As part of an escalating dispute over the shooting of a Sikh separatist president on American soil, India and Canada have engaged in tit-for-tat political evictions.
The expulsions came after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asserted that there are” credible allegations” connecting Narendra Modi’s government in India to the passing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. On June 18, 2023, outside a Hindu cultural center in Surrey, British Columbia, Nijjar— a prominent part of the Khalistan action attempting to establish an independentSikh country in the American state of Punjab — was shot to death.
The Conversation contacted Mark Juergensmeyer, an expert on spiritual violence and Hindu patriotism at the University of California, Santa Barbara, to provide context for a political spat that some anticipated as tensions between the two nations increased.
1. The Khalistan action: what is it?
Although in this context the term” khalsa” broadly refers to the religious community of Sikhs and the word” Khalistan” implies that they should have their own nation, the phrase” the land of the pure” is used to describe it.
This country is most likely to be located in Punjab condition, a region of northern India home to 18 million Sikhs.
8 million more Sikhs reside in other parts of India and worldwide, primarily in the US, Canada, and the UK.
The concept of a distinct area for Muslims in India was being thought about prior to the partition of India, which is where the idea for an independent Sikh area originated.
At the time, some Sikhs believed that if Muslims could control Pakistan, the country that was created through partition in 1947, then there should also be a” Sikhistan” or” KhalistAN.” The American government rejected that notion, and as a result, the Sikhs were incorporated into the state of Punjab. At that time, the Punjab’s borders were drawn in such a way that the Sikhs did not make up the lot.
However, Sikhs persisted, in part because” miri-piri ,” or the notion that political and religious leadership are intertwined, is one of the religion’s central tenets. Sikhs have had their own country, fought against Moghul law, and served as the core of the military under India’s imperial and independent rule throughout their 500-year history.
The need for redrawing the limitations of Punjab position so that Sikhs would be in the majority reappeared during the 1960s, and the idea of a distinct country for Skhis came up again. After the protests were successful, the American government established Punjabi Suba, a state whose borders included most Sikhs who spoke Punjab. They now make up 58 % of the population in the Punjab that has been revised.
The large-scale militant uprising that broke out in Punjab in the 1980s brought the idea of a” Khalistan” distinct from India back to life. Some Sikhs who joined the violent movement did so in order to create a separate state with an Indian population that was predominately made up of Sikhis.
2. Why is the American state then particularly worried about it?
The violent fresh Sikhs, many of whom nevertheless harbored aspirations for a independent state in Punjab, and the Indian armed police engaged in violent combat during the 1980s.
In violent clashes between the Sikh extremists and security forces, thousands of lives were lost on both edges. Operation Blue Star, which Prime Minister Indira Gandhi started in 1984 to free the Sikh Golden Temple from militants in Amritsar’s trip center and either get or assassinate Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, the leader of the Khalistan movement, brought the conflict to a head. He was killed in the attack, and Sikhs all over the world were furious that officers action had violated their sacred space. Sikh users of Indira Gandhi’s personal guard assassinated her in retaliation.
The idea of Khalistan has recently been reintroduced by a number of fervent Hindu activists in India, and the Indian government is concerned that the murder and violence of the 1980s will return. The movement needs to be stopped before it becomes too big and intense, according to Narendra Modi’s administration.
3. 3. What link exists between Canada and the Khalistan action?
Some Hindu activists fled India and traveled to Canada after the uprising was put down in the early 1990s. There, they were welcomed by a sizable Sikhi neighborhood, many of whom had been appealing to the Khalistan concept. Since the early 20th century, a huge expatriate community of Sikhs has been expanding throughout the nation, particularly in British Columbia and Ontario.
Sikhs have been drawn to Canada not only for its financial options but also for the freedom to shape their own perceptions of the Muslim community there. Although it is against the law in India to help Khalistan, Sikhs activists in Canada are free to express their opinions and arrange for the cause.
Even though Khalistan would be in India, the American action in its favor strengthens the diaspora Hindu personality and gives French activists a sense of identity.
4. Has the Khalistan activity received support from the French government?
Sikhs who live in diaspora communities make up 2.1 % of Canada’s community, which is a higher proportion than in India. They have political influence and make up a sizable portion of the nation’s election population. In actuality, the Canadian government contains more Sikhs than the Indian one.
Trudeau has reassured Canadians that he respects free speech and the freedom of Sikhs to speak and arrange themselves as long as they do not transgress American legislation, despite promising the Indian state that any acts of violence may be punished.
5. 5. What is the larger picture of relationships between Canada and India?
Prime Minister Modi of India’s Bharata Janata Party, also known as the BJP, frequently backs Hindu patriotism.
Recently, when referring to the nation while hosting the G20 conference, which was attended by President Joe Biden and other world dignitaries, the Modi government used” Bharat” rather than” India.” The choice of Indian nationalists is” Bharat.” Immigrants in India, including Sikhs and Muslims, are now more fearful and distrustful as a result of this privilging and an increase in hate acts.
Trudeau wants to defend the right of Sikhs and express disapproval of the trend toward Hindu nationalism in India, taking into account the higher proportion of them in Canada’s people.
Trudeau and Modi have argued about the matter before, but not always. Trudeau was criticized in India in 2018 for his connection with Jaspal Singh Atwal, a Khalistani admirer who had been found guilty of trying to kill Punjab’s deputy minister in Canada.
However, there are good reasons for both nations to try to put the latest diplomatic standoff behind them. India and Canada have shut ties to one another in terms of trade and shared geopolitical concerns with China. It’s possible that both sides will eventually figure out how to ease the tensions brought on by this challenging affair.
Professor of sociology and international studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Mark Juergensmeyer.
Under a Creative Commons license, this article is republished from The Conversation. Read the original publication.