Sunday 24 September 2023

New Yorker wrong on Trudeau's terrorists

The world has grown weary of 'sexed up' dossiers cited by politicians to justify stupid foreign policy shit they do. Trudeau, poor fellow, is having to grovel to a Sikh politician in Canada who has the power to eject him from office. That is why he is claiming India takes the trouble to kill Canadian terrorists who are quick enough to kill each other and thus not worth bothering about.

The humorous aspect of this has to do with the fact that Trudeau's daddy had presided over a Canadian Khalistani terror campaign against India- which was cool because back then Delhi was allied with the Soviet Union- which involved blowing up Indian aeroplanes filled with Canadian citizens. This meant that when Trudeau's own plane couldn't get him out of a Delhi where he had, diplomatically speaking, crapped his pants, he felt unable to accept the Indian offer of a plane to depart. After all, Canadian Sikhs are very good at blowing up Indian planes. Some such may want to take revenge on Pierre's son for the killing of their parents on an Air India plane back in the Eighties. Obviously, this is an absurd fear for anybody to have but then Trudeau is a deeply ridiculous man-child. 

Isaac Chortiner has an extraordinarily ignorant article in the New Yorker on this latest development. Most people would talk to a Canadian if they want to know what is happening in Canada. Isaac choses to talk to a bland British academic concerned not to get thumped by local Sikh gangsters. 

On Monday, Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada, accused India’s government of having a role in the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian citizen

Since 2007. He had entered the country illegally ten years previously.  

and Sikh separatist who was gunned down in Surrey,

after another Sikh terror-accused whom he had beef with was gunned down in June of the previous year.  

British Columbia, in June. Sikhs make up less than two per cent of the population of India,

and about two percent of the population of Canada 

but are a majority in the northwestern state of Punjab. During the past half century, the struggle for a Sikh homeland

has never had popular support in Punjab though it has been popular with Canadian gangsters and Punjabi gangsta-rap artists.  

—usually referred to as the Khalistan movement—has occasionally turned violent,

gangsters are always violent. Khalistanis kill mainly Sikh people though now and then they bump off the odd Hindu whom nobody gives a toss about. There are over a billion of them.

and has been met by an equally violent response from the Indian authorities.

Punjabi Sikhs slaughtered Khalistanis when and if they started slaughtering them. 

But an assassination on foreign soil would constitute a serious escalation of the campaign against Sikh separatists.

No it wouldn't. Nobody gives a fuck about gangsters killing each other either in Punjab or Canada.  

India’s Ministry of External Affairs has denied having anything to do with the murder,

a Canadian murder carried out by Canadians. The police have arrested the contract killers of Ripudaman Singh, who, it is generally believed, was killed by Nijjar. Why have the police not found out who paid the killers?  

but also said that Canada’s approach to terrorism, which it characterized as laissez-faire, would “continue to threaten India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

Manmohan Singh's government had refused to give a visa to Jagmeet Singh whose party is propping up Trudeau. Jagmeet is demonstrating that he is pulling Trudeau's strings and thus can deliver the goods for his party.  The problem is that if there is a proper investigation into the Nijjar and Ripudaman killings, Jagmeet will be shown to be hand in glove with a bunch of mob families some of whom control gurudwaras and Sikh schools etc. The gangsters had been buying influence in their ancestral villages. Sadly, the new AAP government in Punjab will confiscate that property while the Centre cracks down on Visas for Canadian Sikhs thus uprooting the cancer.  

Trudeau’s allegations coincide with an attempt by Narendra Modi, India’s Prime Minister, to portray the country as an increasingly important player on the global stage;

which is what it is. Canada doesn't matter. But, without Quad, America too is irrelevant in South Asia. Britain may hand back Diego Garcia to Mauritius, which may close down the American base there to please the Chinese.  

this era, in his words, marks “the first time the world has come to know that India can take a stand for herself.” The allegations also coincide with a general willingness by the Biden Administration to overlook India’s worsening human-rights record during Modi’s nearly decade-long premiership, in part because the U.S. values India’s role as a counterweight to China.

India's human rights record has improved because governance has improved. Canada's has worsened. Canadians have a human right not to be slaughtered by gangsters. 

To talk about the history of Sikh separatism and the Indian government’s response to it, I recently spoke by phone with Gurharpal Singh,

a clean shaven British academic.  

an emeritus professor at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies and the author of many books on the subcontinent, including “Sikh Nationalism: From a Dominant Minority to an Ethno-Religious Diaspora.” During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed why the Indian government is so concerned about Sikh separatism, the development of Sikh political identity in the West, and whether Western governments are doing enough to protect their own citizens.

