His comments in an interview with the Post Thursday mark a change since Singh was elected leader last October

OTTAWA — Federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has condemned all those involved in the 1985 bombing of Air India Flight 182, including Talwinder Singh Parmar, considered the mastermind of the worst terrorist attack in Canadian history.

His comments in an interview with the Post Thursday mark a change since Singh was elected leader last October, when he told the CBC’s Terry Milewski he didn’t know who was responsible for the bombing — and they come amid controversy over Singh’s speaking appearances in recent years at events that focused on Sikh separatism, including a panel discussion in the U.K. at which another speaker endorsed the use of violence to achieve the creation of an independent Sikh state.

Distroscale

On Thursday, Singh stood by his attendance at such events, saying it’s important for him to use his voice to “channel that pain (in the Sikh community) toward something positive.”

But he told the Post he accepts the findings of the Air India inquiry, which pointed to Parmar as the architect of the 1985 attack that killed 329 people — though he noted that only the person who made the bomb was convicted.

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

“There was an inquiry conducted and while that inquiry did not provide that justice of a conviction, the inquiry did identify Talwinder Singh Parmar,” he said. “And I accept the findings of the inquiry and I condemn all those responsible.”

Later, he said he “condemn(s) all those responsible and that includes Parmar.”

Singh has always maintained that he condemns all forms of violence and terrorism. But when Milewski asked him to denounce the existence of posters depicting Parmar as a martyr at Sikh temples during a televised interview last October, Singh was reluctant.

“I don’t know who was responsible, but I think we need to find out who’s truly responsible,” he said of the bombing. “We need to make sure that the investigation actually results in a conviction of someone who is actually responsible.”

On Thursday, Singh said the inquiry “specifically identified one person (Parmar) and I’m accepting that.”

But he also pointed to the impact the inquiry had on the Sikh community, “who felt that they were being collectively blamed for this horrible terrorist attack.” He believes the inquiry left a lasting perception among Sikhs that the whole community had been vilified, especially coming in the wake of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in India, in which thousands of Sikhs were killed.

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

That context, he suggested, is part of the reason some Sikhs are reluctant to accept the inquiry’s findings and may be inclined to believe alternate theories, including that Indian intelligence agencies were somehow responsible for the attack.

I accept the findings of the inquiry and I condemn all those responsible

“There’s people who don’t accept the official record. And I understand the pain and the trauma behind why they don’t accept the official record,” he told the Post. “While I understand that people may feel that pain and feel that trauma, my approach has been different. My approach has been to find a way forward that gets us to peace and reconciliation.”

News reports this week have also brought to light videos that show Singh speaking at events focused on Sikh sovereignty while he was an Ontario MPP, including a panel discussion hosted by the U.K.-based National Sikh Youth Federation (NSYF) in 2016 where one speaker condoned the use of violence. The NSYF advocates for the creation of an independent Sikh state in the Punjab region of India, known as Khalistan.

Asked if it was a mistake to speak alongside someone who believes in the need to take up arms to create an independent state, Singh defended his decision.

“The context is Sikhs were systematically targeted and killed” during the 1984 riots, he said. “I remember growing up feeling a lot of pain and frustration. I’ve channelled that pain and frustration about being a marginalized member of a community into something positive. … So if I can reach out to a young Jagmeet that’s in the crowd and channel that frustration toward something positive, I’ve done something good.”

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

He said he would “absolutely” attend a similar event in the future. “Every Sikh that I know has family members or loved ones that were killed because of what happened in ’84. They know someone personally,” he said. “I have to, whenever I can, use my experiences and my story as a way to help people channel the pain and trauma that people feel.”

Singh also appeared at a rally in San Francisco in 2015, during which he spoke about the killing of Sikhs, which he refers to as genocide. The stage he spoke on featured a portrait of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, a controversial figure both revered as a leader of the Khalistan movement and condemned as a terrorist, who in 1984 occupied the Golden Temple in India, the holiest site in the Sikh faith.

On Thursday Singh defended his presence at the rally, saying Bhindranwale’s image is likely found “at the majority of gurudwaras (Sikh temples) in North America and around the world.”

But he was reluctant to give his own thoughts on Bhindranwale. “Some people look at Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale as someone who defended Sikhs at a time when they were being targeted and killed. And some people don’t agree with that. At the end of the day, it’s a very complex matter,” he said.

He also suggested it is unfair that he be asked the question, pointing out that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau visited the Golden Temple in Amritsar during his recent visit to India. Trudeau was not asked for his views on Bhindranwale, Singh said, though Bhindranwale’s image was part of a memorial in the temple.

Still, Singh’s tone on questions regarding Sikh extremism seems to have shifted in the months since Milewski’s questions. After that interview, he suggested the questions were racist, saying “there was definitely some sort of clear problematic line of thought behind that question.”

On Thursday, however, that offered a different perspective. “I’m a federal leader, so I’ve opened myself up to being able to be questioned on things,” he said. “And so it’s okay, I’m open to it, and I’m ready to answer any questions.”