Canada Expels Indian diplomat after accusing India of killing their citizen on Canadian Soil

[Republican Party Stalwart]

The fact that the Indian opposition behind Modi on this one doesn't mean much. Can anybody tell me one reason why the INC, for example, might not necessarily be sympathetic to Sikh nationalists?

Did you mean to write "hostile" instead of "sympathetic," or were you being sarcastic? Because I can give you (and others on this thread already have given) plenty of reasons why the INC would be every bit as hostile and every bit as unsympathetic as the BJP is to Sikh nationalists.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

Advisory for Indian Nationals and Indian Students in Canada

This is a pretty standard part of the Indian government's playbook.

The phenomenon of obnoxious "travel warnings" such as this, issued for ideological reasons completely unrelated to actual danger for tourists or immigrants, is probably the worst original aspect of 21st Century diplomacy. In 2016, (IIRC after the shooting of Philando Castile or somebody else) my mother's home country, the Bahamas, issued a "travel warning" about "dangerous police in the USA," and even though it was completely clear that the bureaucrats or politicians who wrote the warning and made the decision to issue it were woefully misinformed regarding the actual facts about real or imagined "police racism" in America, the popular American mainstream media reaction to the warning shamefully contributed to the toxic feedback loop that was (and is) discussion of the issue. ("Wow! Police in America are so obviously racist that the Bahamas had to issue a travel warning!" "The fact that a foreign country issued a travel warning is proof that American police are racist!")

Political assassinations on foreign soil happen, and this guy appears to be a pretty reckless fellow and hardly an angel, but I think people need to realize that if Trudeau and other Western nations don’t stop this kind of thing, entire diasporas will be intimidated by their state security services of their respective “home countries”...In China and India, foreign state “official cover” embassy staff are not given the leeway they have in Western countries, and these authoritarian states have naturally decided to exploit this in order to intimidate their diaspora for speaking out against them. Here in Brussels it's well known that the Morroccan diaspora is intimidated and ordered to go to specific Mosques, and the results are there to be seen, a total failure of integration into Belgian society.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

You know that a Hindu nationalist like Modi would be perfectly willing to do this.

Khalistan militants are seen as terrorists (and rightfully so, probably) by all sides of mainstream Indian politics. If anything, a Congress PM would be more "willing to do this" than a "Hindu nationalist like Modi," considering that it's only the INC, not the BJP, who have had one of their Prime Ministers assassinated in the name of Khalistan.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

Justin Trudeau has publicly acknowledged that the Canadian state is currently committing genocide.

Forgive me for going off topic, but when Trudeau said that, was he talking about First Nations in Canada today, or was he talking about Canadian support for the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen? Because in either case, Trudeau describing the Canadian state as "currently committing genocide" is demonstrably factually wrong.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

The fact that the Indian opposition behind Modi on this one doesn't mean much. Can anybody tell me one reason why the INC, for example, might not necessarily be sympathetic to Sikh nationalists?

Did you mean to write "hostile" instead of "sympathetic," or were you being sarcastic? Because I can give you (and others on this thread already have given) plenty of reasons why the INC would be every bit as hostile and every bit as unsympathetic as the BJP is to Sikh nationalists.

I was, of course, referring to the very obvious reason.

Thanks. I wasn't trolling when I asked you for clarification; I just literally have autism.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

You know that a Hindu nationalist like Modi would be perfectly willing to do this.

Khalistan militants are seen as terrorists (and rightfully so, probably) by all sides of mainstream Indian politics. If anything, a Congress PM would be more "willing to do this" than a "Hindu nationalist like Modi," considering that it's only the INC, not the BJP, who have had one of their Prime Ministers assassinated in the name of Khalistan.

Until the 2019-2021 Sikh led anti-farm reform law protests the BJP position has been fairly pro-Sikh in order to to beat over INC's head the INC led pogrom against Sikh in 1984 in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi assassination by her Sikh bodyguards. 

My point exactly.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

Canada is a weak and woke country under trudeau.

God you sound so stupid. Go live in India if Canada is too woke for you. Maybe I can take your place in Canada so its wokeness can protect me from based anti woke nationalists in my country.

That sounds like a plan to me I'd much rather be a US citizen. That however is not in the cards for me. So as OSR posted, I look forward to a return to Stephen Harper tier Canada when the country was much better off economically and we actually took a stand in the world. 1. strong supporters of israel 2. Told putin to eat crow and get out of ukraine and g8 3. Closer ties to India, free trade deal finalized with the EU in 2014

He got his citizenship in 2015. I wonder who was the Prime Minister for most of 2015...

In the United States, the party of the President (particularly when the president is a Republican) has virtually no bearing on the majority party among medium- and low-level federal government bureaucrats who would be responsible for making decisions such as approving citizenship requests. I know that the Canadian PM has more power over his country's government as a whole than the POTUS does, but nonetheless I imagine that the situation in Canada is like the US, in that the head of government's party does not impact the partisan leanings of the federal bureaucracy, and that the Canadian bureaucracy is disproportionately filled with individuals who lean towards the Liberal Party and who ideologically lean left-liberal, even when a Conservative PM is incumbent, considering

1) Leftists and liberals, at least in the Anglosphere and in the modern-day (dating back to the 70s if not earlier), are more "nepotistic" than conservatives in that they are more likely to fire or hire someone based on politics or party, or otherwise take politics into account when making hiring decisions.