Canadian Sikh gangsters got interested in terrorism after Bluestar and Khalistani terrorists started joining them because they wanted to be gangsters and get rich. Recently, some young people want to be rap-singing, Khalistani, gangsters which annoys the 'Common Man' Party which swept the polls in the Punjab. Meanwhile, the rest of India laughs heartily every time crazy Sikh people kill other crazy Sikh people. On the other hand, Punjabi rap songs are hella cool.  

How did there come to be large Sikh communities in countries such as Canada?

The Brits promised Sikh soldiers they would get land in Canada after the Great War- at least, that is the Sikh narrative. The truth is the Canadians wanted cheap labour but did not want Indian immigrants to have equal rights. 

Sikhs have been migrating overseas in significant numbers since the late nineteenth century. As part of the imperial expansion of Britain, they were principally involved in the armed services and later in the security forces as policemen. So, wherever the Empire expanded, especially in the Far East—China, Singapore, Fiji, and Malaysia—and East Africa, that’s where the Sikhs went. They started arriving in North America, and particularly the Pacific Coast, following Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee, in 1887. Citizens of the Empire technically had the right to travel and settle throughout it. And since then there have been significant settlements of the Sikh community in British Columbia, California, and, of course, Britain, where they have been permanently settled since the nineteen-twenties in large numbers, and more since the Second World War.

Your country becoming Independent is a good reason to run to where Whites might still discriminate against you. The good thing about Canada is you can concentrate on being a Khalistani gangster without the whole State turning to shit.  This is because Sikhs, as in India, are only two percent of the population but they aren't concentrated in one area. 

At the same time that Sikhs are migrating to different areas of the world,

because under Sikh rule, Punjab turned to shit 

there is a huge Sikh community in the Indian state of Punjab, which was one of the two states split in half during Partition. There is a movement there for some sort of independent Sikh homeland.

There were Sikh Princely states which could have become independent. But the Sikh Princes tended to be very good at torturing and killing their own subjects.  The big problem with the Sikhs, as with the Palestinians, is that when they start waxing eloquent about their right to their own State, they then get busy killing each other. 

Can you talk about how that movement got started and what its role was in Indian politics after Partition?

There was a division between poorer Sikhs who wanted to take control of the Sikh holy places and reduce the power of the big landlords and Princes. So long as there was a Muslim threat, the Sikhs sided with the Hindus. The question was whether they could get a State of their own- which is what Indira Gandhi gave them. Sadly she listened to lower caste Sikhs like Zail Singh and Buta Singh who wanted to break the power of the Jat Sikhs. They sponsored a radical preacher, Bhrindinwale, whose initial target was the Nirankari Sikhs. Then he started slaughtering Hindus and the Dynasty decided to do 'Hindu vote consolidation' by turning Punjab into a slaughter house. The Sikhs got their revenge by killing Indira- which provoked pogroms against Sikhs and prolonged extra-judicial blood letting in Punjab. The Khalistanis also helped the Tamil Tigers to kill Rajiv. Once Vajpayee came to power, the Khalistan movement was played out. It had always been a fantasy. A Sikh state would not be viable. Pakistan would gobble it up.  

At Partition, the Sikh community saw itself as being very vulnerable.

Sikh Princes started the violence but the majority of Sikhs were on the wrong side of the border and paid a heavy price.  

It was a small community in the united British Punjab—less than about fourteen per cent of the population. Sikhs tried to come up with various schemes to keep the community together, to keep Punjab together, but

they were useless at politics. There was a 'Unionist' party but once the cry of 'Islam in danger' went up, it was obvious there would be ethnic cleansing.  

unfortunately that did not come to pass, as the British wanted to exit India and Punjab quickly.

Muslims had no great love for Sikhs. The great genius of the Khalistani movement was to get Hindus to hate them as well. Still, Canada is a deeply boring country and so Sikh gangster rappers may seem cool there. The Whites hope they will chase away the Hindus but may themselves want to run away as gangsterism prevails. Hopefully, Chinese police stations can take over from the Mounties.  

Thereafter, Indian states or provinces were organized along linguistic lines. One way the Sikh leadership thought that it could protect the community’s rights and identity was to campaign for a Punjabi-speaking state. This led to a great deal of bitterness and resentment among the Punjabi-speaking Hindu community, who opted for Hindi as a way of opposing that demand. They thought that a Punjabi-speaking state would largely be a Sikh-dominated state.

