On September 18, 2023, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made a shocking accusation before the Canadian Parliament, claiming that the Indian government was responsible for the assassination of a Canadian citizen, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, on Canadian soil. This accusation has sent shockwaves around the world and raises significant concerns about the state of dissent and human rights in India. Nijjar’s case is not isolated; it is indicative of a broader trend in India where dissent is increasingly being met with repression. In this article, we will delve into the Nijjar case, the backdrop of Sikh separatism, and the troubling state of affairs in India, where the government seems increasingly intolerant of dissent.
Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a prominent activist, was assassinated outside a Sikh temple in Canada, where he served as president. Trudeau’s accusation that the Indian government had a hand in this killing was nothing short of a bombshell. Nijjar had been an advocate for Sikh secession, a cause that had earned him the label of a terrorist by the Indian government. However, accusing a foreign government of assassinating a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil is a grave matter and cannot be dismissed lightly. The Indian government has vehemently denied any involvement in Nijjar’s killing, but the allegations raise troubling questions. If true, it suggests that India’s actions go beyond merely curbing dissent; they point to a government willing to silence its critics even on foreign soil. This case underscores the need for a closer examination of the Indian government’s treatment of dissent and the implications for democracy and human rights in the world’s largest democracy.
To understand the gravity of Nijjar’s assassination, it is crucial to examine the historical context of Sikh separatism in India. During the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s, Sikh insurgents in northern India waged a violent campaign to establish an independent Sikh nation known as Khalistan. Many Sikhs in Canada supported this movement by raising funds and advocating for its cause in Canadian temples. Some even facilitated separatist cadres’ travel to Pakistan, where they received financial and military assistance. In 1985, a devastating incident occurred that shook the world. Talwinder Singh Parmar, a Sikh Canadian, orchestrated the bombing of Air India Flight 182, resulting in the loss of all 329 passengers and crew members, making it one of the deadliest plane attacks until September 11, 2001. Parmar was a terrorist, and the Khalistani movement, with its share of bloodshed, was unpopular among Indian Sikhs.
However, India’s response to the Sikh insurgency was marked by unremitting violence that claimed thousands of civilian lives. At one point, separatists took shelter in the Golden Temple, Sikhism’s holiest site, leading to a military operation that resulted in numerous deaths and damage to the sacred building. The assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by two Sikhs triggered an anti-Sikh pogrom in India.
Hardeep Singh Nijjar’s case stands out amidst this tumultuous history. While the Indian government accused him of plotting attacks on its soil, he consistently denied these allegations and was never extradited. The Sikh insurgency largely ended more than two decades ago. If India indeed had a hand in Nijjar’s killing, it signifies a departure from the past. It suggests that India’s actions are not merely driven by fears of Sikh secession but reflect a broader shift towards illiberalism and religious intolerance.
The escalation of violence against India’s minorities and the government’s increasingly illiberal policies have become more pronounced since the rise of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2014. Under his leadership, India has taken measures that have disproportionately affected non-Hindus. Jammu and Kashmir’s autonomy was revoked and split into two union territories. A controversial citizenship law threatened millions of Muslims’ citizenship rights, and violence against tribal minorities in the northeast has continued with little intervention. While Sikhs have been relatively spared from the most extreme ethnonationalist measures, the recent incident involving Nijjar suggests that they are no longer immune. The Modi government may be concerned that Sikhs, who played a significant role in opposing his agricultural reform bills in 2021, could pose obstacles to his Hindu-nationalist agenda or reignite a separatist insurgency. This raises concerns about the Indian government’s approach to Sikh activism and its readiness to suppress it.
The killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar has not only angered Canada but also drawn global attention to India’s actions. However, India’s response has been dismissive, with the prohibition of Sikh Canadian politician Jagmeet Singh from entering the country and accusations of colonialism against critics of the Modi government. India’s main Hindu-nationalist organization’s calls for the creation of “Akhand Bharat,” a greater India encompassing neighboring regions, have also raised eyebrows internationally. The response from the United States, a key global player, has been measured. Washington sees India as a crucial partner in its competition with China and is cautious not to alienate New Delhi. However, it is essential to recognize that India’s interests in containing China do not necessarily align with support for Western democratic values.
The assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, the allegations against the Indian government, and the broader context of rising illiberalism and religious intolerance in India paint a concerning picture. India’s actions indicate a departure from its democratic principles and a willingness to suppress dissent, even beyond its borders. While the international community may prioritize its strategic interests, it must not ignore the erosion of democratic values in India. It is incumbent upon nations that cherish democracy and human rights to engage constructively with India and raise concerns about its treatment of dissenting voices and minorities. Only by addressing these issues can India be encouraged to uphold the principles of democracy and pluralism that it claims to represent.
*The author is a Master’s student in Social Sciences at the University of Dhaka, Bangladesh.
October 7, 2023
The viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints and editorial policies of Aequitas Review.
