punjab region itself is discriminated by federal govt? Let's be frank, regardless of who rules at the center, the non-Hindi states have always been discriminated against in every facet, while shit hole states like BIMARU get a pass. It's damning for India when a southern relatively right wing leaning state (although ruled by a secular party) has to promulgate a law stating that bank services have to be delivered in Kannada, their mother tongue, in addition to Hindi. That itself shows how much the Hindi belt takes the rest of the country for granted.
    - screye 3y ago
      > shit hole states like BIMARU Holy sh*t, you're supposed to reserve the rabid mask off racism for private spaces. UP and Bihar were run by local minoritarian govts, mostly allied with the national minoritarian party. They ran criminal govts for decades, because India has a system with a 'weak center' and any fair but targeted retaliation would be seen as targeting specific communities. The reality of things is that you can't run an underdeveloped heterogenous society like a homogenous rich country in the west.
      - fakedang 3y ago
        There is something uniquely wrong culturally in those states, and it permeates all the way down to the lowest levels. That something is a rampant culture of corruption and oppression of minorities and lower caste peoples. In some states, there's only corruption and dishonesty in the upper levels (or little of it like Kerala and HP). In most states, there's corruption in the upper and middle levels. But in the BIMARU belt and Karnataka, it's practically every where. Every one is looking to scam and cheat you regardless of where you are. Karnataka was "saved" thanks to the IT boom, but without that happening, it would have remained an extremely corrupt mining state. But for the others, it's telling when you get in a lot more Central funding and still have nothing to show for it. IMO, most of those states should be split for good reason, to make administration easier and more easy to monitor. UP should be 3 states, Rajasthan should be 2, MP should be 2. Even worse, looking at the split away states such as Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh or Jharkhand, they're all now currently better run than their parent states.
- achow 3y ago
  > advocating for basically secession and creation of a new country Let's be really precise. What you just said is absolutely something that everyone in a free democracy should be free to do as much as they want to their heart's content. Not sure whether 'free democracy' allows for anything and everything. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#:~:text=Treason%20against%20the%20United%20States,on%20Confession%20in%20open%20Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#:~:text=Treason%20agai.... BBC - Who was 'Nijjar ..in India, he was wanted under India's Terrorist Act for several cases, including a 2007 cinema bombing in Punjab that killed six people and injured 40, and the 2009 assassination of Sikh Indian politician Rulda Singh.. In 2020, a statement by the Indian government accused him of being actively involved in "operationalising, networking, training and financing" KTF members. He had also been accused of running terrorist training camps in British Columbia for supporters ready to carry out attacks in India. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66860510# https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66860510#
  - deanCommie 3y ago
    Given the decades of tension, I don't have a lot of faith in India's Hindu-Nationalist government's judgement of Sikh separatists. I thought HN was big on "innocent until proven guilty" - or does that only apply to accusations of sexual assault? If he was convicted, then he should've been extradited. Otherwise, I have to cite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela#Arrest_and_Rivonia_trial:_1962%E2%80%931964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela#Arrest_and_Rivo...
    - zeusflight 3y ago
      Canada has a terrible track record in dealing with Khalistani terrorist activities. The bombing of Air India flight 182 that killed 329 civilians in 1985 was planned and executed from Canada (this is proven). Yet, the perpetrators walked free with practically no conviction or punishment that suits the crime. There was a recent event in Brampton where the Khalistanis put up a pageant reenacting their assassination of a previous Indian prime minister. Despite protests from India, it was downplayed as under 'right to free speech' - simply neglecting the fact that challenging the sovereignty of another nation is considered as a terrorist act and not as free speech in the modern world. At the minimum, it's a challenge to human dignity. Canada has proven time and again that it has scant regards for sovereignty of India or even basic human dignity when it concerns Khalistanis. > If he was convicted, then he should've been extradited. That applies only if Canada follows the minimum standard of justice. Do you honestly believe that Canada was going to arrest or prosecute an alleged cinema bomber when it tolerates all the activities I mentioned above? > I don't have a lot of faith in India's Hindu-Nationalist government's judgement of Sikh separatists. Then don't. But judging the stance of the Canadian government doesn't require you to depend on the opinions of the Hindu nationalist government. Canada's own actions speak loud enough. I'm against these sorts of extra-judicial killings. But let's not pretend that Canada is a saint of sorts in this case. Their argument about sovereignty is just plain hypocritical. All this could have been avoided if they had reigned in an activity that's considered evil anywhere in the world.
