This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Trudeau accuses India in killing of Sikh leader on Canadian soil
First of all, I want to state that my epistemic status is huh, rather an informed opinion, but I struggle to think of anyone in a better position on The Motte to discuss this, so bear with me.
India has had its share of irredentists, separatists and good old fashioned terrorists over the years. You have the Maoists still lurking in the north east, playing hot and cold with the government via their jungle boogaloo. Islamic terrorism was a serious issue in 2010s, though it's died down. There were the Tamil Tigers down south, who proved a severe PITA for a decade or so, and then the Khalistanis, who have been largely neutered in-country but find refuge in the numerous, prosperous Sikh diaspora abroad.
The last two have had the dubious distinction of getting confirmed kills on two Indian Prime Ministers (relatives to boot).
Khalistan is the supposed homeland of the Sikh peoples, largely surrounding Punjab in the west. Unable to get it during the original Partition of India, they waged a brutal war against the Indian government for decades, peaking in the 70s and 80s. There were quite a few pogroms and riots, with Hindu on Sikh violence in the rest of India, and vice versa in their population centers.
These days, the movement is moribund within India itself, most young Sikhs don't really pay it any heed, and the older aren't the demographic to go planting bombs for the large part. Sikhs are well integrated into Indian society, and haven't had that consistent friction that the Muslims have had with their Hindu co-ethnics.
Not that you'd know this abroad. Much like IRA sympathizers hanging around in New Jersey bars, the exodus of Sikhs in the 70s and 80s ossified in amber a large migrant population with a grudge to bear against the Indian government.
I'd draw a distinction between these first-wave migrants, and a more recent influx of Sikhs who are drawn more by the prospects of making it big in Canada, or the West in general, rather than any real grievance.
While Khalistan is dead in the water, it's a popular rallying cry there, with Western governments treating it with a mixture of bemused tolerance and kid-gloves for fear of pissing off the strong Sikh voting bloc. Speaking ill of them is, from what I've heard, a surefire way of losing a narrow election, but they're otherwise model citizens and nobody wants to press the issue.
Now, Modi stands accused of the shooting of this dude sometime in June, when he was shot by unidentified gunmen in the parking lot of a gurdwara in Surrey. If there's more substance to the accusation, they haven't been made public, but the heads of state have met to hash it out.
From what I can tell, Modi's response was "we didn't do it, but if it happened, he had it coming", strongly protesting the accusations while demanding Canada be less lenient in harboring terrorists.
Modi also stands accused of the assassination in Lahore of another Khalistan leader, not that anyone particularly cared at the time, and that's just the usual India-Pakistan bhai-bhai at play.
That's the gist of it, on one hand, we have the fact that India has largely refrained from extraterritorial assassinations, certainly not to the degree that the US, Russia or Israel are fond of. I struggle to think of a single example, not that I'm an expert.
On the other, who the fuck else has a motive to whack the dude? I don't think relations between India and Canada are bad enough for the latter to make entirely unfounded accusations, and they've even roped in a few other countries like the UK and US to bring diplomatic pressure to bear. The Head of Foreign Intelligence for India was kicked out from Canada, and some bloke named Oliver Sylvester was the tit to that tat.
I'd wager 50% odds that India was responsible based on the balance of evidence, and I wonder if this will be a flash in the pan that peters out when the Sikhs are mollified, or if Canada really wants to pick a fight with an otherwise neutral/positively inclined major nation.
But if you're curious, this means zilch in terms of impact on Modi's popularity of home, you think supporters of a strongman are going to be mad when he strongmans? Even the libs over at /r/India who foam at the mouth at the sight of Modi are of the opinion he had it coming.
And now, another killing.
I did once visit a gurdwara in Auckland a few years ago, it had an open donation box with call for support for Khalistan in Indian Punjab. No matter how dead the movement is in India, there does seem to be somewhat of a resurgence among the Sikh diaspora. I'm not convinced yet that the Indian government would pull this off on North American soil, but suffice to say that this really has seemed to have united all major political parties in India. I'd hardly call it a "Modi issue" anymore.
Either way, such a public call out is shocking, to say the least. Posting this from /r/geopolitics:
The language here is very hostile, equally aggressive was the MEA's response and the aforementioned Shashi Tharoor statement. I feel like what people gleamed from what they see of India/Modi from the media has at least partially allowed this to erupt to this extent.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm going to ehco @CertainlyWorse but I'm going to be more pointed about it.
If these allegations are even 1% true Canada is not picking a fight with anyone. India is picking a fight with Canada. Why are you trying to pick a fight with Canada?
I have been following the misadventures of Justin Trudeau in International Diplomacy for quite some years and let me just say I view anything that comes out of his mouth with deep skepticism when it concerns other countries. Trudeau has a pattern of using the international stage for domestic politics. That in itself is not a bad thing but the sheer cluelessness that he conducts himself in the International arena is exasperating.
His previous India trip was a shinning example, his sole focus in the trip seemed like courting the Sikh vote in Canada rather than actual diplomacy. Over the top costumes(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-43151115), dance numbers(https://youtube.com/watch?v=Vk5RMHFXfxw) and the latest tourist destinations(https://zeenews.india.com/india/golden-temple-to-iim-ahmedabad-here-is-visiting-canadian-pm-justin-trudeaus-full-itinerary-2081984.html). If that wasn't enough, the fact that the official Canadian delegation included a convicted Khalistani Terrorist who attempted murder of an Indian minister back in 1986(https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/khalistani-terrorist-jaspal-atwal-photographed-with-justin-trudeau-s-wife-at-mumbai-event-1175102-2018-02-22). You just can't make this shit up. So disastrous was this trip that even the most left leaning mainstream journalist, the kind of global elite who you would expect going gaga over the Liberal darling Trudeau, asserts that the whole thing was a cringefest(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/02/22/trudeaus-india-trip-is-a-total-disaster-and-he-has-himself-to-blame/).
