Years ago I discussed these events with a Sikh lady who lost family members in the pogrom that followed Operation Blue Star. "Seems to me Brahmanism is alive and well in India" I said, to which she replied, "if only more people understood that." The situation hasn't improved since then. You only have to ask yourself why there are so many Sikhs in Canada, the USA and Britain compared to Hindus, when Sikhs make up less than 2% of India's population.
I admit to a certain bias, having lived and worked with Sikhs for over 25 years. I recognize that some of the separatist's actions can be regarded as extreme, just as some regard Hamas' actions as extreme. Nonetheless, there's a striking similarity between the two causes, both of which I believe are just.
I don't have all the facts, but knowing what India is capable of, I think it's entirely possible they're behind these assassinations, given their hostility towards what these separatists represent. Even if that were not the case, no way on Earth would I ever turn them over to the Indian government knowing what their fate would be. Canada banned capital punishment in 1976 and has no obligation to turn anyone over to any government that still follows the practice. Neither can India be trusted to waive that penalty as is done between Canada and those US states that still have the death penalty. And that's not even considering whether they'd receive a fair trial, which is highly doubtful. So impasse.
Whatever political game is being played here by Canada or the USA, the fact is Sikhs, just like any other minority group, have certain inalienable rights, one of which is to declare their independence from an oppressive regime, and Indian certainly meets the definition. Just to be clear, this is what you're up against in India today if you're a Sikh, Muslim, Jain, Buddhist or Christian.
Whether they're behind this or not, my point is that the issue has escalated at this particular time after a long lull because of the US' strategic objective in pressuring India and then punishing it (for now only in the reputational realm) for refusing to subordinate itself to the US as its largest-ever vassal.
I'm also not all that interested anymore in India's domestic socio-political challenges. I used to be, but nowadays I focus more on its International Relations, particularly with Russia. For what it's worth, Russia doesn't care about whatever India may or may not do inside its own borders. Ties have continued expanding in spite of associated scandals and criticisms.
"Russia doesn't care about whatever India may or may not do inside its own borders."
That seems to be a central point of multi-polarity. Certainly seems to apply in Israel's case. Not exactly what you'd expect from a nation that bills itself as a society based on Christian principles. Just my opinion, but when you push pragmatism over principle you risk losing your principles altogether.
That is always a difficult course to navigate. If all the good men chose to fight before they were ready, we would have many more martyrs but a much darker world today.
The Indian government probably IS behind these assassinations, and Modi IS a Hindu nationalist fanatic who at least enabled the slaughter of thousands of Muslims when he was governor of an Indian state.
The author, like the Russian government, is taking no position on the issue of Sikh rights or Sikh separatism. He's only arguing that this latest kerfluffle is really an attempt to try to coerce India into towing the American imperial line.
I think he's probably right. It's not as if the Empire cares about Sikhs any more than the Russians do, after all.
Canada has a significant Sikh population, and while not all are sympathetic to an independent Khalistan, many are, including several of my friends. Pandering to a sizable voting block is par for the course with every Canadian politician unfortunately. They really need no prompting from the USA to do that. Same goes for people of Ukrainian ancestry, which number over 1 million - a significant percentage which will probably double once the war ends and the nationalists pack their bags. A sad state of affairs, but again, Canadian politicians needs no prompting to understand which side of their toast is buttered.
And then there’s that. Thank you. A Sikh heads the NDP, does he not? And now that you mention it, there are high-ranking people of Ukrainian ancestry in Trudeau’s government, aren’t they?
I’ve never known any Sikhs very well. The few I’ve met were nice enough. And my wife’s got a lot of Russian AND Ukrainian ancestry.
Anyway, good point, but for a long-time deep state watcher I have to question the timing. Why now? It could be domestic Canadian politics, it could be a favor requested from Imperial DC, and it could be both.