No. They wanted Devanagri script rather than Gurumukhi. There was tension between the rural Sikhs and the urban, merchant caste, Hindu. Now, despite the Farmer's protests, a Hindu bania in New Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal, controls Punjab though a drunken comedian is the puppet Chief Minister. 

After about two decades of campaigning, that demand was conceded in 1966,

IF the Pakistanis took a bite of India, let it be a bite out of the Sikh majority districts. Hindus didn't yet hate Sikhs, but they were difficult to love- though, no doubt, what they liked best was killing each other.

but reluctantly. There was another campaign, between 1973 and 1984, for greater economic and political autonomy for Punjab.

In particular, Punjab should have been allowed to set up industries. The good thing about the Sikhs, when they weren't killing each other, was that they were excellent mechanics and entrepreneurs as well as agriculturists. Sadly, killing people was more prestigious.  

And that eventually culminated with the Indian Army entering the Golden Temple, in Operation Blue Star, in 1984.

No. Bhrindinwale had gone crazy and was killing a lot of Hindus. A cashiered army officer- Maj. Gen. Shabeg Singh had turned the Golden Temple into a fortress. The Army blasted its way in taking high casualties. The thing was a shitshow. Then Indira was gunned down by her security guards and Sikhs in Delhi and other Congress ruled States were massacred. This made Rajiv very popular. If Khalistan comes into existence, there will be population exchange and the Sikhs will have to settle for a smaller landlocked Punjab dependent on Pakistan. 

That was a traumatic period, which then was followed by a decade-long troubles.

Police officers were slaughtering police officers when they weren't slaughtering everybody else. The problem with gangsterism and terrorism is that everybody can go in for it. Fighting for Khalistan in Canada seemed safer- or, at least, more lucrative. But Canadian gangsters slaughter each other with vim and vigour.  

Can you talk more about that event, which was followed by the assassination of the Indian Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, also in 1984, and more broadly about how the push for Sikh autonomy became in some cases more violent?

Gangsters kill people. They are incapable of 'autonomy'. The Akali Dal could come to power in alliance with the BJP but they were shit at running things. Punjab turned into a paradise for the drug pusher. Congress came to power, but it was faction ridden. Now the Common Man party has won by a landslide on a promise to improve Schools and Public Health services etc.. Maybe they can confiscate property belonging to gangsters and curb the nuisance they represent. After all, Kejriwal is a 'chatur Bania' and the CM may be too drunk to stop him from improving the economy.  

There was a prolonged period of negotiation between Sikh moderate leaders and Indira Gandhi and the Congress Party in Delhi between 1980 and 1982. However, the two sides were unable to reach an agreement on the demands, and gradually the militant element within the Sikh leadership outmaneuvered the more moderate members, leading to polarization between the Indian government and the militants.

This guy makes no mention of Bhrindinwale. Truly, this is a story of Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark! I understand his scruples. He lives in England. Kejriwal can't keep him safe from crazy people.  

That eventually climaxed in Operation Blue Star, an operation to remove Sikh militants from the Golden Temple, the most sacred site in Sikhism, which was followed by the assassination of Indira Gandhi in October, 1984, and the killing of almost three thousand Sikhs in Delhi in the backlash that followed. That led to almost a decade of Sikh militancy and counterinsurgency operations, conducted by the Indian Armed Forces,

It was 'supercop' KPS Gill who gets the credit for pacifying Punjab by slaughtering 'militants'. The problem is, if you are paid a bounty for killing 'militants', everybody looks like a militant more particularly if they are too old and decrepit to run away when you shoot at them. 

which cost, on conservative estimates, around thirty thousand lives. These events cast a long shadow on the Punjab problem, which has continued to haunt all governments in Delhi since then.

Nobody gives a shit. Sikhs will always keep killing each other. Anyway, if you have police officers who like kicking people to death let them do it in their own State, not Assam. 

When did the Indian government begin to get so concerned about Sikhs on foreign soil advocating for Sikh issues in India?

The Government of Punjab complains about crazy gangsters in Canada triggering local vendettas and other crazy shit. Modi has to show he is taking the Canadians to task because his own people raised the Khalistan bogey in connection with the Farmer protests from which only Kejriwal benefited. Still, the notion that India has James Bonds killing terrorists on foreign soil may help Modi get a few more votes next year.  