2) IIRC All high-level and most medium-level (if not also many or most low-level) Canadian federal bureaucrats are required to be bilingual, which naturally creates an unfair advantage for Liberals at the expense not only of Conservatives, but also of NDPers, Quebecois-nationalist partisans, Greens, and independents.

As far as I know, the fact that Harper was the PM in 2015 does not mean that Harper had anything to do with Nijjar obtaining citizenship. Then again, the Canadian Prime Minister has more domestic intra-national power than does the POTUS, so if I'm completely wrong you can enlighten me.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

Why do members of the diaspora love justifying insane actions by their home countries?

Because members of diasporas (read as "citizens or nationals of one country who maintain an open or internalized identification with and attachment to their foreign country of origin to the point of remaining 'hyphenated'") generally still wish for their "home" countries, and the "resident" populations thereof, to be prosperous and safe, and are not eager to condemn or hate their ancestral homeland and/or its government in the name of their adopted country. The incumbent government of every country always on some level represents the people of that country, for better or for worse, and is always the entity which happens to be responsible for protecting them. Like it or not, it is almost always very hard to completely divorce opposition to a country's government from some level of ill will toward that country's people, because actions taken against any country's government usually have some degree of negative consequences for the people under the jurisdiction of that government.

During the First and Second World Wars, German-Americans (especially the "less assimilated"; German-speaking and/or first- and second-gen) were, relative to the US population at-large, uneager to support American entry into the war against Germany. Self-identified Irish-Americans have always been inclined to sympathize with militant Irish independence groups against the British. White Anglo-Saxon Protestant New Englanders (who, relative to non-New England WASPs, were and are not only disproportionately likely to identify as "British-" or "English-American", but also maintained much stronger socioeconomic ties to Britain) largely opposed the War of 1812. I could go on with many more examples.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

The Khalistan movement is absolutely dead. There is no chance in hell there will ever be a Khalistan, so why did India feel it needed to do this?

There was and is also "no chance in hell" that America would ever become a Salafi Jihadist Islamic theocracy ruled by Al-Qaeda (at least if we only take secular and scientific evidence into account and ignore what any religious beliefs may dictate is likely to happen), yet we still felt compelled to kill Bin Laden in 2011.

Just because the Khalistan movement is "dead" in the sense that it will never feasibly become supported by a majority or near-majority of Punjabi Sikhs, let alone ever achieve its goals, the Khalistan movement can still inspire the occasional bombing or killing from time to time, something which furthermore makes India as a whole look like less functional as a multiethnic unified state in the eyes of both its own people and the World.

Quebec will never be an independent Marxist-Leninist single party state. Yet, if some Indian socialist mid-level bureaucrat approved the citizenship request of a former or current FLQ bigwig whom the Canadian government reasonably believed was still capable of inspiring terrorism, then I'm inclined to believe that the Canadian state - not to mention Britain and likely also the USA - would likely pursue an extrajudicial assassination of this "Indian citizen," even on Indian soil if necessary, and Canada would be completely justified in doing so in the case that this person was responsible for past FLQ attacks.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

I would frame it as: It is easy for two states with similar civilizational worldviews to come up with a process (which embeds those civilization assumptions) to resolve such matters.  When two states with different civilizational worldviews have to deal with something like this it is hard for such a process, which embeds civilization assumptions, to work.  In such cases resorting to tactics outside said processes might be necessary.  The ability of such a state to get aways with such outside-the-process tactics is a function of said state's relative power to the target state.

...but, aren't the most vicious state-to-state conflicts between those of a similar cultural background? They speak the same language, eat the same food, read the same books, but what sets them apart is framed as an existential conflict. Russia vs. Ukraine, Taiwan vs. PRC, India vs. Pakistan, the Koreas, the Balkans, etc etc??

Thing is this topic has nothing to do with "vicious state-to-state conflicts" to begin with.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

I would frame it as: It is easy for two states with similar civilizational worldviews to come up with a process (which embeds those civilization assumptions) to resolve such matters.  When two states with different civilizational worldviews have to deal with something like this it is hard for such a process, which embeds civilization assumptions, to work.  In such cases resorting to tactics outside said processes might be necessary.  The ability of such a state to get aways with such outside-the-process tactics is a function of said state's relative power to the target state.

...but, aren't the most vicious state-to-state conflicts between those of a similar cultural background? They speak the same language, eat the same food, read the same books, but what sets them apart is framed as an existential conflict. Russia vs. Ukraine, Taiwan vs. PRC, India vs. Pakistan, the Koreas, the Balkans, etc etc??

I did not mean to indicate that states with similar civilizational worldviews cannot be in conflict which is clearly not true.  What I mean to suggest that is states with similar civilization worldviews will have similar assumptions on rules of engagements where there are not going to be asymmetrical misunderstandings of intentions and expectations regardless if the relationship is peaceful or in conflict.

Case in point: the issue of American draft dodgers hiding in Canada, although contentious, was certainly less problematic and less of a source of national pain, for both America and Canada, than the issue of American draft dodgers hiding in an Eastern-Bloc or Third-World country.