I wouldn't discount Andrew's take, just presenting an alternate theory of the crime:)
And yes, the NDP has a Sikh leader and he's not too well respected by the Sikh community as I understand it. They are unfortunately a divided community over the issue of separatism among other things. Another possibility is that the assassinations were an internal affair - nothing to do with India, and possibly nothing to do with separatism either. Don't want to speculate beyond that, but it is a possibility.
I don't understand where you come from when you say, Sikh, Budh, Jain are religiously oppressed in India, I can't say same for Muslims and Christians as there is some hate for them just because they are muslims or christians. There are some justifications given by right wing for that as there is lot of illiteracy and crime among Indian muslims and some muslims have extreme views for other religions. Some hate comes because they are mass level conversion from Hindus/dalits to muslim/christians.
Sikh, Buddha and Jains are considered Dharmic religions in India and respected by common Hindus as well.
There was and is lot of injustice happened to Sikhs in India but that might be very much political instead of religious.
I don't know what your definition of Brahminism is, but it is surely not what you get on ground. You might have read a lot of left literature coming from India which have lot of hate for Brahmins.
Brahmins is a caste in Hinduism whore involved in Priest activities in Temples, they oppressed other caste people for long time, they distanced Dalits from education and economic opportunities in past. But situation is very much different now, most of reformist came from Brahmin community.
Brahmin community at community level don't have much of hate for any other caste, very few in this community have it.
It's very complex to know ground situation in India.
The dominant tribes frequently do bad things to the minorities. I think this is a universal phenomenon, but to a different extent in different places and times. CCP used very high pressure on the Uyhgurs in Xingjiang, but much more lenient to other Chinese Muslims elsewhere in China (central and southwest China). Both localities (Xinjiang is more critical strategically) and ethnics matter (Chinese Muslims are mostly Han in bloodlines.) Castro Jr. reacted more strongly because there are other politicians being descendants from the India Continent on par with him to challenge him in Canada. Americans don't behave this way because Indian descendants have risen only to the cabinet level, but not yet at the national level. Nicki Haley had tried too hard and does not really count at the national level.
The current India government is particularly incompetent, but as many Canadians will say, Ottawa is just a suburb of Washington. The reason for the later is transparent, a nearly complete commingling of the wealth and therefore the interest of both nations elites. Since the pie is much larger south of the border, if a party is going to take a hit, or needs to become a colony/R&R station for any revanchist movement, then it's usually Canada, hence the large numbers of Ukrainians, Sikh, Belarusians, Balochis. It's a big factor in why crime in Canada has gone up, the immigrants have large numbers of trained militants among them.
1. Allegations of assassinating what are described as "dissidents" on foreign soil has always had a negative effect on perceptions. The West claimed the same about Russia and now they're claiming it about India. Both rejected the allegations precisely because they consider them to be detrimental to their international images. You can agree or disagree about whether they're good or bad for them, but you can't deny their official reactions.
2. China wants a deal with the US, albeit a balanced one, but the US only wants a lopsided deal. China isn't interested in replacing the US, though the inertia of its rise might lead to it unwittingly doing so in some ways that others have criticized the US for in the past. You either missed last November's Xi-Biden Summit or are ignoring it for narrative reasons. Both want to repair relations, but the difference is over the terms that they'll agree to.
3. India's largest trade partner is China, but India has restricted Chinese investments and some tech products like apps on national security pretexts. There are serious problems between these two that'll be very difficult to rectify. India won't follow China's path but is trying to chart its own. The country is indispensable to the global balance of influence, hence why everyone is courting it, but leftist-aligned ideologues in Alt-Media will never acknowledge it.
4. The US is one of China's top trade partners despite how you characterized its economy. I'm under the impression that you're a leftist since you're spewing the typical talking points on this subject, though with the misguided innuendo that China dislikes the US and/or is preparing to dump it. Actually, they still cooperate a lot on tech and trade despite geopolitical tensions and the trade war, but the debate is over the terms of any rapprochement.