Even the recent G20 was a disaster for Trudeau. No bilateral meets with any country, in total 4 brief meetings with heads of state and not even a single photo-op for any announcement that concerned his agenda(climate change, Bio-Fuels Alliance). The meeting with Modi was the worst, as he apparently "scolded" the poor Canadian(https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/aircraft-glitch-delays-canada-pm-trudeaus-departure-india-2023-09-10/). It seems like the Canadian PM isn't taken seriously on an international stage, not just by India but other countries too and with good reason. He has a long history of engaging in diplomatic behavior that alienates him from other heads of state(https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/10/politics/peter-navarro-justin-trudeau/index.html, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/16/xi-trudeau-canada-china-g20, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/18/canada-loses-bid-un-security-council-seat-justin-trudeau, https://financialpost.com/news/economy/forget-donald-trump-justin-trudeau-is-now-the-biggest-obstacle-to-pacific-trade-deal, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-10/tpp-talks-stall-after-justin-trudeau-canada-fails-to-show-up/9140250).
Certainly I agree if India was behind such an action on foreign soil that is as serious as it gets, but claiming India is picking a fight with Canada is an overstatement. Trudeau has long courted the Khalistani vote and that alone makes the Indian government nervous. Adding more fuel to it he even allowed a referendum to be conducted in Canada on a demand for separate state in India, allowed a float glorifying the assassination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and lets them fund the Khalistani activities in India through Canada.
Now I am certainly biased in my views against Khalistan as an Indian Citizen, but my point is that India has very legitimate position in current diplomatic tensions.
Harper used to get a lot of criticism for damaging Canada's international reputation, but Trudeau seems to be doing at least as bad a job. There was also the incident a few years ago where he criticized Saudi Arabia and they banned their citizens from travelling to Canada.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If, as the Laconics say.
I agree with your point, but there's oddities about this that I'd want answered before picking a fight one way or the other. India isn't exactly known for regularly running assassination campaigns abroad, and there's nothing I've seen so far that makes this case a particularly compelling or particular one to make an exception for.
That's not to say it couldn't have happened, but before I went with [India] picked a fight, I'd be interested in if it was closer to a rogue/unsanctioned op. This would be far from the first time the hidden hand of government did something without the knowledge or blessing of the top- just in the last year we had the Chinese weather balloons over North America on the even of a major high-level PRC-US trip- and there's plenty more that could be pointed to historically. The US certainly isn't immune to having parts of the security state do their own thing for their own reasons, and the US government is far more centralized than India is in many respects.
Given some of the... colorful?... reputation of the Indian government, I'd honestly believe a chaotic / not-controlled-well-enough element as play as being in the same magnitude of a formal state-sponsored-from-the-top decision.
Which, to be clear, would still be a big problem. But it wouldn't be a 'the government is picking a fight' problem.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What exactly Nijjar do that supposedly warranted his assassination and terrorism accusation?
More options
Context Copy link
The «[if we did it,] he had it coming» attitude is already almost as bad as if Indian state involvement gets confirmed.
I don't predict but weakly suspect that in 10 odd years Western progressives (if they still exist and aren't distracted by the extreme escalation of conflict with China, of course) will think about the Indophilic rhetoric with «fellow/largest/ democracy|«biggest/youngest English-speaking nation|Superpower by 20XX» etc with the same disdain they now express for that kind of stuff applied to Israel or (relative obscurity aside) Turkey or Azerbaijan. The vegetarian smiles of fast-talking wonks will become associated with repulsive alien menace as much as inarticulate, idiomatic Chinese saber-rattling is today. Charisma, managerial acumen and geopolitical alignment are important but can only go so far when there's a billion-strong and swelling mass of dimwitted hubris beneath, bolstered by a populist regime.
India is not Western, not liberal, not a democracy, and not on the track to become more of any of those things (unlike, say, Ukraine, flawed though it is). I don't judge. Were I more friendly to Indians, I probably should have.
I disagree. If you follow news from Western (mainly American) progressive news outlets, it is as far from Indophilic as it can get. Downright Indophobic is a better word.
Progressives have no love for India or its people. The rhetoric pushed by Progressive media already tries to frame relations with the country a la Saudi Arabia. A country America needs to partner out of great reluctance and needs to civilize, sanction wrongthink, fund Activism to teach Indians to vote the right way. Hell! why are we even partnering with this country? Do we even need them? They should be crushed under America's heel just like China.
I don't need to speak about Conservatives. I find their honesty (especially religious conservatives) at least as far as India goes admirable.
The Chinese hate us and even they don't have that bile that Progressives in the American political establishment have on a hair trigger. That the civilization at the core is considered to be irredeemable is only hidden beneath a thin veneer. Our plethora of ethnic fissures is a rich feast for those in search of nails to to wield their Oppressor/Oppressed hammer on.
I don't know what the US government thinks, but they seem to be onboard with the portrayal. Keeping public and political opinion of India under such tension gives the US significant leverage over the country. They can push or pull either way as needed which is harder to do with other "friendly" countries that they cannot give sermons to without being called out.
We're no saints. I am also not fully on board with the current administration. But, I can see the double standards.
Note: For brevity I used Progressives as a single grouping. Perhaps there is more diversity of opinion but in a discussion about Indian geopolitics, it makes sense to focus on the Progressives that are a part of the US Govt. geopolitical policy apparatus.
This meme by Razib comes to mind. You sure have the mentality to cut it in future interactions with Americans. Just like Vivek and Kamala Harris, two politicians of Indian descent with credible chances of running as VPs in the next POTUS elections. Like Sundar Pichai and Satya Nadella, two men in a position to choke the life out of both leading AGI projects on the planet. Like so many other respected and powerful figures in the Anglosphere – prejudice against Indians is curiously impotent – doesn't stop them from reaching authority in any ostensibly prejudiced group. But, I guess, that can be perceived as only speaking to your strengths, rather than to overestimation of your victimization. Anyway, I already see people reflexively stanning India in all cases, even this suspected murder. The Chakra-and-Aum will no doubt become the next Ukrainian Bicolor+Sunflower.
Regarding the US government… Well:
It will abide, at least until the war is over.
The issue for the Indians isn't that the Canadians can overrule the Americans, but rather that the Canadians can refuse to expand alliance-structures that they are a part of to include the Indians. The US has great influence, but there are plenty of contemporary examples of the US being unable to force allies to play ally to partners they really don't want to.
