They had a chat about what he thinks is and isn't fair when it comes to covering Sikh politics

Last week, federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh faced calls to clarify his stance on Sikh extremism and the 1985 Air India bombing after videos surfaced of him speaking at events focused on Sikh separatism while he was an Ontario MPP. On Thursday, Singh told reporters he accepts the results of the Air India inquiry — which pointed to Talwinder Singh Parmar as the architect of the terrorist attack that killed 329 people — comments that marked a change since last October, when he said he didn’t know who was responsible for the bombing.

As the news coverage unfurled, a parallel debate played out — much of it on social media — about coverage of the Sikh community in Canadian media, with some arguing stories about Sikh sovereignty often lack context and unfairly vilify all Sikhs.

Distroscale

One of those critics, British journalist Sunny Hundal, took particular exception to a story by the National Post’s Maura Forrest about Singh attending a panel in the U.K. in 2016 hosted by an organization that supports the creation of an independent Sikh state called Khalistan. One of the speakers on the panel endorsed the use of violence in the fight for independence while Singh looked on. “More guilt-by-association in Canadian media against Sikhs,” Hundal tweeted at Forrest. “Getting ridiculous now.”

So Forrest got Hundal on the phone for a chat about what he thinks is and isn’t fair when it comes to covering Sikh politics. Here’s part of their conversation, edited for length and clarity.

Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Maura Forrest: What were you reacting to when you wrote that tweet?

Sunny Hundal: I resented the implication in the piece. The association with terrorism is very misleading. A lot of Sikhs would see themselves as Khalistanis, because they feel that there needs to be a sense of self-determination for Sikhs — the recognition that they need more rights, more freedom, more respect and more dignity as a community. So in that sense, Khalistani politics for me and for a lot of people is like a proxy for demanding more Sikh dignity, demanding recognition for their painful history. I know that the Canadian history of looking at all this implies that every Khalistani is just one step away from committing some act of terrorism, but it’s not. For Sikhs, it’s much more complicated than that.

MF: At the same time, this was an event where a speaker did appear to be condoning the use of violence. It appeared to be about more than just the concept of Khalistan as a proxy for equal rights. And I think that any political leader who chose to speak alongside someone who seemed to be condoning violence would face questions for that from the media. Would you disagree?

SH: I think part of the problem here is that there has already been a long history of just assuming that anyone who is Khalistani is therefore going to go out there and commit an act of terrorism. And that’s why Sikhs feel very defensive about that and resentful of that implication. So I’m not saying that it’s wrong to ask Jagmeet, “Can you explain how you differ from these people who have stated this position on Khalistan?” But that clear implication that on the one hand, he condemns terrorism, but on the other hand, he’s sitting next to this guy — I think that you’re making a big leap, which needs a lot more unpacking.

Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

MF: I’m thinking now about one of the I’m thinking now about one of the other news stories (last) week, about Jagmeet Singh participating in a rally in San Francisco in 2015 focused on separatism. And there were posters at that rally of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, a controversial figure who occupied the Golden Temple in India in 1984. Some see him as an extremist. Those posters are very common at a lot of Sikh temples; they’re common at these rallies. So we can talk about how an interest in Khalistan is not the same as extremism. But I think from an outside perspective, it gets a little bit murky, because that looks like the veneration of violence. Do you think it’s unfair that the media should ask questions when political leaders show up at those events?

SH: Bhindranwale’s portrait is pretty much at every Sikh gurdwara. And it’s not necessarily because the people in those places believe in Khalistan. It’s because, whether you like him or not, he’s a significant Sikh historical figure, because 1984 (the year of a series of pogroms against Sikhs in India) is so deeply etched into Sikh history. You can’t just wipe him out, because he wanted respect for Sikh human rights at that time and he’s become an emblem of that time. So if Jagmeet is at one of these events, he clearly is not agreeing with everything Bhindranwale said, because Bhindranwale was quite willing to take up arms for fighting for a Sikh homeland, whereas Jagmeet Singh is neither agitating for a Sikh homeland, neither is he taking up arms.

Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

MF: Less commonly, you do also see posters of Talwinder Singh Parmar, who’s believed to have been the architect of the 1985 Air India bombing. Are you saying you think that we should just ignore this? Because that seems like a difficult proposition.

SH: No, I’m not saying that. I think it’s right to ask those questions. But don’t assume that just because his picture’s there, it’s because these people are praising what he was accused of doing. It’s because they think that (these) were people who were not afraid of taking on the Indian state and fighting for Sikhs. I think that’s wrong, but it’s just the way it is.

MF: This all started back when Jagmeet Singh was elected leader in October and he was asked in a CBC interview to denounce Talwinder Singh Parmar and the use of his image, and he didn’t. That raised a lot of questions about what his personal views were on the Air India bombing. And also it raised questions about the extent to which he felt politically indebted toward people in the Sikh community who would not have accepted the findings of the Air India inquiry. And I think those questions remained unanswered until now. We have now seen Jagmeet Singh make a clearer statement about the Air India inquiry, saying he accepts the results of the inquiry and that he condemns all those involved, including Parmar. But that was the first time he’s said that. I think that was part of the reason there was so much scrutiny and so much interest around this.

Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

SH: I can see why that’s the case. The problem here is that when you talk about 1985, what you’re not talking about is what happened before that (in India). You’re not talking about the extra-judicial killings of Sikhs, the thousands and thousands of people disappeared, many of them unaccounted for. And because that is not talked about, and Sikhs only see (themselves) being talked about in the context of the Air India bombing, they feel that’s an incomplete history. They feel like, “Why am I just being asked to account for that one part? Because they keep on focusing on Air India, they are just trying to paint us as terrorists without understanding the broader context of what was going on at the time.”

MF: But do you not think that Jagmeet Singh bears some responsibility for the focus having been on (the Air India bombing), because he didn’t answer the question? He initially said he didn’t know who was responsible for the bombing. Isn’t that something you would expect any political leader to be able to do? To say that they accept who was responsible?

SH: I accept that. But also, I would say that the Canadian media has a deep responsibility, when reporting on these issues, to take a broader look and offer that context to their readers when they report on these issues.

MF: As journalists, you and I both have to become overnight experts all the time. We’re constantly having to write about issues we don’t have an extensive background in, and communities we’re not a part of. I want to know how you suggest we do it better.

Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

SH: I think it’s the job of the media to have a better understanding of what a range of Sikhs are saying. And the other thing is, there is definitely a huge difference generationally here. The problem is that a lot of the Canadian media’s coverage (focuses on) people stuck in the ’80s. The debates among Sikhs are very different now. The focus is very different now. Even the Khalistani movement is very different now. So I think it’s important for the Canadian media to also represent younger and newer voices from the Canadian Sikh community. I mean, (last) week all I’ve seen is white Canadians arguing with each other about Canadian Sikh history, which I just find utterly baffling. So you know, let Canadian Sikhs battle it out and explain different parts of their history and have different perspectives. Have them write about these issues in the Canadian media. But I feel like that just wasn’t the case.