- kaycey2022 3y ago
  Every "democracy" is not the same. I bet you would say something different if your country was fighting a civil war with secessionist insurgents in parts of your country. Even more so if the secession in question had been settled 30 years ago. Most people don't realise that the world does not revolve around them and their situation, for some reason.
  - Scoundreller 3y ago
    > I bet you would say something different if your country was fighting a civil war with secessionist insurgents in parts of your country. Maybe not a civil war, but some of the Quebec separatist ideology got up to some shit in Canada: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_lib%C3%A9ration_du_Qu%C3%A9bec https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_lib%C3%A9ration_du_... > Even more so if the secession in question had been settled 30 years ago. Canada still has successful federal and provincial political parties campaigning on exactly that! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum
    - kaycey2022 3y ago
      Secession in the western world simply cannot be compared. Historically western countries (not all obviously) have been imperial powers and so when imperialism collapsed after WW2, secession and referendum have been the way to go for people seeking self determination where they feel they are not getting the deserved representation. Jatt Sikh separatism was extremely violent and was engineered by the cynicism and short sightedness of the people running India at the time and the opportunism of Pakistan which wanted to "get" India after their own country was bifurcated in the 1971 war. And you might think this civil war was fought between Hindus and Sikhs. But you would be clueless. Both the parties were Sikh ie the Government forces in Punjab were overwhelmingly Sikh and they recognised the movement as a cover for organised crime and fought and defeated it. A lot of people (1000s) ended up dead. This question was not settled over some maple syrup and a friendly, fair referendum. So now when the population has moved past this demand, re-raising the issue will not be taken kindly.
- throwaway12asd 3y ago
  > It is not in dispute that India has a complex and bloody history discriminating heavily against it's Sikh minority in Punjab. I am not entirely aware of what happened during the 80s. But India was ruled by Congress party under Indira Gandhi, not the current "Hindu nationalist" BJP. When the farmers protest happened recently, even though the farmers (most of them Sikhs) were literally chasing away policemen with swords and tractors, the government didn't do any violence (beating protesters with batons, water cannons don't really count since its a standard practice in my South Indian state as well). In South India, the local government literally used police snipers to kill 12 protesters when people were protesting against pollution by a factory [1]. So, when compared to that, the farmer protesters (majority Sikh) were pampered. If the government has actually killed him, and if it would prevent the deaths of 1000s in the future, it is definitely worth it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoothukudi_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoothukudi_violence
  - deanCommie 3y ago
    > the government didn't do any violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blue_Star#Casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blue_Star#Casualties
    - fakedang 3y ago
      The current Hindu nationalist government didn't resort to violence against the Sikh farmers. Compare that to what they did in Gurgaon after the religious riots, where they practically demolished the homes of the entire Muslim community. Also, Operation Blue Star was carried out by a secular but hardline government led by a pseudo dictator. Although looking back, it was probably justified considering the Pakistani support for Khali Stan even today. And the Prime Minister lost her life for those actions.
    - screye 3y ago
      Operation Blue Star was run by Indira Gandhi, the child of an atheist socialist and an atheist Parsi. It was a hard decision, it was badly executed, but it was not rooted in religious extremism.
- zeusflight 3y ago
  >> advocating for basically secession and creation of a new country > Let's be really precise. What you just said is absolutely something that everyone in a free democracy should be free to do as much as they want to their heart's content. Let's be really precise. Democracy isn't a free ticket to do anything someone wants. And no democracy in the world tolerates challenges to their sovereignty and integrity. I'm seeing this trend of misrepresenting the meaning of democracy to justify international secessionist and often outright terrorist activities.
- rewmie 3y ago
  > Let's be really precise. What you just said is absolutely something that everyone in a free democracy should be free to do as much as they want to their heart's content. I don't think that's remotely true at all. Democracies abide the rule of law, and this means following basic principles such as not toleraring treasonous, sedition, and subversive activities. Democracies are not a free-for-all, where vocal minorities get to impose their will upon others.