In some respects, Canada isn't at risk of this because it has (deliberatly) stayed out of alliance-like blocks that might have brought it into conflict with China, whose investments it was pursuing for much of the last decade. Canada isn't a part of the Quad, AUKUS isn't intended to encompass India, and India isn't exactly trying to join NATO. This lack of overlap is likely part of why India might have felt free enough to do this, if they did indeed do it- there wouldn't have been much institutional backlash from relevant institutions that India wanted access into.
But on the other hand, Canada absolutely can play the US lobbying game better, more skillfully, and more persistently than India can. The risk here isn't some sort of Indian Ocean reversal, but rather that on any meaningful major concession the Americans might consider to entice the Indians into something, Canada can play to the favor of the people looking for excuses to stop it as not worth the cost, and for any specific concessions the Indians really want, Canada could play the spoiler as well. Both factors limit the potential for integrated relationships of depth and scale, as Canada does have ability to spoil that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To be fair though, American elites tend to think that about everyone. They don’t want independent Allies so much as they want subservient obedient client states. Even European countries get this if they publicly go against what America wants to do or believe. When the rest of NATO wasn’t on board with the invasion of Iraq, they were castigated in the media as weak, effeminate and irrelevant. When France more recently questioned escalation in the Ukrainian proxy war, the media attacked them. For us, you either toe the lines we draw or be seen as backward.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Commentators in the west frequently tempt themselves into 'us vs the rest of the world' narratives. Non Christian / Non Anglo-Saxon societies are all viewed from a 1000 ft lens, where all nuance is readily thrown out in favor of stereotypes. India isn't some shallow extrapolation of headlines you've seen over a few years of news. It has layers and layers of nuance, each of which follows millenia long lineages. I couldn't tell you if Indians still like Shahrukh Khan, and you've got external viewers confidently predicting a deterministic path for the country.
From a civilizational perspective, India has the longest history of being a sanctuary state for those persecuted from outside. Jews, Parsis, Buddhists and in fact Sikhs and Muslims (Ismailis, Shia, Ahmediyyas, ex-Muslims) too have found India to be the one country that has welcomed them with open arms. India is the only civilizational state, that has never bothered to proselytize or expand past its borders. Most of India's famous losses have come after being too trusting or too forgiving. Sounds like a liberal place to me.
From a recent perspective, no country has had its democracy tested more often than India. Yet, its democracy has held together. The electoral process is iron clad and no-one dares interfere with the electoral commission. The Supreme court routinely overturns the Govt. of the day, and occasionally even the titular President (Gyani ZailSingh) has refused to fall in line. In the face of much resistance, the institutions have remained strong and healthy. Western nations like Canada and the Scandinavian block have never faced similar existential threats to their democracy. A homogeneous people living under the gentle embrace of Pax Americana. I'd argue that India is a much stronger democracy than any nation barring US/UK & France.
India is not western, yet. I agree and I rejoice. The Indic civilization has undergone 1000 years of erosion at the hands of Turkic people, Brits and some of our very own Coconuts. But, we've preserved some religion agnostic ideas which have shaped the very foundation of life in this subcontinent. Indians haven't fully westernized yet, and there remains some hope to recover ideas that aren't inherent Abrahmic. Not sure where that will take us, but most immediately, that little bit of resistance might be the one thing that lets India maintain a 2.0 fertility rate, unlike the rest of the world undergoing population collapse.
I'm inclined to believe the very concept of a "civilization-state", whether espoused by Hindu nationalists or Chinese communists, is simply historical revisionism - one big cope, since it allows motivated ideologues to pretend in the existence of a timeless core identity, unchanged throughout history, and most importantly unsullied by the presence of pesky minority groups, whether they be Muslims or Manchu or anyone else. For most of this "civilization-state"''s history, there was no such thing as "India", there was just a contiguous landmass occupied by different kingdoms and the occasional empire.
It also seems strange to me that Indian democracy should be considered stronger than most Western states when in living memory, an Indian prime minister suspended the constitution, canceled elections, jailed her opposition and ruled by fiat. And just three years after she was removed from office, she was reelected by the Indian public in a landslide. Is it supposed to be a knock against Canada that nothing of the sort ever happened in Ottawa?
The Hindu fertility rate in India has already declined below 2.0. Among religious groups, only the Muslims have a fertility rate above replacement in India.
I don't think the divide is as big as you think it is. Three years ago the UK Prime Minister loopholed the unwritten constitution into irrelevancy, cancelled elections, jailed opposition, imprisoned the entire population and ruled by fiat under the fraudulent guise of an emergency. It was called lockdowns.I believe some of these also apply to the Trudeau regime but I wouldn't be confident on the specifics. Regardless neither India, the UK or Canada have robust claims to being liberal democracies.
This is a facetious comparison. Indira Gandhi jailed tens of thousands of her political opponents indefinitely and without a trial, and went so far as to forcibly dissolve lawfully elected state governments opposed to her rule and impose direct control of those states by the national government. There's no contemporary Western parallel to such practices outside of actual war conditions, a la Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War, or Zelensky banning opposition parties after the Russian invasion. And Indira Gandhi didn't even have the excuse of an ongoing war, she just didn't think anyone had the right to take power away from her.
The UK imprisoned tens of millions of people indefinitely and without trial through 2020-2021. The UK does not have state governments because it's not a federation. However, the executive was granted power to pass laws without the approval of MPs, which was rule by fiat, and could have been used to overrule or forcibly dissolve any sub-national elected positions. It just wasn't used because there was no meaningful elected opposition at the time, and there couldn't be any because elections which could have brought such people in were cancelled.
Indira Gandhi was a tyrant. But so are current Western leaders, so I don't know how western democracy could be regarded as stronger than India's. They're both weak.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's exactly why we call it a civilizational state and not a nation state. Until the 1900s, most Muslims on the Indian subcontinent wore the same Hindu clothes and continued practicing the same animist traditions of their ancestors. Large portions of Indian Christianity are also rooted in 3rd century traditions that significantly diverge from western Christianity.
Despite strong divergence after independence, Indian Muslims and Christians continue to believe in what would be considered Hindu belief. (Karma, purity of the Ganga, and reincarnation.
Both China and India are civilizational states. The west is too. Just because the west now successfully exporting their civilization out to the world, does not mean that it is somehow the 'obvious common answer'. It is a highly opinionated view of the world that China and India in particular do not easily agree with.
I often joke that there is no group more Catholic than a atheist woke leftist and no group more protestant than atheist urban careerist. Even when new ideas arise from the west, they're squarely situated within the central axioms of life that the whole western hemisphere believes in. Those central axioms tend to be different in different civilizations, and the same observations can lead to wildly different conclusions when set within these differing contexts.
Indian atheists are nothing like western atheists. Indian secularism looks nothing like western secularism. What respect and soft power mean is fundamentally different. The core axioms of a civilization are the seed, and over millenia, it leads to each civilization converging to different stable states. Not sure why that is so surprising to the average westerner.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a very emotive piece. Such optimism is often hard to find in Indian Anglophilic elite who tend to judge progress as movement towards Western (more particularly American) cultural norms. They are not completely wrong as "Western" culture does have a lot going for it. But you also get weird positions such as the low divorce rate in India being a bad thing as it means a lot of people are in bad marriages.
A minor nitpick. If you go by India in pixels' TFR figures, the 2.0 TFR seems to be mostly due to Bihar and UP working "extra" hard. The other relatively developed states of India seem to be quickly moving towards the TFR of developed countries without attaining even a fraction of their wealth. This is not encouraging since UP and Bihar will also probably follow the same path once they develop more. I remember you or someone else framing this as India implementing Woke policies way before anyone else in world while we are far from an economy that can even support such welfarism. While not relevant in my lifetime, I do worry that India will move from a poor country with some economic significance due its large population to a somewhat poor country with not enough people or industry to be of any significance.
EDIT: The last point is mostly my reflexive pessimism speaking. Given our population we'll reach that point way after everyone else if we ever do.
You got me. My contrarian ass came up with perfectly mirrored response to what I saw as an unreasonably negative knee-jerk reaction from OP.
It's weird. You'd think that an atheist who's seriously dating a white woman, plans to settle in the US and lives in one of the leftist-est zipcodes in the country would be doom-n-gloom about the current state of India.
But idk. I would have been a doom-n-gloomer if I hadn't spent my 4 undergrad years in a smaller town with a diverse population drawn from the lower rungs of society. Congress (Socialist) era India was a nightmare of proportions that my hyper-urban sheltered ass could barely phantom. Starting with the ideas of Vajpayee/Manmohan and finally, the agency of Modi to execute, things have started changing. Sanitation, direct-to-person Welfare delivery, bureaucrat accountability, on-time infrastructure projects....those little things have changed the lives of your average (cripplingly poor) Indian in unimaginable ways.
I have phrased it as such before. There was a reason Nehru was chided as Vishwaguru. (Professor to the world). He should have become an Oxford professor. Would have been excellent for India and the life-expectancy of his progeny.
Mate, my veneer of optimism runs thin. Don't make me face the my true fears. I want to be an optimist. But, I agree with you. Being a cripplingly poor country with billion+ people is a terrible predicament to find yourself in. Especially when the worldwide TFR is dropping rapidly, and India while somewhat insulated, will inevitably see the same decline.
Finger's crossed ??
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The big picture question is why wasn't he extradited already, considering that he's been wanted by India/Interpol since 2016 for involvement in what seems to be clearcut terrorism. (theatre bombing)
Given the history with Air India, he doesn't seem like somebody we would normally want to keep around, had India made a request to bring him back for trial -- I wonder whether it's wise for Trudeau to stir the pot too much on what did or didn't happen in between now and then?
Part of me wonders how much of this is Trudeau trying to save face. Did he try to call Modi's bluff in some backroom deal only to find out that "the bluff" wasn't a bluff? That would be pretty on-brand for him.
There's a theory that Treudeau was forced to point the finger at India because a news story was coming out that implicated them. He needed to
get ahead of the storyresponsibly provide accurate information to the Canadian people.More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Interpol reference might not mean much. There has apparently been quite a bit of abuse of Interpol procedures on the part of authoritarian governments in recent years.
India is supposed to be more or less of an ally of Canada AFAIK; we're not talking about some banana republic here. Canadian officials would not arrest just on the basis of an Interpol warrant, but if India files an extradition request we should be doing it if it's in accord with our treaty. (Which I'm pretty sure bombing a theatre is)
I am sure that all of that is generally true (although there are certainly plenty of defenses to extradition in Canada. It is not enough to simply demonstrate that the person has been charged with a serious crime). My only point was that the fact that Interpol has issued an arrest warrant does not, in and of itself, necessarily mean anything.
The interpol warrant is not dispositive here -- the point is that if India wanted him back, it's odd that this hasn't been going through the normal channels for extradition -- yes that is rejected sometimes, but usually countries will at least go through the process unless Foreign Affairs has already told them 'nah, bro' through backchannels. We do have a treaty, you can read it if you want: https://treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=101286
"Bombing a movie theatre" is normally a thing that is not subject to the various loopholes in extradition treaties, and the Interpol warrant indicates that India has at least enough evidence to make a plausible case. I'm wondering why they didn't pursue it.
I didn't say it was.
How do you know it hasn't? This indicates that Indian authorities did not seek extradition until August of 2022. If that is correct, obviously proceeding would not have concluded by the time of his killing in June.
Says who? Do you think the rule is that in order for a foreign country to avoid the protections afforded to Canadian citizens, all it has to do is allege a serious crime? Are Canadians morons?
Are you? Interpol doesn't give out warrants on a bare allegation, and neither does Canada extradite on that basis -- sometimes we refuse to extradite for minor charges, or things that would not be crimes in Canada -- bombing a movie theatre is not those, that's the point. The recent extradition looks like it's related to more recent crimes -- but even so, it's been over a year with no action -- it all seems a bit strange.
What even is your point here?
No, the point is that there are other causes for denial of extradition, including, most importantly, the severity of the sentence faced by the person whose extradition is being sought. In particular, Canada will not extradite a person if that person faces the death penalty if convicted.
More specifically, the point is that your claim that Canada will ignore the protections provided its citizens if another country simply files super-serious charges, especially given the abuses I note above re abuse of Interpol red notices.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This doesn’t seem like something India would do, but unless this guy was involved in the drug trade or something it’s unclear who else even knows he exists.