5. You can feel however you want about whatever I write, but I don't want you disrespect me with sarcastic comments about what year I'm living in. If I turn a blind eye to them, it only emboldens others to disrespect me, and before you know it, this whole community will become toxified. It happened on my Facebook before, then a bit on my X account, but I won't let it happen here. Please don't insult me again.
It's also dishonest of you to not acknowledge the systemic consequences of any potential Sino-US rapprochement. Those two are the most powerful countries in the world, each in their own way, and nobody comes close to them. The world would absolutely be divided into camps, even if only informally and imperfectly to a large degree. Many have already written about the bifurcation of global tech for instance.
You're assuming that China doesn't want a deal with the US, thus implying that its representatives from Xi on down are lying through their teeth when they talk about finding a resolution to their many disputes. Like most leftist ideologues, you think you're helping your cause by spewing talking points, but you actually end up discrediting it. Unlike you, I take what Xi says seriously and respect him, I don't think he's playing "chess".
If you asked your questions honestly with the intent of learning more about my views, which I very seriously doubt since I could detect the sarcasm dripping from every keystroke you typed, you or more honest readers can refer to these three pieces for more insight into prior attempts at a Sino-US rapprochement:
I hyperlink to some of my previous pieces in there too for additional background if anyone is interested. Again, you can agree or disagree with me, I don't care either way -- in fact I encourage respectfully expressed contrarian views -- but I really don't like being disrespected and insulted by people asking what year I'm in.
What I'm directly saying is that China might be caught up in a bi-multipolar system without even meaning to due to its enormous size and the inertia of its rise.
If China is so strongly against the US like you falsely imply, then why are there such serious payment problems between it and Russia right now, and why did an energy company pull out of a major Russian project this year?:
I don't want your answer, I'm asking rhetorically since I don't expect an honest response as it's clear that you're not interested in learning more about what I think and why, but just about parroting talking points.
I'm also blocking you because I have ZERO TOLERANCE for being disrespected on my Substack. My Facebook is limited to friends-only for replies while I troll back my trolls on X for fun almost daily, but I don't tolerate it here.
I encourage respectfully expressed contrarian views, but I'm not going to be mocked and insulted. I have enough self-respect not to deal with that. I'm sick of Alt-Media trolls hyped up by fake news into attacking those who pop their bubble.
Impossible to understand Sikh separatism without reference to Operation Blue Star in 1984.
Here is the Sikh version of events which is more detailed, and IMO more accurate than anything offered by other sources.
https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Operation_Blue_Star
Years ago I discussed these events with a Sikh lady who lost family members in the pogrom that followed Operation Blue Star. "Seems to me Brahmanism is alive and well in India" I said, to which she replied, "if only more people understood that." The situation hasn't improved since then. You only have to ask yourself why there are so many Sikhs in Canada, the USA and Britain compared to Hindus, when Sikhs make up less than 2% of India's population.
I admit to a certain bias, having lived and worked with Sikhs for over 25 years. I recognize that some of the separatist's actions can be regarded as extreme, just as some regard Hamas' actions as extreme. Nonetheless, there's a striking similarity between the two causes, both of which I believe are just.
I don't have all the facts, but knowing what India is capable of, I think it's entirely possible they're behind these assassinations, given their hostility towards what these separatists represent. Even if that were not the case, no way on Earth would I ever turn them over to the Indian government knowing what their fate would be. Canada banned capital punishment in 1976 and has no obligation to turn anyone over to any government that still follows the practice. Neither can India be trusted to waive that penalty as is done between Canada and those US states that still have the death penalty. And that's not even considering whether they'd receive a fair trial, which is highly doubtful. So impasse.
Whatever political game is being played here by Canada or the USA, the fact is Sikhs, just like any other minority group, have certain inalienable rights, one of which is to declare their independence from an oppressive regime, and Indian certainly meets the definition. Just to be clear, this is what you're up against in India today if you're a Sikh, Muslim, Jain, Buddhist or Christian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindutva
Whether they're behind this or not, my point is that the issue has escalated at this particular time after a long lull because of the US' strategic objective in pressuring India and then punishing it (for now only in the reputational realm) for refusing to subordinate itself to the US as its largest-ever vassal.