It has been monitoring the activities of overseas Indians on a regular basis. The first time it specifically started noting the activities of Sikh militants was in the early seventies, when Jagjit Singh Chohan, a Sikh political leader who left India, and who’s often referred to as a father of Khalistan, started a quixotic campaign for a Sikh state. More specifically, it was in the early eighties, 1980 to 1984, when the government of India and the Congress Party in particular was very, very focussed on monitoring the activities of Sikh militants.

According to their ideology, the Jats were kulaks and were using Sikhism as an opium to befuddle the Ramgarhias and Mazhabis. Afghanistan would turn into a Soviet Utopia and so, sooner or later, Marx would triumph over Muhammad in Pakistan. Meanwhile, by doing crazy shit in Punjab, the Dynasty could advance the cause of Secularism, Socialism, and Scientific temperament sans sexy shenanigans.  

Before we started the interview, you mentioned that you were interested in comparing Sikhs to the Jewish community. What did you mean by that?

This was Khushwant Singh's idea. It was stupid. Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism. Sikhism combines elements from the popular Islam and theistic Hinduism of the period. Also, Jews are hella smart.

Well, you’ll see that the comparison comes in the sense that Sikhs are small, they’re religious, and they’re roughly the same size as the Jewish community. [Worldwide, there are about twenty-five million Sikhs and fifteen million Jews.] They’re both a diaspora and a nation and an ethnicity and can be read as such.

No they can't. There may be Jewish gangster rappers but you don't see them slaughtering each other. The bigger problem is caste. There is no 'untouchability' in Judaism. The largest single Sikh community is not Jat but Dalit.  

They are a complex minority, which are often seen in terms of religion only, but seeing them just as a kind of dedicated religious community overlooks the more complex dimensions of the community. They have fought for autonomy and the right to govern themselves, and as a minority to have their identity rights safeguarded in the West.

The Brits, who found Sikhs to be excellent soldiers, insisted on this separate identity because it contributed to esprit de corps and martial spirit.  

For example, Sikhs and Jews in Britain were the only two communities in England who were recognized as ethnic groups in legal proceedings following the Race Relations Act of 1976.

 No. Black peeps like me were recognized as ethnic. Sikhism and Judaism were classified as religions which were also ethnicities. Anybody could become a Hindu or a Christian or a Muslim. 

How important is the push for a Sikh homeland to Sikh identity in many of the Western Sikh communities you study?

It was a fantasy. Sikhs don't want to have fight the Muslims alone in a tiny landlocked State.  

It ebbs and flows. The idea of a Sikh homeland has not had many takers for most of the post-1947 period, but what happened in 1984 led to a reaction against the government of India, which enabled militant groups to come to the fore. And when the militancy in Punjab died away, the hold of these groups on Sikh organizations also dissipated.

Not in Canada. 

So, since the early two-thousands, and for most of the last decades, homeland issues have not been very much at the forefront for most of the Sikh diaspora. In fact, they have been largely focussed on host-country issues, especially after 9/11 and the targeting of many Sikhs who were often, particularly in America, identified with militant Islam.

American Sikhs tend to be well educated and law abiding. Nikki Haley is typical. Canada did have an indigenous Punjabi gangster culture. Perhaps, this is because it is a very boring country.

What’s happened qualitatively in the last few years is the large outflow from Punjab of young people because of an economic crisis in the state and also because of the impact of protests by Indian farmers. Between 2020 and 2021, the state of Punjab in particular was very much the focus of the farmers’ agitation against the government of Narendra Modi and the B.J.P., which wanted to deregulate the farming sector.

Modi had to back down and apologize. But, it was Kejriwal who gained from it. Tikait does not seem to have benefitted. The problem is Kejriwal gains most if his party gets credit for ridding Punjab of the Khalistan nuisance.  

And that agitation created a groundswell of mobilization in the diaspora, which rekindled some of the old networks of militancy and homeland politics. But over all, in my recent work, I have suggested that the separatists do not command much more than about twenty-five per cent of the loyalties of the diaspora Sikhs. And that’s the maximum and the most optimistic estimate.

It is irrelevant. The whole thing is a fantasy. Do the Khalistanis have good networks to get you into affluent countries? Are they making a lot of cash distributing drugs or guns or whatever? Also, which gangster rap video is trending? That's the sort of stuff which matters.  

There are many examples of a political struggle by a community that tends to share the same religious faith. And the people who were the most hard-core fighters in those struggles tended to preach a very strict doctrine or vision of that religion. To what degree are the more violent elements of the push for a Sikh homeland connected to a harsh or strict interpretation of Sikhism itself?

