4 ms·

Well...maybe. History is full of figures that have eventually only succeed in liberating some oppressed people from exile. Not saying that's the situation wit

Well...maybe. History is full of figures that have eventually only succeed in liberating some oppressed people from exile. Not saying that's the situation with Sikhs or that's who Nijjar is. But it does seem like he would have good reason to believe that advocating for Khalistan from inside India would get him into jail or worse. And if the work is important to the Sikhs in Punjab, it would definitely stand to reason that he might have had to do it from Canada. > I had attended an event for the Sikh community a few years back, which was attended by Sikhs from all over the world, including from USA, Australia, the UK and India. Nowhere in another community have I seen a strong culture of brotherliness and felicitation for good. And while there were a few Canadian Sikh families, they were far too few to be countable in one hand. Tells a lot about the kind of Sikhs that Canada is harboring, tbh. Is your criticism that Canadian Sikhs do not engage with the international Sikh diaspora? Not being a part of that community I guess I don't know why that might be. But since Canada contains the largest Sikh population outside of India, it's possible that they have their own self-reinforcing community (That amongst Canadians has exactly the same reputation as you mentioned - "a strong culture of brotherliness and felicitation for good") that they've disconnected from the international or Punjab Sikh community? That's not necessarily a problem - African Americans don't have a strong connection to Africans.

fakedang 3y ago
If there is a secessionist terrorist equivalent like Nijjar in the US, do you think he would be left to walk free? Unlike the Commonwealth countries of UK, Canada and Australia, India and the US both have constitutions which clearly state that once you're in, you can't get out (iirc, the Indian one was based on the US one for the federalist aspects). The US would equally take care of such an anti-social element rapidly, because secession from the union is an act of war - in fact, India's response was damningly slow. On the other hand, there are peaceful movements in India that are still happening for separate statehood, or at minimum the removal of certain extremely biased and abusive Acts (such as the AFPSA). Irom Sharmila, for instance, fought against the Indian government with a fast unto death, was constantly arrested, released and rearrested. There was a successful decades long movement for the creation of a separate state for the state of Telangana. There is currently another peaceful decades long movement for the creation of a separate state for the eastern part of Uttar Pradesh, where the current Prime Minister contested his seat from. I don't see people from either of those movements being oppressed in the 21st century. The core reason why other Sikhs don't stand for Khalistani Sikhs is because Khalistan is in essence a theocracy in Punjab. Khalistanis want a separate nation that is firmly rooted in Sikh religious principles, something which the majority of Sikhs in India don't really want. Even in the diaspora, apart from Canada, Khalistanism is a fringe element, simply because most countries except Canada don't allow refugee status based on claims of "oppression" by an Indian government in this century (they would have had more standing in the 80s for that claim). And like others mentioned, the ones migrating to Canada are often part of the leadership of various gangs and mafias in Punjab, something that another country like the US would easily prevent from entering their soil.
- deanCommie 3y ago
  > The US would equally take care of such an anti-social element rapidly, because secession from the union is an act of war - in fact, India's response was damningly slow. Are you asking if Nijjar was advocating for secession from the US, or if he was in the US instead of Canada? If it's the latter, I think the US would've done exactly as Canada. If you're asking what the US would've done if it was in India's shoes, you're absolutely right - it would've successfully pressured Canada into giving him up. However, this is not a gotcha. That the US is insecure enough in it's freedom that it overreacts to "protect" it (see, the 2000's and the invasion of Iraq) is one of the reasons it is a flawed democracy. If the US had done what India has done, Canada might've cooperated, but the uproar from our citizens (and from me here), would've been identical. According to the latest complete 2022 rankings of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World, Canada is the 5th freest country in the world. The United States is 61st. India is 87th. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index, Canada is 12th in the world. The United States is 30th. India is 46th. > The core reason why other Sikhs don't stand for Khalistani Sikhs is because Khalistan is in essence a theocracy in Punjab. Khalistanis want a separate nation that is firmly rooted in Sikh religious principles, something which the majority of Sikhs in India don't really want. Even in the diaspora, apart from Canada, Khalistanism is a fringe element, simply because most countries except Canada don't allow refugee status based on claims of "oppression" by an Indian government in this century (they would have had more standing in the 80s for that claim). And like others mentioned, the ones migrating to Canada are often part of the leadership of various gangs and mafias in Punjab, something that another country like the US would easily prevent from entering their soil. See this is a fascinating paragraph. Because the whole time until the last sentence, I was nodding along, learning more about the situation, and gathering a more nuanced worldview. Then you finish it with a blanket dismissal of Sikhs in Canada as gangsters and mafios. Punjabi Organized Crime is huge in Canada. And the Punjabi diaspora in Canada is likewise large. (Almost 3% of the Canadian population). It shows a clear bias you have against the potential for peace from any Punjabi Canadians.
  - fakedang 3y ago