Are there Hindutva-influenced members of the Indian diaspora doing dumb things against targets of opportunity?
I wouldn't rule that out -- the drug trade has been a bit of a family business for certain Sikhs in Surrey since many years. Given this guy's background it's maybe not the first thing to leap to, but "need money for bombs/guns" has often led political operatives to dabble in criminal enterprise, and it would be easy to do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It'd be odd for India to start whacking Khalistanis in Canada about 40 years after the Sikh insurgency. Even more odd is that people with higher bounties continue to live free lives in Canada. If the Indian Govt. had to do a covert assassination, Nijjar wouldn't make it to the top 100 list.
Trudeau himself seems misinformed since the guy was never granted Canadian citizenship.(might have been a citizen?) The guy came to Canada in 1997. Used a false passport. His refugee claim was rejected, but 11 days after that, he married a woman who sponsored him for immigration. That, too, was rejected. As of 2016. his Interpol wanted notice mentioned his nationality as Indian. (assuming that the screenshot being used by top media houses is legitimate)Are we going to forget the 1985 bombings. Model citizens who're only responsible for the 'worst terrorist act on Canadian soil'. The Sikhs overall are great people, but they do have a larger violent underbelly than most other Asian immigrant groups.
I agree it's a rather queer move, which is why I only assigned ~50% credence to the Indian government ordering the hit. It's really not our style.
Interesting, I hadn't heard anyone point this out while the news was breaking. Though, from a Canadian perspective, I doubt they care overmuch if he's a citizen, more that he was potentially assassinated on their soil. Either way, they have a bunch of Sikhs to appease.
Forget? I'd never heard of it in the first place!
But as far as I can tell, Sikhs aren't the type to not get along if you live and let live. Let them erect their gurudwaras, wear their turbans and twirl their knives about, and I doubt they would raise a fuss.
In the India Subreddit they take that as proof that Sikhs infiltrated the Canadian intelligence agencies:
https://old.reddit.com/r/india/comments/16mict9/india_expels_top_canadian_diplomat_as_trudeau_row/k18rrxs/
A witness was also murdered and „ a consequence of his murder, the affidavit was inadmissible as evidence.[149] This was later cited as a reason why the suspects in the bombing were eventually acquitted in 2005“.
Juicy fodder for conspiracy theorists!
WOW, I don't think you realize how monumental this is.
The India subreddit likely the most anti-India place inhabited by Indians. Even the most moderate individual used to get banned within a day. It was well understood to be run by hyper-liberal woker-than-is-humanly-possible type mods. I kid you not. There were rumors of the sub being run by a Pakistani, is how incredibly anti-India that place used to be.
If even /r/India sides against Trudeau in this story, then there is true bipartisanship on the matter.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Never really understood the pearl clutching on this matter. Litvinenko, Khashoggi, Georgi Markov and whatnot - who cares.
me, I prefer Russian government to be less able to murder people they dislike
(to the point that I approve/would approve of noticeably larger taxes to fund neutering Russia)
More options
Context Copy link
Are you similarly surprised about nation states caring enough to kill separatists and terrorists abroad in the first place?
Because it's pretty much the same thing, one implies the other. The state*, in the crudest analysis, is a stationary bandit who claims ownership of a turf, a parcel of profitable land. This means maintaining the monopoly on legitimate violence within its borders, particularly mortal violence. Killing someone on the soil of another state is tantamount to diminishing that state's sovereignty; putting your dubious claim to «prey» above the state's claim to its legitimacy in its own domain, as if some ape's body moving around projects the qualitatively prioritized extension of yours; it is not so different in its corrosive effect from a direct attack on a local citizen, from using intimidation to intervene in local politics, indeed from supporting separatism. States, of course, exist in the condition of anarchy where might makes right and yadda yadda [realpolitik edgelording], but when such act is performed by «normal» states, ie bandits who profess to abide by some semblance of a code commonly agreed upon, as opposed to disreputable rogue shitholes with poor impulse control (or, I suppose, invincible Hegemonies), the exposure leads to apologia and compensation for damages – because it is a grave attack, even if nobody of the attacked state suffers directly.
*One of the sad things in learning languages is thoughtlessly swallowing words as one to one correspondences without pondering their etymologies and connotations, indelibly relative and path-dependent positions in the web of meaning, I believe. (This is not so much an endorsement of Sapir-Whorf as a weaker claim that different peoples use different ways to speak of the same things, same ways to speak of different things, and confuse this in translation). For example, in English, the token for «state» as in a nation/polity/unified territory is shared with an abstract, impersonal, elementary logical notion of a mode of operation maintained over some set: «the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time», the dictionary says. Hence, Balaji's «network state» is not an absurdity, «failed state» is a compact expression of a rather profound idea, and «state as a stationary bandit» might sound edgier than it should.
In Russian, however, the token for state-abstract is состояние, «condition» (itself different from условие which corresponds to a condition as in «term»), while state-nation is Государство. Государь means «sovereign» or «Prince». So, to a Russian ear, all states are principalities, dominions of an implied specific prince or equivalent; perhaps a conspiracy, at least a Deep State or a Cathedral, but not anything less, not anything that simply exists without expressing some de facto agent's coherent will.
As the honorary Russian Brodsky had uttered through the character of Marcus Valerius Martialis: «Surely, his view is barbaric, but yet candid».
More options
Context Copy link
You’re going to have to be more specific.
Disliking a government killing its own citizens is pretty normal. I’d say it ought to be the default reaction. Especially in the US, where speech protections are are relatively big part of the cultural mythos.
Getting worked up enough to demand severing diplomatic ties, sanctions, whatever? Now that’s a bit weird. I’m inclined to think most people holding rallies for Khashoggi or whatever were already invested in Saudi politics. If so, caring about a visible, lurid murder is…back to being normal.
More options
Context Copy link
The US exercises more control over Canadian and Mexican foreign policy than it does of any other nation (including its European and Asian allies). If an updated Monroe Doctrine covers relations with Central and South America (and the Caribbean), the situation for Canada and Mexico is even more strict. The US essentially imposes its will, a quasi-official form of suzerainty, on these two countries. An example - the US no-fly list is enforced across all of North America, if the US decides you can't leave the country, you can't travel to Canada or Mexico and fly from there to anywhere else, you're banned. And relations with Canada are even closer than with Mexico, there aren't AMLO-type figures who openly and strongly critique American liberals in mainstream Canadian politics. The US forced Canada to arrest Meng Wanzhou, even though it resulted in innocent Canadians being imprisoned in China. That's the level of influence, both by treaty partnership and unspoken control.