This could be important. It is said that Sikh gangs forbid the use of drugs or even excessive drunkenness. This should make for greater efficiency. Still, in Canada, the Triads rank higher and the tendency of Punjabi crime families to slaughter each other very publicly probably harms their bottom line. 

That’s an interesting question, because in the eighties it was associated with the equivalent of religious fundamentalism that was pervasive throughout many of the faith traditions, especially after 1979. But in recent years, that relationship has, to some extent, broken down, because some of the hard-core faith groups have become, in some ways, apolitical. They’ve become much more spiritually oriented. They are still there in the background, but not in any great strength.

The 'hard core' did fuel the 'desecration' hysteria in Punjab. The thing was like medieval witch-hunting. Priests would desecrate the Holy Book so as to claim to have discovered satanic goings on in their village. Sadly, with the election of the Common Man party, it is obvious that the voter only cares about last mile delivery of essential services. 

Do you think the Indian government has any legitimate case that there is Sikh militancy in Canada and that there are connections between that militancy and things going on in India? The Indian government claims that they sent Canada an extradition request for Nijjar, and have done so for others, and that those were ignored. Is the Indian government right to be frustrated by this?

Amarinder was certainly frustrated but he belonged to the older generation. I think AAM will simply confiscate property and demand a Visa ban. Under Manmohan, Trudeau's pal Jagmeet was denied a Visa. That pissed him off and he is now getting his revenge.

It is useful for Kejriwal to depict Modi as more concerned with hugging Biden & Co then following up on what is after all a National Security issue. 

I think the problem here arises from the fact that the arguments that are made for extradition by the government of India have to meet a certain threshold—judicial and legal—in the West. And these levels are often not met. This not only applies, for example, in the case of Sikhs and militancy but also in the efforts to extradite many leading businessmen and billionaires who have absconded with significant loans and funding in the last ten years and have not returned to India, partly because of judicial issues.

This wasn't a problem when the West was dealing with its own terrorist threat. The question is whether India really wants these guys back. They too have a tale to tell- and who knows what that might be. Anyway, Canadian terrorists tend to end up killing each other for business reasons. 

So while countries have intergovernmental arrangements to extradite fugitives, in the case of demands for citizens of Canada who may or may not be involved in militancy in India, the onus of proof is on the Indian state.

The onus of protecting Canadians from murder is on the Canadian government. 

But no doubt in some cases the extradition requests are valid, and if it is the people they are requesting need to face executive and judicial actions. But there is also widespread fear, particularly since the period of counterinsurgency, of the Indian authorities using indiscriminate force to eliminate Sikh youth and also using the judicial and state processes arbitrarily. This is particularly the case with the Modi government when it comes to its domestic critics.

No it isn't. Still, it is safer for this dude to pretend otherwise. 

Is there concern among Indian-origin communities in the West about surveillance being done in Western countries by the Indian government?

YES! Modi has hired the neighbour's cat to keep me under surveillance.  

Certainly. Just to go back to the early eighties, when there was widespread concern that communities and groups were being monitored and people would face retribution, potentially, if they returned to India for family matters.

They might be killed by any bunch of extortionists. 

And certainly now there is widespread fear and concern in Sikh communities, in Canada in particular, but also in certain areas in the U.K., that they are being monitored.

Anyone can look at your Facebook account. There is no need for 'monitoring'.  

I think this episode will bring into public domain the extent to which some Western governments are seeking to court the government of India, and how those actions are compromising citizen security. The desire to court India for defense and trade reasons comes at the expense of some elements of basic security for citizens who happen to be Sikhs.

and who happen to be killing other Sikhs with vim and vigour. 

Certain Indian media sources have blamed Nijjar for the murder of a man in India

Canada. Nijjar did get some Hindu killed some years previously but there are lots of Hindus. Sikhs want to be known for the number of Sikhs they have killed. 

that took place in 2021. What do we know about that case?

The life and times of militants are not without past histories of radicalism and engagement in violence. And it may well be that he was a party to it, but it may well also be that the case against him is fabricated. So I cannot comment with any confidence on that.

It is possible that Nijjar was killed so that it looked as though scores had been settled while, elsewhere, a deal was done. But, the problem with having a rep for being a stone cold killer is that your scalp becomes more valuable to whoever collects these things. 

Is your sense that Modi’s government is more concerned about movements that threaten India’s political future, such as the farmers’ protests, than it is about separatism?