I'm also not all that interested anymore in India's domestic socio-political challenges. I used to be, but nowadays I focus more on its International Relations, particularly with Russia. For what it's worth, Russia doesn't care about whatever India may or may not do inside its own borders. Ties have continued expanding in spite of associated scandals and criticisms.
"Russia doesn't care about whatever India may or may not do inside its own borders."
That seems to be a central point of multi-polarity. Certainly seems to apply in Israel's case. Not exactly what you'd expect from a nation that bills itself as a society based on Christian principles. Just my opinion, but when you push pragmatism over principle you risk losing your principles altogether.
That is always a difficult course to navigate. If all the good men chose to fight before they were ready, we would have many more martyrs but a much darker world today.
The Indian government probably IS behind these assassinations, and Modi IS a Hindu nationalist fanatic who at least enabled the slaughter of thousands of Muslims when he was governor of an Indian state.
The author, like the Russian government, is taking no position on the issue of Sikh rights or Sikh separatism. He's only arguing that this latest kerfluffle is really an attempt to try to coerce India into towing the American imperial line.
I think he's probably right. It's not as if the Empire cares about Sikhs any more than the Russians do, after all.
Canada has a significant Sikh population, and while not all are sympathetic to an independent Khalistan, many are, including several of my friends. Pandering to a sizable voting block is par for the course with every Canadian politician unfortunately. They really need no prompting from the USA to do that. Same goes for people of Ukrainian ancestry, which number over 1 million - a significant percentage which will probably double once the war ends and the nationalists pack their bags. A sad state of affairs, but again, Canadian politicians needs no prompting to understand which side of their toast is buttered.
And then there’s that. Thank you. A Sikh heads the NDP, does he not? And now that you mention it, there are high-ranking people of Ukrainian ancestry in Trudeau’s government, aren’t they?
I’ve never known any Sikhs very well. The few I’ve met were nice enough. And my wife’s got a lot of Russian AND Ukrainian ancestry.
Anyway, good point, but for a long-time deep state watcher I have to question the timing. Why now? It could be domestic Canadian politics, it could be a favor requested from Imperial DC, and it could be both.
I wouldn't discount Andrew's take, just presenting an alternate theory of the crime:)
And yes, the NDP has a Sikh leader and he's not too well respected by the Sikh community as I understand it. They are unfortunately a divided community over the issue of separatism among other things. Another possibility is that the assassinations were an internal affair - nothing to do with India, and possibly nothing to do with separatism either. Don't want to speculate beyond that, but it is a possibility.
I don't understand where you come from when you say, Sikh, Budh, Jain are religiously oppressed in India, I can't say same for Muslims and Christians as there is some hate for them just because they are muslims or christians. There are some justifications given by right wing for that as there is lot of illiteracy and crime among Indian muslims and some muslims have extreme views for other religions. Some hate comes because they are mass level conversion from Hindus/dalits to muslim/christians.
Sikh, Buddha and Jains are considered Dharmic religions in India and respected by common Hindus as well.
There was and is lot of injustice happened to Sikhs in India but that might be very much political instead of religious.
I don't know what your definition of Brahminism is, but it is surely not what you get on ground. You might have read a lot of left literature coming from India which have lot of hate for Brahmins.
Brahmins is a caste in Hinduism whore involved in Priest activities in Temples, they oppressed other caste people for long time, they distanced Dalits from education and economic opportunities in past. But situation is very much different now, most of reformist came from Brahmin community.
Brahmin community at community level don't have much of hate for any other caste, very few in this community have it.
It's very complex to know ground situation in India.
The dominant tribes frequently do bad things to the minorities. I think this is a universal phenomenon, but to a different extent in different places and times. CCP used very high pressure on the Uyhgurs in Xingjiang, but much more lenient to other Chinese Muslims elsewhere in China (central and southwest China). Both localities (Xinjiang is more critical strategically) and ethnics matter (Chinese Muslims are mostly Han in bloodlines.) Castro Jr. reacted more strongly because there are other politicians being descendants from the India Continent on par with him to challenge him in Canada. Americans don't behave this way because Indian descendants have risen only to the cabinet level, but not yet at the national level. Nicki Haley had tried too hard and does not really count at the national level.
"India's international reputation"
Is that even a thing?
They got caught. The 'United Nations' are a collection of glass houses. End of story.
The current India government is particularly incompetent, but as many Canadians will say, Ottawa is just a suburb of Washington. The reason for the later is transparent, a nearly complete commingling of the wealth and therefore the interest of both nations elites. Since the pie is much larger south of the border, if a party is going to take a hit, or needs to become a colony/R&R station for any revanchist movement, then it's usually Canada, hence the large numbers of Ukrainians, Sikh, Belarusians, Balochis. It's a big factor in why crime in Canada has gone up, the immigrants have large numbers of trained militants among them.
Eh, how is this harming India's reputation on the world stage? And why would China sign some magical deal with the US for bi polarity?
You make some made claims in your piece that makes me wonder if you are living in 1996 and not 2024.
India, not much money, population very very big, massive market for China. US, running out of money, population big, small market for China.
1. Allegations of assassinating what are described as "dissidents" on foreign soil has always had a negative effect on perceptions. The West claimed the same about Russia and now they're claiming it about India. Both rejected the allegations precisely because they consider them to be detrimental to their international images. You can agree or disagree about whether they're good or bad for them, but you can't deny their official reactions.
2. China wants a deal with the US, albeit a balanced one, but the US only wants a lopsided deal. China isn't interested in replacing the US, though the inertia of its rise might lead to it unwittingly doing so in some ways that others have criticized the US for in the past. You either missed last November's Xi-Biden Summit or are ignoring it for narrative reasons. Both want to repair relations, but the difference is over the terms that they'll agree to.
3. India's largest trade partner is China, but India has restricted Chinese investments and some tech products like apps on national security pretexts. There are serious problems between these two that'll be very difficult to rectify. India won't follow China's path but is trying to chart its own. The country is indispensable to the global balance of influence, hence why everyone is courting it, but leftist-aligned ideologues in Alt-Media will never acknowledge it.
4. The US is one of China's top trade partners despite how you characterized its economy. I'm under the impression that you're a leftist since you're spewing the typical talking points on this subject, though with the misguided innuendo that China dislikes the US and/or is preparing to dump it. Actually, they still cooperate a lot on tech and trade despite geopolitical tensions and the trade war, but the debate is over the terms of any rapprochement.
5. You can feel however you want about whatever I write, but I don't want you disrespect me with sarcastic comments about what year I'm living in. If I turn a blind eye to them, it only emboldens others to disrespect me, and before you know it, this whole community will become toxified. It happened on my Facebook before, then a bit on my X account, but I won't let it happen here. Please don't insult me again.
It's also dishonest of you to not acknowledge the systemic consequences of any potential Sino-US rapprochement. Those two are the most powerful countries in the world, each in their own way, and nobody comes close to them. The world would absolutely be divided into camps, even if only informally and imperfectly to a large degree. Many have already written about the bifurcation of global tech for instance.
You're assuming that China doesn't want a deal with the US, thus implying that its representatives from Xi on down are lying through their teeth when they talk about finding a resolution to their many disputes. Like most leftist ideologues, you think you're helping your cause by spewing talking points, but you actually end up discrediting it. Unlike you, I take what Xi says seriously and respect him, I don't think he's playing "chess".
If you asked your questions honestly with the intent of learning more about my views, which I very seriously doubt since I could detect the sarcasm dripping from every keystroke you typed, you or more honest readers can refer to these three pieces for more insight into prior attempts at a Sino-US rapprochement:
https://korybko.substack.com/p/the-chinese-balloon-incident-could
https://korybko.substack.com/p/the-us-is-receptive-to-kissingers
https://korybko.substack.com/p/the-xi-biden-summit-might-help-better
I hyperlink to some of my previous pieces in there too for additional background if anyone is interested. Again, you can agree or disagree with me, I don't care either way -- in fact I encourage respectfully expressed contrarian views -- but I really don't like being disrespected and insulted by people asking what year I'm in.
What I'm directly saying is that China might be caught up in a bi-multipolar system without even meaning to due to its enormous size and the inertia of its rise.
If China is so strongly against the US like you falsely imply, then why are there such serious payment problems between it and Russia right now, and why did an energy company pull out of a major Russian project this year?:
https://korybko.substack.com/p/russia-and-chinas-us-provoked-payment
https://korybko.substack.com/p/this-chinese-companys-compliance
I don't want your answer, I'm asking rhetorically since I don't expect an honest response as it's clear that you're not interested in learning more about what I think and why, but just about parroting talking points.
I'm also blocking you because I have ZERO TOLERANCE for being disrespected on my Substack. My Facebook is limited to friends-only for replies while I troll back my trolls on X for fun almost daily, but I don't tolerate it here.
I encourage respectfully expressed contrarian views, but I'm not going to be mocked and insulted. I have enough self-respect not to deal with that. I'm sick of Alt-Media trolls hyped up by fake news into attacking those who pop their bubble.
For those who might read this exchange and want to learn more, please reference those five prior analyses that I shared.
Let's also not forget about the high-profile Chinese espionage cases that have rocked Russia in recent years but were downplayed by the media:
https://korybko.substack.com/p/whyd-china-so-strongly-object-to
I referenced them here and hyperlinked to relevant news items for those who'd like to learn more.
To be clear, China is not anti-Russian and it's actually a close partner, but all countries spy on one another.
From China's perspective, Russia is a reliable energy partner, but China wants basement-bargain prices while Russia wants fairer ones.
That's why they've yet to reach a deal on Power of Siberia II despite years of negotiations and Putin flying to Beijing just several months ago.
https://korybko.substack.com/p/analyzing-the-reported-chinese-russian
We also have the fact that China doesn't like Russia arming India to the teeth amidst the tense Sino-Indo border dispute.
To be clear, Russia is not anti-Chinese and it's actually a close partner, but it believes that its "military diplomacy" retains the balance of power.
Some sharp divergences exist between them, but they responsibly manage these problems for the greater multipolar good.
Nevertheless, Russia fears potentially disproportionate dependence on China and relies on India to help preemptively avert that.
Sino-Russo interplay is fascinating but rarely discussed in the AMC because it's "politically incorrect" to do so.
When the MSM does, it's nothing but gross exaggerations and fake news, so neither media camp is reliable when it comes to this.
I wrote more about this last year here, which folks should review if they're interested in this "taboo" subject:
https://korybko.substack.com/p/rics-differences-should-be-candidly
Any honest person will see that I'm happy to discuss this as long as my interlocutor respects me.
I won't debate though since I don't care about changing anyone's mind, only in clarifying the paradigms through which I analyze everything.
I work a lot, do plenty of research, have a family, and some hobbies too, so anyone who thinks I want to argue with them is delusional.
Therein lies the problem with Alt-Media trolls, though, since they project their own insecurities onto others and then viciously attack them.
I believe in "policing" one's own community, calling out the troublemakers, and focusing on self-improvement.
That's why I'm hard on the Alt-Media Community because it can do better but rarely does, with examples like this one continuing to disappoint me.
Every single time I graciously give someone a chance and naively think they just want clarity, I get insulted and mocked.
I'll probably begin implementing an instant block policy every time I'm called a name or addressed sarcastically.
The person will be blocked from my Substack but I'll explain why below so others can avoid doing what they did and losing access to my page.