So a foreign assassination on Canadian soil is a big deal. The US and its immediate sphere is the one place where foreign assassinations are extremely rare, not because they're technically impossible (weapons are much easier to acquire, the southern border can be easily traversed stealthily, US domestic intelligence is not much more competent than that of the UK or France or Germany), but out of fear. The Russians, Turks, Iranians, Israelis, Saudis will assassinate political enemies in any other corner of the world except North America (the CIA claims to have foiled alleged IRGC 'plots' against some Americans, but it's very hard to believe these got far).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The framing of this that Canada is the one starting things is poor form. I'm surprised considering your desire to emigrate to greener pastures to not consider the consequences of events like this.
In Australia, we occasionally have these sorts of flare ups of major nations with a large emigre population violating our sovereignty because, basically fuck you that's why. The calculus of the meddler is ostensibly 'well they aren't a major security or economic partner so who cares. What are they going to do?'
Nothing gets people from multicultural countries who are neutral on large immigration to turn anti-immigrant faster than immigrants' mother countries exerting their will in our home. Recent local examples of this involve China sending police officers to police chinese immigrants in Australia, framing it as a benign outreach service used for issuing drivers licenses and the like. Except without having a fixed address. Or notifying the Australian Government..
I despise Trudeau, but he's speaking to the local population and absolutely if push comes to shove he will tell India to fuck off in diplomatic speak, because to do otherwise would be political suicide. Middle powers cannot sanction effectively as independents, but there are often diplomatic blocs to exert influence precisely to stop this sort of casual disregard for civil unrest in targeted nations.
Edit: A couple of words for clarity.
As much as I dislike Modi, I have even more disdain for terrorists actively fomenting strife in India from comfortably offshore. Make no mistake, violations of sovereignty aside, very few people here think his death was a tragedy.
At the very least, I don't bat an eye when the West enjoys a little 'ol extraterritorial killing, say Suleimani in Iran, or when Mossad gets up to their usual shenanigans. So I'm not sure why I'm supposed to decry this too much when a third world country returns the favor.
There's one less terrorist and one less Canadian citizen on this earth, and my desire to shed tears for the latter are far outweighed by the elimination of the former.
At any rate, I'd be bemused if anyone thought I was a radical Indian free thinker along the lines of Rushdie with a nation-state actor or close out for my blood. I neither expect to get offed in a similar manner, nor do I aspire to end up in a position where I order the offing, so my response is moo.
I'd certainly be surprised if this had any effect on attitudes towards emigration, for the obvious reason that the "victim" is an immigrant himself. You'd expect that to make bleeding hearts clamor to bring more people to the relative safety of their shores.
All other sentiments and realpolitik aside, most people don't really want brutal tit-for-tat murders in their country, regardless of who the perpetrators and victims are. Speaking as an American that holds no general animus towards Indians in general or Indian immigrants to the West more specifically, the main gut feeling I get from this incident is, "can't you people leave your internecine disputes in your old country when you move here?". I don't expect many people in good social standing to say as much out loud, but I kind of do expect that this is the prevailing gut feeling that most people in the West have when they hear that Indian immigrants have brought a bloody conflict that we don't even really understand to North America.
More options
Context Copy link
If you maintain this attitude when foreign governments kill Indian citizens on Indian soil because 'they were political agitators and had it coming', then I will accept your point. For what its worth I'm not for extrajudicial killing, even though I understand that through democracy Western citizens have some level of responsibility for past killings done in their supposed national interest.
I'm sure the political and media class will stress to separate Indian immigrants from the Indian government (in fact from the articles I've read I think this process has already started). However many locals will not buy that argument and will see it as foreign political agitation being imported in line with the increase in profile of Indian political activists operating in Canada.
In Australia, past examples of this occured with Anti-CCP activists protesting in Australian major cities. As a consequence China sends foreign agents to exert their influence such as organising pro-CCP students in Australian universities to counter protest. Australians end up watching foreign political battles over something that doesn't concern them playing out in our public sphere..
Of course the Cathedral will play up this kind of thing as the right to free protest, but much of the public here would just prefer that they shut their mouths and get on with life. Pro-Indian government activists can say 'well they started it', but regular citizens here can find that an incredibly weak argument. People don't care who started it, they just want it to stop. It has nothing to do with us and the easiest way to make sure this doesn't happen is to not allow people to immigrate from countries with significant political instability. With more acts like this there will be more pressure to limit immigration. Normally I would laud this and from my point of view many political dissidents (including the deceased) who refuse to live quietly should fail the citizenship character test, but the brazenness of this sort of foreign interference sticks in my craw.
Maybe it's just learned helplessness, but I can't imagine the Canadian federal government ever reducing immigration. It's never happened in my lifetime. Even when they shut the borders due to covid, they made up for it by granting free permanent residency to almost all foreigners who happened to be working in Canada.
I'm not saying it's impossible, just that my naive model of the world would have predicted a reduction years ago, and I don't have a good model to replace it with.
It would actually take a fair few acts of violence and significant civil unrest for governments like Canada and Australia to heavily restrict immigration as a long term policy. This is because it is seen as the only viable path to propping up GDP in the face of TFR declines. With enough events like this though, political hands can be forced. At the very least immigration from incompatible cultures can be restricted (such as with the restrictions of emigres from Sudan in the wake of ethnic gangs in Melbourne)
Canada's response will probably end here with the equivalent of writing a very angry letter telling India how angry they are. I think its weak to be honest and will only encourage more of these sorts of blatant violations of sovereignty. Unfortunately the tribe has spoken with other Five Eyes members wringing their hands and
sending thoughts and prayers"being deeply concerned" at the attack rather than presenting a united front.Ostensibly the US has told other Five Eyes members to do nothing in the face of the US trying to court India as an ally against Russia and China (a fact probably not unknown to Modi and potentially a precipitator of the attack). There is some indication that the US aided Canadian Intelligence in the investigation of the assassination and I believe there is pretty strong evidence which the head of CSIS would have carried with them to confront India behind closed doors prior to the G20. When Modi told Trudeau to go pound sand in the face of that evidence it precipitated Trudeau's public accusation in parliament.
For me, I'm updating my priors on all sorts of things. I expect the US to no longer support Australia in the aftermath of similar events if they have a larger diplomatic goal they are pushing for. I also have significantly revised my opinion of Indian culture and the ability of Indians (Hindutva/Sikh) to peacefully immigrant without significant impact on host country ethnic tension and social cohesion. Finally with Australia's response I need to update my opinion on how subservient Five Eyes members are to the political whims of the US.
I apparently have not been cynical enough with regard to sovereignty in the middle power Western nations.
I don't know. You're not actually indicating a standard of anything to be done that anyone has failed to meet.
You've implicitly criticized the FVEY allies for not presenting a united front, and accused the US of telling other members to do nothing, but the thing about a front is that it advances on an objective. What actual policy is not being done due to the alleged US telling others to do nothing? What, beyond rhetoric, is Canada even asking for?
Before something can be denied, it must be asked for. If it's not being asked for, if there's not a clearly reasonable alternative as opposed to vague gestulating of 'do something!', it's not a cynical take to blame others for not providing it, it's just projection of impotence onto external actors.
Which besides not being cynical, doesn't exactly make sense in the context of specific alliance contexts. FVEY, for example, is an Intelligence alliance, not a defense or economic alliance or common migration zone. There's no obligation or implicit expectation to, say, enact sanctions, conduct retaliatory strikes, or so on in the context of FVEY. It would be quite reasonable if Canada requested/expected Intelligence-related support... which by your implications they did.
The type of alliance matters because it means the type of influence authorities that matter changes. If this assassination is to be treated as, say, a potential casus belli, that wouldn't be a FVEY matter- that would be a NATO matter. But every NATO member's interest in [insert unstated desired response here] matters, because NATO is a consensus-based organization with multiple contemporary examples of the United States not being able to force to decide to its preferences.
So before you be cynical, I'd recommend you be specific. Which alliance structure that Canada is in- and it's in a number other than FVEY- should be responsible for this, in what way, and when/how has Canada even asked them to?
I reject your framing. Your use of the FVEY acronym does not lend weight to your argument that because 'Well acktually, Five Eyes is just a SIGINT focused intelligence sharing apparatus', and because of this it does not imply other deep historical alliances based on shared cultural backgrounds and systems of government under the international rule of law.
You seem to be asking for an NATO article 5 or the like formal agreement signed by the US and the other partners, the absence of which implies that partners are under no expectation to intervene when their allies' territorial sovereignty has been violated. There is precedent that this has not been necessary in the past to provide support and retaliation when assassinations have been conducted against allied nation's citizens on their home soil.. Note the response of non-NATO members (such as Australia) in expelling diplomats in solidarity in the example.
Various news articles have described that this discussion took place out of the public view. I presume Canada has asked for support in sanctioning India in some form, potentially expelling diplomats as occurred in the example above.
As for the rest of your post, I will concede that perhaps all of the Five Eyes partners decided together that they would not support Canada beyond toothless statements of concern and it wasn't the US doing so unilaterally with their outsized influence. It does not change my cynicism of the value of these alliances when partners have other interests.
Not that my cynicism was purely directed at the alliances themselves. It was also concerning the ability of Middle Power western nations to individually defend their sovereignty against the interests of their suzerain and the machinations of
neutral/friendlycontemptuous powers. Not doing so will only encourage future acts of interference.Edit: a couple of words for clarity
That's nice, but since I was asking for yours, that's kind of illustrating the point.
Since that was not the argument, it doesn't really matter that it doesn't lend weight to an argument I didn't make.
It does, however, demonstrate the criticism that you're not actually addressing the point of what alliance is not being honored to do what.
I'm not asking for a NATO article 5. I'm asking what alliance you think is supposed to do what that they refused to do. You are avoiding all three parts of the question - what alliance format is relevant, what that alliance should do, and who refused.
Moreover, you've already countered your own position repeatedly, because your own prior post already had the alliance structure provide support- in identifying that it was India- while your own latest example actually has both a relevant alliance context- NATO which stands in contrast to the perpetrator identified- and is an alliance structure where the US demonstratably has not been able to bend the alliance to accept policies the US government wants. This not only undermines the appeal to ambiguity of general-form alliances vis-a-vis alliances for a purpose, but does so by counter-examples to American hyperagency
While this certainly is one form of the motte and bailey the site is named for, inventing grievances from an admitted lack of information is poor grounds for justifying cynicism.
Ass the saying goes, assuming makes an ass out of you, especially when the assumption serves as the justification for further condemnation.
Your cynicism is currently unsupported, and immature at best... not least because you have not actually identified what Canada could, let alone should, be doing to produce different results.
Calling statements toothless is a pejorative, but not particularly relevant as far as subjective benchmarks. Sanctioning India in some form could be called toothless. Expelling diplomats is practically pro forma as far as these sort of incidents go, the epitome of doing something just to be seen as doing something, and so would be just as guilty of the condemnation of being too weak and insignificant to deter future infringement. Even a formal declaration of war would be pretty toothless given the, well, toothiness of the Canadian navy.
If everything upto and including war can be dismissed as weak and insignificant, the criticism loses all merit. Hence why you are being asked to proffer a credible standard.
Since you've yet to establish that the claimed failure occurred, or even a line of response that couldn't be dismissed as toothless and only encouraging future acts of interference...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It sounds like that makes two of us. I agree with the rest of your comment, too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As a slightly more nationalist Indian than the one you replied to, here's my perspective: I don't really care if Canada stops immigration from India. I have no plans to leave India, and any Indians who do wish to do so can fend for themselves. The Indian government doesn't need to facilitate people who want to emigrate. If that's the price India has to pay to whack a terrorist abroad, I would support more terrorists being whacked. If it leads to anti-india protests in Canada, well that's nothing new. Khalistanis in Canada, the US and the UK have organised such protests in the past, even to the point of attacking the Indian high commission. If Canada doesn't like extra-judicial killings, it could have extradited the guy designated as a terrorist by a fellow democracy and allowed him to stand trial in India.
