The Indian position on Sikhs is more radical than the Chinese position on Uyghurs. That's… Depressing.
Indian position on Khalistani Sikhs is as radical as any other country would be against terrorists.
The other 99.999% of Sikhs, are our brothers.
Forgive my western ignorance, but what makes them all terrorists in your eyes?
To me, it sounds like they're terrorists simply because they're separatists.
Imagine if Canada considered separatist Quebecois as terrorists (yes, an infinitely small few were, but the vast majority just want a referendum)
I've had that same thought while trying to navigate this.
You know what the Indian Hindu majority and their media doesn't seem to consider terrorism? Pogroms against Sikhs, or Muslims.
So… that should tell you something.
Highjacking and bombing aeroplane, attacking people opposing their POV, bombing in general, killing of prime minister.
Your Western biased ignorance forgiven.
Do the majority of separatists condone those actions?
Celebrating the assassination, letting the bomber go scot free shows that they do.
The hypocrisy being demonstrated is disgusting. "Trudeau is just making accusations for his own political gain" "it was a terrorist were glad was murdered" "why can't India enact political assassinations?"
So gross. 😡
This is the best summary I could come up with:
When Justin Trudeau stood up in Canadian parliament last week to announce there were “credible allegations” that agents linked to the Indian government had been involved in the assassination of a Sikh activist in a suburb of Vancouver, it sent reverberations across the world.
Vohra’s only source for the information appeared to be rumours and his wife, who had apparently seen the Canadian prime minister “depressed and stressed” in Delhi airport, but that was enough for it to be presented as news on Zee network.
A show called #TrudeauBacksTerror aired on the inflammatory rightwing channel Republic TV, accusing Canada of condoning anti-India terrorist activity, while news site NDTV – owned by a businessman with close ties to the government – ran a column describing Canada as a country “of rising drug addiction and a slew of highly concerning medical policies, including medical assistance in dying”.
“The problem is Canadistan” ran the headline on a Times of India article written by former government adviser Brahma Chellaney, who alleged that “without curbing its Khalistani militancy, Canada could one day become the Pakistan of the west”.
Following India’s presidency of G20 this year and the recent leaders’ summit held in Delhi, Indian media had been awash with coverage about prime minister Narendra Modi’s growing alliances with western powers.
The rare cross-party solidarity and nationalist fervour stirred up by the incident raise the possibility that Modi could try to capitalise further on the Khalistan issue – a banned separatist movement that fights for an independent Sikh state in India – in the upcoming election in 2024, when he will be seeking a third term.
The original article contains 801 words, the summary contains 270 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
I wonder what Trudeau's plan was. Announcing a link without being able to provide evidence is really no different than not having evidence. In the meantime it has hurt relations with India, and hasn't really helped Trudeau domestically.
Maybe the idea was that making it public would mean India would think twice about doing it again? Maybe it's to get India to publicly commit to a denial, giving them enough rope to hang themselves, and then to present the evidence? So far, the strategy doesn't seem to be a very good one.
I mean the fact that the US secret service warned similar activists that they are in danger makes it clear that there probably is some proof but its also probably impossible to reveal without outing and informant
what do the MPs who aren't members of BJP and INC have to say?