- screye 3y ago
  There are a few omissions here. > Hindu nationals This might be the only case over a decade of Modi's term where the entire Indian political class is united. The Sikh insurgency happened during the term of a party that's famously minoritarian. Indira Gandhi's, she was half-Parsi, half atheist-hindu, her president was Sikh, her body guards (who assassinated her) were Sikh and many of her most trusted generals in her most important moment (1971 war) were Sikhs. Could you give me examples of Hindus having a bone to pick with Sikhs ? Or is it just Indians in general disliking violent terrorists. The Khalistan/Sikh insurgency was practiced by a minority of Sikhs, and imposed themselves on mostly peaceful Sikhs of Punjab. Hindus suffered in the insurgency, but peaceful Sikhs were the majority victims. Remember, India has been very accommodating of opposing views. Dravidian nationalists have controlled Tamil Nadu for decades and communists have controlled Kerala since independence. They all fight fair elections and the national govt. (NDA or INC) integrates one of their splinter groups into its wider big tent. The same has been true of Sikh groups such as the Akali dal. The idea of India being a hostile place for Sikhs is somewhere between laughable to outright propaganda. > discriminating heavily against it's Sikh minority in Punjab. Could you give me examples ? Sikhs are strongly represented across the wealthy and polical class of India. They have the same rights and more, at least more than the resident Hindus. (Because of how the Indian constitution gives extra protection to minorities for how they run their religious institutions). Their state has been run by a Sikh for decades now. They were the biggest beneficiries of the 1960s green revolution by the federal govt, propelling them to the richest medium sized state in India. Punjab has continued to unilaterally derail all agricultural reform in India, wile seeing their own Sikh leaders commandeer 30 years of economic underperformance as they refuse to move past ancient practices in agriculture. They were able to non-democratically storm arm the govt into revoking a bill with massive public and democratic support. They raided the red fort (closest thing to white house lawn) and replaced the Indian flag with a flag of Khalistan, without facing any repurcussions. The idea that what's honestly an priviledged population is discriminated against in the country is ridiculous.
- strdanger334 3y ago
  > The quirk here is that India and many Hindu nationals disagree that this is all he was doing, and they instead basically brand him as something closer to a terrorist responsible for murders. It seems you are ignorant of the history behind this issue. The Khalistan movement wanted to stay in India and get special status (like J&K did which was removed later). If these powers were not granted then they wanted to secede. The Union of India happened with a lot of effort. Nearly everyone wanted a special status (and politically there are still fights for special status of different kind but no one threatens to secede). Even J&K special status nearly fractured the ruling party (Congress which is not "Hindu nationalist party" as per today's Western agenda) with many leaders refusing to be part of it. Khalistan had no chance and wasn't granted that exception too. They took to arms and captured the Golden temple. It was the Congress leader which had ordered an army attack on the Sikh sacred ground - The Golden Temple in Amristar. When the Air India bombing happened, even then Congress was in charge. The larger point is that West is ignorant of India's concerns. Previously, it was an issue of "botched" investigation and Indian justice and legal system. Now the garb is "Hindu nationalists". At the end there is always some story about "freedom of expression" as well. It is nothing new.
Scoundreller 3y ago
> get gunned down in a country with some of the most restrictive gun control laws Given Canada’s neighbours, those laws don’t accomplish much if you don’t want to follow them. And hunting/recreational shooting are very much a thing.

deanCommie 3y ago

> advocating for basically secession and creation of a new country Let's be really precise. What you just said is absolutely something that everyone in a free democracy should be free to do as much as they want to their heart's content. The quirk here is that India and many Hindu nationals disagree that this is all he was doing, and they instead basically brand him as something closer to a terrorist responsible for murders. Who is right I don't know. These are very difficult things to figure out even decades later, never mind at the current moment in time in history. It is not in dispute that India has a complex and bloody history discriminating heavily against it's Sikh minority in Punjab. And it is not in dispute that the Khalistan movement is responsible for the murders of hundreds of civilians through bombings. None of this should enable the Indian government to be able to murder a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil without repercussions. But it's important to be precise that what you describe OUGHT to be legal, and what India accuses this man of doing OUGHT to not be. I dunno if any of this matters.