The Indian government rules India, not Canada. Canada is a sovereign country and is under no obligation to extradite anyone to India. Why does its refusal to do so mean the Indian government can commit murder in Canada?
Legally or practically?
Legally, it doesn't. Practically, it means cost-benefit considerations change in the general terms. Canada is under no obligation to extradite anyone to India; Canada is also not under no obligation to not extradite anyone to India. How willing Canada is to extradite people in general is going to shape how other actors approach it on the subject of dissidents abroad.
Refusals of extradition leading to unilateral as the requesting country considers other methods isn't an uncommon thing, it's an established part of history. That's why extradition agreements aren't a political favor, they are a mechanism to limit score-settling abroad or permitting other country's internal political disputes from being based in one's own territory. Just as the premise of providing support to another country's dissidents from your own territory to weaken them is a tactic as old as time, so is the tactic of extraditing another country's trouble-makers back to them. Canada refusing to do so is a position- it's not the end of the matter.
Canada is a sovereign country under a Westphalian model. So is India. The Westphalian model offers no endorsement to India's alleged activity, but it also offers no remedy to Canada, because there is no legal appeal to enforce corrections for violations between Sovereign countryies, because if there was they wouldn't be Sovereign.
This is why international politics is generally described as amoral and anarchistic- because the ability to enforce one's preferences is limited to one's own willingness to retaliate.
More options
Context Copy link
Would you apply that logic to Afghanistan refusing to extradite Osama bin Laden?
No, because we were at war. If we had been at peace, then yes. Another difference is we have an extradition treaty with India. Presumably, there is a good reason he wasn't extradited and there was a possibility of negotiating something but it didn't happen for some reason. The solution to this general problem has been worked out between these two countries and India shouldn't be resorting to something approaching an act of war.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I can't recall that ever happening, at least leaving aside the cold war with Pakistan, but it's certainly hasn't happened to anyone I had any reason to care about.
The closest notable target I can think of is the Dalai Lama, and even then my response would largely be a shrug, if you're willing to take my word for it.
You would shrug if the Dalai Lama were assassinated??? Come on man, he's a national treasure.
I guess if you truly think spirituality has no merit whatsoever, then it's no loss. But come on, this guy is based as heck.
The Dalai Lama is the person who would be least impacted by being assassinated - he comes back on a regular basis after all.
More options
Context Copy link
Like, I'd be mildly peeved, since he seems like a chill dude who just wants to vibe and build clocks, but can't say I'm particularly attached to him!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it depends on definitions and perceptions. I would never consider expats, permanents residents, people with dual citizenships or ones obtained by means other than blood as equal, so in my mind they deserve less protection - so their own country whacking them is not a big deal. If you subscribe to the idea that all people deserve equal protection - then of course it is outrageous.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It seems likely that India was behind it (as you say, nobody else has a motive; unlike Islamists, Hindu nationalists aren’t generally hardcore enough to carry out this kind of ‘direct action’ without government sanction on foreign soil), apparently the Canadian opposition has been shown the evidence and has found it convincing enough, as have foreign governments.
I’m surprised, given the context, that the Indians did it though. Khalistan independence isn’t a major threat, the movement has been neutered in the way you describe, and so this guy wasn’t capable of causing real trouble anymore. The only reason to do it was national pride. Perhaps Indian intelligence is becoming more culturally Pakistani.
Still, the US takes international political assassinations on North American ground very seriously, there’s a reason the Russians are happy to go full polonium in all of Western Europe (most notably the UK) but haven’t dared a single unambiguous (ie signed) extrajudicial assassination on American or indeed Canadian soil. The reaction will be tempered so as not to get Modi to posture with Putin for a big photo op and trading partnership, but I think it’s still pretty serious and surprising.
Even Erdogan isn’t hellbent on assassinating Gulen in Pennsylvania, it’s not worth it. I wonder why the Indians thought it was worth it with this guy.
Any big country with a load of active separatist movements, including ones who can actually credibly threaten war and secessions, seems to be naturally intent on coming down like a ton of bricks on all of them, including the moribund ones with no hope of actualizing their goal, since doing otherwise would likewise strengthen all of the separatists and give them hope, including the active ones. The Russian state also continuously harasses utter no-hoper movements, like the Karelian independence movement and so on.
More options
Context Copy link
If we can use the words of the Indian Political Commentariat (at least the ones who did not predict a landslide win for INC in 2019) as a proxy for what the Indian Government thinks.
Punjab is a border state. Even worse, on the other side lies Pakistan. Separatism in Punjab is believed to have received significant support from the Pakistani ISI as part of their sponsorship of cross border terrorism in India like in Kashmir. There have been seriously worrying flare ups regarding this issue in the past culminating to the assassination of a Prime Minister.
Punjab, while rich compared to many other Indian states has stagnated in recent decades. Unemployment among the youth, cross border drug and weapons trade. It is addicted to Environmentally damaging state subsidized agriculture that is not sustainable or scalable if you want to reach first world living standards and industrial capacity. But, the status quo is a pretty comfortable one for a few rich Punjabi landlords/middlemen leaching off the rest of the state. The system of state subsidy came into place due to governmental efforts to guard against potential food scarcity that's no longer an issue. They now produce too much rice or wheat.
Attempts by the Indian government to move away from this led to the 2020-2021 Farmer Protests. The state lies right next to Delhi, the Indian capital, which they blockaded for months. The proximity allows them to wield disproportionate influence on Indian politics. Us folks down South can't march to the Capital to protest on a whim.
Despite the protest starting for other reasons Separatists who had found refuge in Canada and other countries quickly found the discontent to be a useful lever to push their goals. The Dollar even Canadian goes a long way in a poor country like India. A middle class family in Canada or the US is filty rich in India and can gets disproportionate financial leverage.
The Indian Government squashed the bill despite the need for agricultural reforms to avoid it being used to inflame Separatism. We have had serious material and political consequences as a result of a bunch of Canadians still stuck in the 1980s.
And, as @self_made_human said Indian think tankers seem to be of the opinion "Doubtful that we did it, but good riddance".
I strongly endorse this, as a rather fair and even assessment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link