India remains silent on dispute with Canada over killing of Sikh separatist leader at UN
The recent killing of a Sikh separatist leader in Canada has sparked a dispute between India and Canada, with India remaining surprisingly silent on the matter at the United Nations. The incident has raised questions about India’s stance on the issue and its diplomatic approach to handling such disputes.
The Sikh separatist leader, Jaspal Atwal, was shot dead in Canada on April 17th, 2022. Atwal was a former member of the International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF), a group designated as a terrorist organization by both India and Canada. He had been involved in the 1986 attempted assassination of an Indian politician visiting Canada.
Following Atwal’s killing, Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, expressed his condolences to Atwal’s family but also reiterated his government’s commitment to fighting terrorism and maintaining strong ties with India. However, India has remained silent on the matter, neither condemning nor acknowledging the incident.
This silence from India has raised eyebrows and led to speculation about its motives and intentions. Some argue that India’s silence is a strategic move to avoid escalating tensions with Canada, a country with which it maintains strong bilateral relations. Others believe that India’s silence reflects its reluctance to engage in public disputes over sensitive issues, particularly those related to Sikh separatism.
Sikh separatism has been a contentious issue in India for decades. The demand for an independent Sikh state, known as Khalistan, emerged in the 1980s and led to a violent insurgency in Punjab, a state in northern India with a significant Sikh population. The Indian government cracked down on the movement, leading to widespread human rights abuses and allegations of state-sponsored violence.
While the insurgency was largely quelled by the early 1990s, the issue of Sikh separatism continues to simmer beneath the surface. Sikhs in India and abroad continue to advocate for an independent Sikh state, and tensions occasionally flare up, as seen in the recent killing of Jaspal Atwal.
India’s silence on the issue at the United Nations is not entirely surprising. The country has a long-standing policy of not engaging in public disputes or controversies at international forums. Instead, India prefers to handle such matters through diplomatic channels, behind closed doors.
This approach has its advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, it allows India to maintain a dignified and composed image on the global stage. It also prevents unnecessary escalations and ensures that sensitive issues are addressed in a more nuanced and diplomatic manner.
On the other hand, India’s silence can be seen as a missed opportunity to address concerns and clarify its position on important matters. By remaining silent, India risks allowing others to shape the narrative and potentially damage its reputation.
In the case of the dispute with Canada over the killing of Jaspal Atwal, India’s silence may be a calculated move to avoid further straining bilateral relations. Canada is an important trade partner for India, and both countries have significant Sikh populations. By not publicly condemning the incident, India may be trying to prevent the issue from becoming a major point of contention between the two nations.
However, India’s silence also risks alienating its own Sikh population, both within the country and abroad. Sikhs have long complained about discrimination and marginalization in India, and incidents like the killing of Jaspal Atwal only serve to fuel their grievances. By not addressing these concerns, India risks further exacerbating tensions and potentially radicalizing sections of the Sikh community.
In conclusion, India’s silence on the dispute with Canada over the killing of Jaspal Atwal at the United Nations raises questions about its stance on Sikh separatism and its diplomatic approach to handling such disputes. While India’s preference for resolving sensitive issues through diplomatic channels is understandable, its silence also carries risks. It is crucial for India to strike a balance between maintaining bilateral relations and addressing the concerns of its Sikh population to prevent further escalation and ensure a peaceful resolution to this ongoing issue.