fakedang 3y ago

If there is a secessionist terrorist equivalent like Nijjar in the US, do you think he would be left to walk free? Unlike the Commonwealth countries of UK, Canada and Australia, India and the US both have constitutions which clearly state that once you're in, you can't get out (iirc, the Indian one was based on the US one for the federalist aspects). The US would equally take care of such an anti-social element rapidly, because secession from the union is an act of war - in fact, India's response was damningly slow. On the other hand, there are peaceful movements in India that are still happening for separate statehood, or at minimum the removal of certain extremely biased and abusive Acts (such as the AFPSA). Irom Sharmila, for instance, fought against the Indian government with a fast unto death, was constantly arrested, released and rearrested. There was a successful decades long movement for the creation of a separate state for the state of Telangana. There is currently another peaceful decades long movement for the creation of a separate state for the eastern part of Uttar Pradesh, where the current Prime Minister contested his seat from. I don't see people from either of those movements being oppressed in the 21st century. The core reason why other Sikhs don't stand for Khalistani Sikhs is because Khalistan is in essence a theocracy in Punjab. Khalistanis want a separate nation that is firmly rooted in Sikh religious principles, something which the majority of Sikhs in India don't really want. Even in the diaspora, apart from Canada, Khalistanism is a fringe element, simply because most countries except Canada don't allow refugee status based on claims of "oppression" by an Indian government in this century (they would have had more standing in the 80s for that claim). And like others mentioned, the ones migrating to Canada are often part of the leadership of various gangs and mafias in Punjab, something that another country like the US would easily prevent from entering their soil.

deanCommie 3y ago
> The US would equally take care of such an anti-social element rapidly, because secession from the union is an act of war - in fact, India's response was damningly slow. Are you asking if Nijjar was advocating for secession from the US, or if he was in the US instead of Canada? If it's the latter, I think the US would've done exactly as Canada. If you're asking what the US would've done if it was in India's shoes, you're absolutely right - it would've successfully pressured Canada into giving him up. However, this is not a gotcha. That the US is insecure enough in it's freedom that it overreacts to "protect" it (see, the 2000's and the invasion of Iraq) is one of the reasons it is a flawed democracy. If the US had done what India has done, Canada might've cooperated, but the uproar from our citizens (and from me here), would've been identical. According to the latest complete 2022 rankings of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World, Canada is the 5th freest country in the world. The United States is 61st. India is 87th. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index, Canada is 12th in the world. The United States is 30th. India is 46th. > The core reason why other Sikhs don't stand for Khalistani Sikhs is because Khalistan is in essence a theocracy in Punjab. Khalistanis want a separate nation that is firmly rooted in Sikh religious principles, something which the majority of Sikhs in India don't really want. Even in the diaspora, apart from Canada, Khalistanism is a fringe element, simply because most countries except Canada don't allow refugee status based on claims of "oppression" by an Indian government in this century (they would have had more standing in the 80s for that claim). And like others mentioned, the ones migrating to Canada are often part of the leadership of various gangs and mafias in Punjab, something that another country like the US would easily prevent from entering their soil. See this is a fascinating paragraph. Because the whole time until the last sentence, I was nodding along, learning more about the situation, and gathering a more nuanced worldview. Then you finish it with a blanket dismissal of Sikhs in Canada as gangsters and mafios. Punjabi Organized Crime is huge in Canada. And the Punjabi diaspora in Canada is likewise large. (Almost 3% of the Canadian population). It shows a clear bias you have against the potential for peace from any Punjabi Canadians.
- fakedang 3y ago