Gangsterism threatens any country's political future. The question is whether you can get young people to work hard and build up businesses rather than buy into the gangsta life-style.  

My own feeling is that the events that happened in Punjab this year are more connected to something else. In March, there was a wholesale mobilization in the state when Amritpal Singh, a separatist preacher, was on the run.

a truck driver from Dubai, with 'permanent residency' status in Canada, who suddenly decided he could inherit the mantle of a rap-artist killed by gangsters and his side-kick, a film actor who died in a car-crash. Kejriwal was not amused by his antics. 

He was eventually arrested, as were his followers, and there was a lockdown for almost two weeks. That was followed by a mobilization of groups in the diaspora. There were violent demonstrations outside the consulate in San Francisco, the High Commissions in Canada, and in the U.K., which were then relayed back to the media in India. After that, I think they decided to take a tough line against separatists. We may now be seeing the outcome of those decisions.

There is only one 'tough action' which counts. Confiscate property. Punjabis care about land. Indeed, they are good at looking after it. I suppose killing those who want to take your land is part and parcel of looking after land.  

If the allegation that India was involved in the assassination in Canada is true,

It isn't. Canadian politicians may be in bed with the guys paying for the contract killers. India doesn't give a toss though no doubt it has people whose job it is to keep track of which gang is trafficking which type of evil shit. 

how much of a break would that seem to you from previous Indian policy regarding issues of Sikh separatism? As you said, thousands of people were killed in the eighties. So, in one sense, this seems like we’re going back to an earlier time. But anything that occurs on foreign soil goes beyond that.

What was occurring on Canadian soil was the blowing up of planes containing Canadians.  This was cool because they were brown Canadians.

I don’t think it’s much of a break. These things have happened before: the downing of the Air India flight off the coast of Ireland, in 1985, for example. There was a huge row between India and Canada that cast a shadow for nearly a decade and a half.

To be fair, the Sikh gangsters involved were very good at killing family members of anyone who talked to the police. They also killed the courageous journalist who was ready to break the story. Canada has neither the will nor the ability to crack down on its crime gangs. Why? They have political protection. This is 'vote-bank' politics.  

This is when Canadian Sikh separatists were suspected of blowing up a passenger airplane, killing more than three hundred people?

They claim credit for it. It's just they won't say they personally were involved because, for some reason, they don't want to go to jail- not that they would spend very long there.  

Yeah. Compared to those events, what’s happened recently is not as important or significant.

It is more significant. Back in the Eighties, India was aligned with the Soviet Union. Now, the cretin Trudeau is trying to break up 'Quad'. No doubt, the Chinese will reward him.  

But it comes at a time when the government in India is trying to project India as a global player

which is what it is. Canada is not. 

and offering trade deals and negotiations on arms projects and so forth. So this could become a significant challenge if it turns into an issue of human rights and interference in the domestic affairs of other states. 

Nope. India holds all the cards here. By confiscating property in Punjab and imposing Visa bans, India can harm Canadian politicians who, in turn, can bring down Trudeau. Will the Indians bother to do so? Perhaps, if Kejriwal turns the screws on Modi. Otherwise, why not leave crazy Sikh gangsters to kill each other all over the place? No doubt, this past-time will spread to other Sikh communities around the world. Back in the Seventies, Armenian terrorists targeting Turkey turned into an extortion racket preying on the Armenian diaspora. Still, the Armenian lobby could harm NATO by pissing off the Turks. But Turkey's leverage has increased. It no longer gives a shit about talk of the genocide. Just recently we read of 120,000 Armenians having to leave Nogorno-Karabakh. It turns out having a big bunch of terrorists and chauvinistic fanatics good at lobbying politicians doesn't actually help a diaspora at all. Back in April, Biden was saying America would never forget the genocide which occurred over a hundred years ago. Now, he is turning a blind eye to the Azeri victory. Diaspora politics need not be wholly based on fantasy. Look at Israel. No. Don't. The Sikhs will start thinking they are actually Jews. This means they need a Fuhrer called Adolf Hitler- right? Hitler defeated Churchill and created the State of Israel. That is why Jews are dancing bhangra all the time while god-fearing Sikhs are having to kill each other so as to protest the Raj of 'chatur bania' Kejriwal. 

Terrorism and gangsterism are counterproductive activities. Sikhs in the Punjab want to eliminate both. But that means the Chief Minister and the Prime Minister need to work together. Canada is utterly useless. Let its gangsters continue to slay each other. Just take away their family property back in the Pind.  

No comments: