The bogey of Khalistan must be put to rest once and for all
CANADIAN PM Justin Trudeau stirred up a hornet’s nest last month with his allegations about the Indian Government’s involvement in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a known secessionist. India has firmly denied any such involvement. The falling popularity of Trudeau and his Liberal Party apparently prompted him to take this step to appease Canadian Sikhs, who form a significant vote bank.
The Chinese have been accused of interference in Canadian politics, to the advantage of the Liberal Party. Facing severe criticism and protests, Trudeau was forced to order an inquiry into the matter. His targeting of India is also being seen as a diversionary tactic. In doing so, Trudeau has not cared for Canada’s larger interests and relations with India, but only kept his party’s interests in mind.
The secessionist rant by a section of the diaspora erupts mostly in Canada and the UK. There are two key issues: Is there any concrete basis of their demand for Khalistan? What is the proportion of the people who support this demand? To answer the second question first, the Sikh population worldwide is estimated to be 2.6-3 crore, of which about 90 per cent live in India. Canada has the highest number of diaspora Sikhs (around 7.7 lakh), followed by the UK (5.2 lakh) and Australia (nearly 2.3 lakh). In India, the support for the Sikh secessionist cause is non-existent; even in Canada and the UK, the people who support it are negligible in number. Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar has said: “Those talking abroad are a small minority and most of the co-religionists believe it is not the main issue of the entire Sikh community.”
Secessionists are at best fringe elements who become more vocal due to official sanction; clearly, such subtle support provides encouragement, according to Shinder Purewal, Professor of Political Science at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, British Columbia.
The diasporic secessionists demand an independent homeland carved out of the Indian landmass. Their claim that they were forced to flee India after the cataclysmic events of 1947 and 1984 is unconvincing as the fact remains that the majority have migrated voluntarily for greener pastures. Even the contours of such a homeland defy logic. A Sikh homeland, Punjab, was established by Maharaja Ranjit Singh in the early 19th century. The empire stood out as a sovereign independent state as per the Westphalian concept of 1648. It continued till 1849, when it was annexed by the British. The British, while granting Independence to India, divided Punjab in the most unjust manner. A major chunk of erstwhile Punjab went to Pakistan; the Sikhs lost many of their revered religious places, including the birthplace of Guru Nanak. Also lost was the Sikh kingdom, its prosperity, forts, battle sites and most importantly, the strategic landmass up to the Indus. The question arises: Do the secessionists include this large chunk in Pakistan as part of the Sikh homeland being demanded? The answer is a firm no as these elements bank upon Pakistani support. Clearly, their criterion for territory is misplaced, as is their intent. What cannot be denied to all Sikhs is their spiritual and temporal authority, their sanctum sanctorum, Harmandar Sahib and Akal Takht; these are inviolable. Guru Gobind Singh conferred sovereignty on the Khalsa Panth and proclaimed, ‘Raj Karega Khalsa’ (the pure will rule). These are words with a deep meaning, not restricted to any specified territory, projecting Sikhism as a religion for the world. The thought is that wherever the Khalsa reside, they would follow their religion’s principle of Sarbat Da Bhala (the good of everyone); by doing so, they would not be rulers but rule the hearts of the people.
The secessionists must understand that they are no longer Indian citizens and have no right to get involved in politics back home. However, if their adopted country is convinced of their demand and permits the conduct of referendums, let it be magnanimous enough to earmark such a homeland within its own geographic boundary to resolve the matter, or better still, stop any such encouragement. While this will take care of one aspect of the problem, there is another one which needs to be dealt with — the treatment of the minorities in India. The present government in India lacks credibility in dealing with the minorities. The example of the farmers’ agitation stands out; instead of being given a patient hearing, farmers were dubbed as Khalistanis by some leaders of the ruling party.
Even in the India-Canada fracas, when soft diplomacy would have helped, the situation has been described as “a climate of terrorism, extremism and violence”. This paints the entire Indian diaspora with the same broad brush; it projects a misleading image of the diaspora abroad in general and Sikhs in particular, and is unacceptable. Thus, it is necessary for the government to pragmatically review its domestic policies regarding the minorities, as also its encouragement of diasporic nationalism as an instrument of foreign policy. These acts cut both ways; the outcomes can only be negative.
The truth must prevail. A small number of secessionists cannot be allowed to espouse a non-existent cause. The bogey of Khalistan must be put to rest permanently by targeting all elements whose interests lie in raising the matter repeatedly. The diaspora is financially and professionally well placed; its positive involvement in a wide spectrum of social activities can help in bettering educational, medical and economic conditions back home.
