On Monday (October 2), CNN released an episode of India-born US journalist Fareed Zakaria pontificating on the diplomatic row between India and Canada following Justin Trudeau’s absurd allegations against New Delhi. In the 5-minute video, the son of Former Congress Minister Rafiq Zakaria, Fareed Zakaria goes on at length to whitewash Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar. He trivialises the real threat of Khalistani terrorism by casting aspersions over the authenticity and gravity of the danger they pose to India’s national security and the lives of patriotic Indians inside and outside India.
Today’s last look: why Trudeau’s startling allegations are playing out very differently in Modi’s India pic.twitter.com/brVKd0Qjzo
— Fareed Zakaria (@FareedZakaria) October 1, 2023
Zakaria also accused India of indulging in jingoism over the Canadian allegation and implies that the Khalistani terrorism issue is being exaggerated for political gains by PM Modi and BJP in the run-up to the Lok Sabha elections in 2024.
Zakaria begins by quoting Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, where he had accused India of being involved in the killing of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar, on Canadian soil.
He then goes on to whitewash Hardeep Singh Nijjar by briefly describing him as a Sikh “activist” and head of a Sikh temple (Gurudwara) and tries to say that he was gunned down by unidentified assailants in June in the temple’s parking lot.
Zakaria sidestepped the fact that Nijjar had an Interpol arrest warrant against his name as early as November 2014 for being involved in serious offenses like murder, among a host of other illegal activities.
Zakaria deliberately omits the fact that Trudeau was pandering to Khalistani terrorists by raising the issue of Khalistani terrorist Nijjar’s killing with India for political reasons. While giving a political spin to India’s response to the issue, he didn’t mention the alliance between the NDP and the Liberal party. Jagmeet Singh’s NDP is a known party of Khalistani sympathisers in India.
Instead, he presented Trudeau’s absurd allegations against India as a move to get Justice for Nijjar. He claimed that the motive of Justin Trudeau in making these allegations was to shame the Indian government by airing these allegations publicly and compel it to cooperate in the investigation.
In fact, he had earlier given a call to the US government to directly interfere in India’s internal affairs. He advocated for (the US govt) to ally with India’s businesses, press, NGOs, and cultural groups, indirectly hinting that the US government should invest in regime change tactics instead of seeking healthy bilateral relations with India.
Back then, he had also targeted India for focusing on its own national interest insinuating that the ideal ally of the US should prioritise US interests above its own interests.
Later in the video, he delves into, “why Trudeau’s startling allegations are playing out very differently in Modi’s India”. Citing some snippets from Indian media and political analysts, he laments that these stories have “released a spasm of Jingoism”.
He then goes on to paint a contrasting picture of Canada as seen from a Western lens vis-a-vis how India has started to portray Canada as – “a safe haven for terrorists.”
In the video, Zakaria states, “In India, the reactions are very different and reveal in fact that Justin Trudeau blew it. Just look at the Indian press, the story has released a spasm of Jingoism in which TV anchors cast Canada not as a multicultural haven and stable democracy, you and I may know but as a rogue state bent on protecting terrorists.”
To highlight this point, he plays the clip of Arnab Goswami where he referred to Justin Trudeau as a supporter of terrorism, an open terror backer, and a terrorist sympathiser and added that he is at the point of no return.
Zakaria argues that political analyst Sushant Sareen has aptly described the Country’s reaction, “if we did it, it was right, if we didn’t do it, you are wrong.”
If we did it, it was right; if we didn’t, you were wrong https://t.co/0btTVWeAlD
— sushant sareen (@sushantsareen) September 26, 2023
Arguing that with this case, India is misrepresenting itself as a victim of Western bullying on the domestic front, Zakaria added, “An analysis peace of the Hindustan Times conjures up memories of Western colonial powers ganging up against India claiming that Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar’s killing will be a rallying point for the Anglo-Saxon bloc to come together against India.”
While explaining to his audience why India was accusing Canada of providing a safe haven to terrorists, he downplays the Khalistani terrorism in the name of a separate homeland, ‘Khalistan’. He blatantly lies by mainstreaming the fringe Khalistanis by claiming that Nijjar was one among many foreign-based Sikhs who advocate for Khalistan.
Regarding this, he said, “Indian officials have accused Canada of providing a safe haven for terrorists, that might sound like a puzzling and absurd allegation but it is a reference to the fact that Nijjar was a Sikh separatist. One of many Sikhs abroad who advocate for a separate country for Sikhs, the homeland they want to create, Khalistan, the idea that goes back decades, the efforts include armed militancy in India that peaked in the 1980s.”
Subsequently, he whitewashes the ongoing crimes and public calls for violence against Hindus by Khalistani elements. For this, he mischievously downplays by quoting The Economist which claimed that Khalistan is merely an “idle talking point” in the Sikh diaspora.
He said, “As the Economist notes, the movement for Khalistan was responsible for the death of thousands in the 1980s and 1990s but has since been little more than an idle talking point in the Sikh diaspora and has negligible support in India.”
It is not an issue of national security, it is a political booster for Modi
Casting aspersions on India’s concern regarding national security and the lives of Indian nationals abroad, Fareed Zakaria goes on to say that Canada catering to India’s demand to act tough on Khalistani elements would be “politically useful” for PM Modi and BJP.
He said, “Whatever the reality in this one case, tensions between India and Canada over “Sikh activists” in the Indian diaspora have been long-running. As the FT notes, India’s accusations that Canada has been too soft on “Sikh activists” deserve some scrutiny. But it is also true that playing up this kind of threat to India is politically useful for PM Narendra Modi and his party BJP.”
Citing the example of the Pulwama terror attack and subsequent response by India, he argues that Trudeau’s strategy to seek justice by naming and shaming India is fundamentally flawed.
Painting ‘Hindu Nationalism’ as anti-minority and anti-West, he sermonises, “You see Justin Trudeau’s whole strategy of naming and shaming India fundamentally misunderstands the dynamics of Modi’s Hindu nationalism which is rooted in the belief that India’s Hindu majority has been passive for too long in the face of minorities and foreigners. When presented with an opportunity, Modi knows how to translate it into political gold.”
He continued, “In 2019 a suicide bomber carried out the worst attack in decades killing dozens of Indian soldiers, India blamed Pakistan militants and sent in the Indian Airforce and carried out strikes on what it said was a militant training facility in Pakistan. Though Pakistan denied the strikes hit much of anything. Nonetheless, it was the first time that such a cross-border operation had been carried out in almost fifty years.”
Connecting the dots of then vs. now, and indirectly underscoring the fact that Canada is becoming new Pakistan for India, Zakaria concluded by lamenting that this portrayal that Modi is standing against Sikh separatism and Western bullying will be an election plank for him, regardless that it might not be real or dangerous.
Fareed Zakaria ranted, “As Bloomberg noted, Modi went on a victory lap, saying in a campaign speech that he believed in barging into the house of terrorists and killing them. He implied without any evidence that the opposition parties’ sympathies lay with the terrorists. Pollsters reported a boost in Modi’s approval ratings after the strike. Now Modi faces another election, and he will surely be helped if he can run by standing against Sikh separatism and Western bullying, regardless of how real or dangerous either threat actually is.”
