Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, second from the right, walks with his family members during their visit to Golden Temple, in Amritsar, India, Wednesday, Feb. 21, 2018. Trudeau is on a seven-day visit to India. (AP Photo/Prabhjot Gill)

"A third mistake the Canadian media made was to accept and adopt the narrative of the Indian media. The invitation for Jaspal Atwal was a big mistake, but they had levelled accusations of ‘Khalistani extremism’ much earlier." ---

What was most shocking about Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s recent trip to India wasn’t the costumes and the bizarre security breach that allowed a convicted would-be murderer into an official function. It was how easily Canada’s media was willing to speak about Canadian Sikhs without actually speaking to them.

According to one roundup a few days into the trip, there were at least 150 articles mentioning Sikh ‘extremism’ or ‘terrorism’ in Canada, with just one by a Sikh Canadian. It was clear coverage was skewed because the Conservatives thought they could embarrass Trudeau with a motion on ‘Khalistani extremism’. It was only when Sikhs spoke up did the Conservatives realize they had badly misjudged the mood. They had believed the press hype.

Sikhs have been stunningly poor in our communications with the media, not just within Canada but also in Britain, where I call home. I am Sikh and, yes, there are such things as Sikh fundamentalists (with whom I have often clashed very publicly). This is why Canadians should recognize and object to all Sikhs being stereotyped and smeared as terrorists or sympathizers based on hearsay and innuendo. It is appalling how Canadian Sikhs were deliberately left out of a conversation about them.

There were many mistakes in how Canadian media outlets reported on Trudeau’s trip, but let’s focus on three:

First, it was blithely oblivious to why Sikhs abroad may be wary of the Indian government.

One glaring example known well in the Sikh diaspora is how Indian authorities have been holding British citizen, Jagtar Singh Johal, for more than four months without filing any charges. There have been wild suggestions about how his arrest has solved murders, but to date not one shred of evidence has been put forward by the government. He has been deemed guilty merely for running a website on Sikh victims of 1984. The British government is helpless.

As Global News’ Supriya Dwivedi pointed out, India’s PM Narendra Modi is not a supporter of free speech, a free press or basic human rights. He leads an ultra-nationalist party that wants India to become a Hindu state, to end its secular roots. He was the Chief Minister of Gujarat state when it erupted in anti-Muslim pogroms in 2002. His administration oversaw over 500 extrajudicial killings that also targeted Muslims and rarely investigated.

Sikhs around the world rightly worry they will be arrested in India on trumped up charges just for raising human rights abuses. They worry that Sikhs in India are being silenced and pressured. They worry they will be the next Jagtar Singh Johal and they have no reason to believe otherwise.

The second error is to minimize the events of 1984 and their aftermath. To many Canadian journalists, the events of 1984 are ancient history – in many cases before they were born. It was a frightening and tumultuous time, one etched in the minds of any Indian who was alive at the time. After Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards, many Hindu apparatchiks sought revenge by systematically targeting Sikhs across over the country. They attacked, raped and murdered with impunity. The government and politicians were complicit though both have yet to fully admit their roles.

But that is not where the story ends. What followed was an even bloodier, systematic act of revenge upon Sikhs in Punjab, dressed up as anti-terror activity.

The Hindu newspaper reported in 2012: “Many rights lawyers and activists paid with their lives for treading the path of political justice. While the official figures put the total number of people killed in Punjab during the period from 1984 to 1996 at 15,000, according to various investigating agencies and human rights groups, more than 25,000 people were killed by the Punjab police.”

Many Sikhs moved abroad merely to survive. The government may have changed but the ingrained attitude towards outspoken Sikhs remains.

A third mistake the Canadian media made was to accept and adopt the narrative of the Indian media. The invitation for Jaspal Atwal was a big mistake, but they had levelled accusations of ‘Khalistani extremism’ much earlier.

When Jagmeet Singh and the Ontario Legislature sought to label the events of 1984 as a “genocide”, it was reported in the Indian press as signs of growing radicalism in Canada. This isn’t just absurd, it’s the sound of paranoia. And it is a paranoid that infects the Indian media to its core. Sikhs have every right to remember, honour and demand justice for victims of 1984. It isn’t a sign of radicalism but a sign that Sikhs still haven’t forgotten, uncomfortable as that may be for the Indian government.

Calling Sikhs ‘Khalistani separatists’ is the Indian way of branding them fifth columnists. It is a ploy to question their loyalty and ensure obedience to the state. In levelling the charge at Canadian ministers, the Indian establishment is similarly implying they cannot ever be loyal to Canada. I don’t need to remind anyone that the same charge was levelled at Jews and Catholics in the past too.

The Canadian media has been and should always be among the most fair and free in the world. So it was particularly galling to see Canadian commentators praise the Indian government last week, particularly when the Committee for the Protection of Journalists rates India as among the deadliest countries for journalists — tied with Mexico and behind Colombia. It ranks 136 out of 180 for press freedom. Is that really an administration that deserves praise?

Instead of listening to their own Sikh readers and seeking out fairness, the Canadian media chose to accept the version of events touted by India’s media. That was the most disappointing of all.

—

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.