newusertoday 3y ago
|It is not in dispute that India has a complex and bloody history discriminating heavily against it's Sikh minority in Punjab It is in dispute, what is not in dispute is killing of sikhs in delhi incited by party members of than ruling govt. Sikh's are not in minority in punjab they are in majority or do you mean punjab region itself is discriminated by federal govt? Also you need to make distinction between sikhs(followers of religion) and khalistani(people demanding separate statehood). In punjab there was genocide against minority(hindus) by khalistanis NOT sikhs(they were protectors and some even laid their lives against it) but it is inconvenient to talk about so doesn't get much mind share. I generally refrain talking about india because whenever i try to dig deeper it becomes more and more complex that i simply give up on finding what is true. What i do know is to treat popular narrative with skepticism.
- known 3y ago
  [dead]
- Rodmine 3y ago
  Also, important to note that Khalistani movement does not exist because there is any discrimination against Sikhs in any way shape or form. It's entirely a foreign intelligence operation, and not by one single nation state, and unfortunately for them, it does not resonate with the local population at all, specially now. So, the idea that India killed him is absurd. I would look to foreign intelligence who are looking to escalate tensions.
- fakedang 3y ago
  > Sikh's are not in minority in punjab they are in majority or do you mean punjab region itself is discriminated by federal govt? Let's be frank, regardless of who rules at the center, the non-Hindi states have always been discriminated against in every facet, while shit hole states like BIMARU get a pass. It's damning for India when a southern relatively right wing leaning state (although ruled by a secular party) has to promulgate a law stating that bank services have to be delivered in Kannada, their mother tongue, in addition to Hindi. That itself shows how much the Hindi belt takes the rest of the country for granted.
  - screye 3y ago
    > shit hole states like BIMARU Holy sh*t, you're supposed to reserve the rabid mask off racism for private spaces. UP and Bihar were run by local minoritarian govts, mostly allied with the national minoritarian party. They ran criminal govts for decades, because India has a system with a 'weak center' and any fair but targeted retaliation would be seen as targeting specific communities. The reality of things is that you can't run an underdeveloped heterogenous society like a homogenous rich country in the west.
    - fakedang 3y ago
      There is something uniquely wrong culturally in those states, and it permeates all the way down to the lowest levels. That something is a rampant culture of corruption and oppression of minorities and lower caste peoples. In some states, there's only corruption and dishonesty in the upper levels (or little of it like Kerala and HP). In most states, there's corruption in the upper and middle levels. But in the BIMARU belt and Karnataka, it's practically every where. Every one is looking to scam and cheat you regardless of where you are. Karnataka was "saved" thanks to the IT boom, but without that happening, it would have remained an extremely corrupt mining state. But for the others, it's telling when you get in a lot more Central funding and still have nothing to show for it. IMO, most of those states should be split for good reason, to make administration easier and more easy to monitor. UP should be 3 states, Rajasthan should be 2, MP should be 2. Even worse, looking at the split away states such as Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh or Jharkhand, they're all now currently better run than their parent states.
achow 3y ago
> advocating for basically secession and creation of a new country Let's be really precise. What you just said is absolutely something that everyone in a free democracy should be free to do as much as they want to their heart's content. Not sure whether 'free democracy' allows for anything and everything. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#:~:text=Treason%20against%20the%20United%20States,on%20Confession%20in%20open%20Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#:~:text=Treason%20agai.... BBC - Who was 'Nijjar ..in India, he was wanted under India's Terrorist Act for several cases, including a 2007 cinema bombing in Punjab that killed six people and injured 40, and the 2009 assassination of Sikh Indian politician Rulda Singh.. In 2020, a statement by the Indian government accused him of being actively involved in "operationalising, networking, training and financing" KTF members. He had also been accused of running terrorist training camps in British Columbia for supporters ready to carry out attacks in India. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66860510# https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66860510#
- deanCommie 3y ago
  Given the decades of tension, I don't have a lot of faith in India's Hindu-Nationalist government's judgement of Sikh separatists. I thought HN was big on "innocent until proven guilty" - or does that only apply to accusations of sexual assault? If he was convicted, then he should've been extradited. Otherwise, I have to cite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela#Arrest_and_Rivonia_trial:_1962%E2%80%931964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela#Arrest_and_Rivo...
  - zeusflight 3y ago
    Canada has a terrible track record in dealing with Khalistani terrorist activities. The bombing of Air India flight 182 that killed 329 civilians in 1985 was planned and executed from Canada (this is proven). Yet, the perpetrators walked free with practically no conviction or punishment that suits the crime. There was a recent event in Brampton where the Khalistanis put up a pageant reenacting their assassination of a previous Indian prime minister. Despite protests from India, it was downplayed as under 'right to free speech' - simply neglecting the fact that challenging the sovereignty of another nation is considered as a terrorist act and not as free speech in the modern world. At the minimum, it's a challenge to human dignity. Canada has proven time and again that it has scant regards for sovereignty of India or even basic human dignity when it concerns Khalistanis. > If he was convicted, then he should've been extradited. That applies only if Canada follows the minimum standard of justice. Do you honestly believe that Canada was going to arrest or prosecute an alleged cinema bomber when it tolerates all the activities I mentioned above? > I don't have a lot of faith in India's Hindu-Nationalist government's judgement of Sikh separatists. Then don't. But judging the stance of the Canadian government doesn't require you to depend on the opinions of the Hindu nationalist government. Canada's own actions speak loud enough. I'm against these sorts of extra-judicial killings. But let's not pretend that Canada is a saint of sorts in this case. Their argument about sovereignty is just plain hypocritical. All this could have been avoided if they had reigned in an activity that's considered evil anywhere in the world.
kaycey2022 3y ago
Every "democracy" is not the same. I bet you would say something different if your country was fighting a civil war with secessionist insurgents in parts of your country. Even more so if the secession in question had been settled 30 years ago. Most people don't realise that the world does not revolve around them and their situation, for some reason.
- Scoundreller 3y ago
  > I bet you would say something different if your country was fighting a civil war with secessionist insurgents in parts of your country. Maybe not a civil war, but some of the Quebec separatist ideology got up to some shit in Canada: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_lib%C3%A9ration_du_Qu%C3%A9bec https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_lib%C3%A9ration_du_... > Even more so if the secession in question had been settled 30 years ago. Canada still has successful federal and provincial political parties campaigning on exactly that! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum
  - kaycey2022 3y ago
    Secession in the western world simply cannot be compared. Historically western countries (not all obviously) have been imperial powers and so when imperialism collapsed after WW2, secession and referendum have been the way to go for people seeking self determination where they feel they are not getting the deserved representation. Jatt Sikh separatism was extremely violent and was engineered by the cynicism and short sightedness of the people running India at the time and the opportunism of Pakistan which wanted to "get" India after their own country was bifurcated in the 1971 war. And you might think this civil war was fought between Hindus and Sikhs. But you would be clueless. Both the parties were Sikh ie the Government forces in Punjab were overwhelmingly Sikh and they recognised the movement as a cover for organised crime and fought and defeated it. A lot of people (1000s) ended up dead. This question was not settled over some maple syrup and a friendly, fair referendum. So now when the population has moved past this demand, re-raising the issue will not be taken kindly.
throwaway12asd 3y ago
> It is not in dispute that India has a complex and bloody history discriminating heavily against it's Sikh minority in Punjab. I am not entirely aware of what happened during the 80s. But India was ruled by Congress party under Indira Gandhi, not the current "Hindu nationalist" BJP. When the farmers protest happened recently, even though the farmers (most of them Sikhs) were literally chasing away policemen with swords and tractors, the government didn't do any violence (beating protesters with batons, water cannons don't really count since its a standard practice in my South Indian state as well). In South India, the local government literally used police snipers to kill 12 protesters when people were protesting against pollution by a factory [1]. So, when compared to that, the farmer protesters (majority Sikh) were pampered. If the government has actually killed him, and if it would prevent the deaths of 1000s in the future, it is definitely worth it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoothukudi_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoothukudi_violence
- deanCommie 3y ago
  > the government didn't do any violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blue_Star#Casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blue_Star#Casualties
  - fakedang 3y ago
    The current Hindu nationalist government didn't resort to violence against the Sikh farmers. Compare that to what they did in Gurgaon after the religious riots, where they practically demolished the homes of the entire Muslim community. Also, Operation Blue Star was carried out by a secular but hardline government led by a pseudo dictator. Although looking back, it was probably justified considering the Pakistani support for Khali Stan even today. And the Prime Minister lost her life for those actions.
  - screye 3y ago
    Operation Blue Star was run by Indira Gandhi, the child of an atheist socialist and an atheist Parsi. It was a hard decision, it was badly executed, but it was not rooted in religious extremism.
zeusflight 3y ago
>> advocating for basically secession and creation of a new country > Let's be really precise. What you just said is absolutely something that everyone in a free democracy should be free to do as much as they want to their heart's content. Let's be really precise. Democracy isn't a free ticket to do anything someone wants. And no democracy in the world tolerates challenges to their sovereignty and integrity. I'm seeing this trend of misrepresenting the meaning of democracy to justify international secessionist and often outright terrorist activities.
rewmie 3y ago
> Let's be really precise. What you just said is absolutely something that everyone in a free democracy should be free to do as much as they want to their heart's content. I don't think that's remotely true at all. Democracies abide the rule of law, and this means following basic principles such as not toleraring treasonous, sedition, and subversive activities. Democracies are not a free-for-all, where vocal minorities get to impose their will upon others.
screye 3y ago
There are a few omissions here. > Hindu nationals This might be the only case over a decade of Modi's term where the entire Indian political class is united. The Sikh insurgency happened during the term of a party that's famously minoritarian. Indira Gandhi's, she was half-Parsi, half atheist-hindu, her president was Sikh, her body guards (who assassinated her) were Sikh and many of her most trusted generals in her most important moment (1971 war) were Sikhs. Could you give me examples of Hindus having a bone to pick with Sikhs ? Or is it just Indians in general disliking violent terrorists. The Khalistan/Sikh insurgency was practiced by a minority of Sikhs, and imposed themselves on mostly peaceful Sikhs of Punjab. Hindus suffered in the insurgency, but peaceful Sikhs were the majority victims. Remember, India has been very accommodating of opposing views. Dravidian nationalists have controlled Tamil Nadu for decades and communists have controlled Kerala since independence. They all fight fair elections and the national govt. (NDA or INC) integrates one of their splinter groups into its wider big tent. The same has been true of Sikh groups such as the Akali dal. The idea of India being a hostile place for Sikhs is somewhere between laughable to outright propaganda. > discriminating heavily against it's Sikh minority in Punjab. Could you give me examples ? Sikhs are strongly represented across the wealthy and polical class of India. They have the same rights and more, at least more than the resident Hindus. (Because of how the Indian constitution gives extra protection to minorities for how they run their religious institutions). Their state has been run by a Sikh for decades now. They were the biggest beneficiries of the 1960s green revolution by the federal govt, propelling them to the richest medium sized state in India. Punjab has continued to unilaterally derail all agricultural reform in India, wile seeing their own Sikh leaders commandeer 30 years of economic underperformance as they refuse to move past ancient practices in agriculture. They were able to non-democratically storm arm the govt into revoking a bill with massive public and democratic support. They raided the red fort (closest thing to white house lawn) and replaced the Indian flag with a flag of Khalistan, without facing any repurcussions. The idea that what's honestly an priviledged population is discriminated against in the country is ridiculous.
strdanger334 3y ago
> The quirk here is that India and many Hindu nationals disagree that this is all he was doing, and they instead basically brand him as something closer to a terrorist responsible for murders. It seems you are ignorant of the history behind this issue. The Khalistan movement wanted to stay in India and get special status (like J&K did which was removed later). If these powers were not granted then they wanted to secede. The Union of India happened with a lot of effort. Nearly everyone wanted a special status (and politically there are still fights for special status of different kind but no one threatens to secede). Even J&K special status nearly fractured the ruling party (Congress which is not "Hindu nationalist party" as per today's Western agenda) with many leaders refusing to be part of it. Khalistan had no chance and wasn't granted that exception too. They took to arms and captured the Golden temple. It was the Congress leader which had ordered an army attack on the Sikh sacred ground - The Golden Temple in Amristar. When the Air India bombing happened, even then Congress was in charge. The larger point is that West is ignorant of India's concerns. Previously, it was an issue of "botched" investigation and Indian justice and legal system. Now the garb is "Hindu nationalists". At the end there is always some story about "freedom of expression" as well. It is nothing new.

Scoundreller 3y ago

> get gunned down in a country with some of the most restrictive gun control laws Given Canada’s neighbours, those laws don’t accomplish much if you don’t want to follow them. And hunting/recreational shooting are very much a thing.