This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Trudeau accuses India in killing of Sikh leader on Canadian soil
First of all, I want to state that my epistemic status is huh, rather an informed opinion, but I struggle to think of anyone in a better position on The Motte to discuss this, so bear with me.
India has had its share of irredentists, separatists and good old fashioned terrorists over the years. You have the Maoists still lurking in the north east, playing hot and cold with the government via their jungle boogaloo. Islamic terrorism was a serious issue in 2010s, though it's died down. There were the Tamil Tigers down south, who proved a severe PITA for a decade or so, and then the Khalistanis, who have been largely neutered in-country but find refuge in the numerous, prosperous Sikh diaspora abroad.
The last two have had the dubious distinction of getting confirmed kills on two Indian Prime Ministers (relatives to boot).
Khalistan is the supposed homeland of the Sikh peoples, largely surrounding Punjab in the west. Unable to get it during the original Partition of India, they waged a brutal war against the Indian government for decades, peaking in the 70s and 80s. There were quite a few pogroms and riots, with Hindu on Sikh violence in the rest of India, and vice versa in their population centers.
These days, the movement is moribund within India itself, most young Sikhs don't really pay it any heed, and the older aren't the demographic to go planting bombs for the large part. Sikhs are well integrated into Indian society, and haven't had that consistent friction that the Muslims have had with their Hindu co-ethnics.
Not that you'd know this abroad. Much like IRA sympathizers hanging around in New Jersey bars, the exodus of Sikhs in the 70s and 80s ossified in amber a large migrant population with a grudge to bear against the Indian government.
I'd draw a distinction between these first-wave migrants, and a more recent influx of Sikhs who are drawn more by the prospects of making it big in Canada, or the West in general, rather than any real grievance.
While Khalistan is dead in the water, it's a popular rallying cry there, with Western governments treating it with a mixture of bemused tolerance and kid-gloves for fear of pissing off the strong Sikh voting bloc. Speaking ill of them is, from what I've heard, a surefire way of losing a narrow election, but they're otherwise model citizens and nobody wants to press the issue.
Now, Modi stands accused of the shooting of this dude sometime in June, when he was shot by unidentified gunmen in the parking lot of a gurdwara in Surrey. If there's more substance to the accusation, they haven't been made public, but the heads of state have met to hash it out.
From what I can tell, Modi's response was "we didn't do it, but if it happened, he had it coming", strongly protesting the accusations while demanding Canada be less lenient in harboring terrorists.
Modi also stands accused of the assassination in Lahore of another Khalistan leader, not that anyone particularly cared at the time, and that's just the usual India-Pakistan bhai-bhai at play.
That's the gist of it, on one hand, we have the fact that India has largely refrained from extraterritorial assassinations, certainly not to the degree that the US, Russia or Israel are fond of. I struggle to think of a single example, not that I'm an expert.
On the other, who the fuck else has a motive to whack the dude? I don't think relations between India and Canada are bad enough for the latter to make entirely unfounded accusations, and they've even roped in a few other countries like the UK and US to bring diplomatic pressure to bear. The Head of Foreign Intelligence for India was kicked out from Canada, and some bloke named Oliver Sylvester was the tit to that tat.
I'd wager 50% odds that India was responsible based on the balance of evidence, and I wonder if this will be a flash in the pan that peters out when the Sikhs are mollified, or if Canada really wants to pick a fight with an otherwise neutral/positively inclined major nation.
But if you're curious, this means zilch in terms of impact on Modi's popularity of home, you think supporters of a strongman are going to be mad when he strongmans? Even the libs over at /r/India who foam at the mouth at the sight of Modi are of the opinion he had it coming.
The framing of this that Canada is the one starting things is poor form. I'm surprised considering your desire to emigrate to greener pastures to not consider the consequences of events like this.
In Australia, we occasionally have these sorts of flare ups of major nations with a large emigre population violating our sovereignty because, basically fuck you that's why. The calculus of the meddler is ostensibly 'well they aren't a major security or economic partner so who cares. What are they going to do?'
Nothing gets people from multicultural countries who are neutral on large immigration to turn anti-immigrant faster than immigrants' mother countries exerting their will in our home. Recent local examples of this involve China sending police officers to police chinese immigrants in Australia, framing it as a benign outreach service used for issuing drivers licenses and the like. Except without having a fixed address. Or notifying the Australian Government..
I despise Trudeau, but he's speaking to the local population and absolutely if push comes to shove he will tell India to fuck off in diplomatic speak, because to do otherwise would be political suicide. Middle powers cannot sanction effectively as independents, but there are often diplomatic blocs to exert influence precisely to stop this sort of casual disregard for civil unrest in targeted nations.
Edit: A couple of words for clarity.
As much as I dislike Modi, I have even more disdain for terrorists actively fomenting strife in India from comfortably offshore. Make no mistake, violations of sovereignty aside, very few people here think his death was a tragedy.
At the very least, I don't bat an eye when the West enjoys a little 'ol extraterritorial killing, say Suleimani in Iran, or when Mossad gets up to their usual shenanigans. So I'm not sure why I'm supposed to decry this too much when a third world country returns the favor.
There's one less terrorist and one less Canadian citizen on this earth, and my desire to shed tears for the latter are far outweighed by the elimination of the former.
At any rate, I'd be bemused if anyone thought I was a radical Indian free thinker along the lines of Rushdie with a nation-state actor or close out for my blood. I neither expect to get offed in a similar manner, nor do I aspire to end up in a position where I order the offing, so my response is moo.
I'd certainly be surprised if this had any effect on attitudes towards emigration, for the obvious reason that the "victim" is an immigrant himself. You'd expect that to make bleeding hearts clamor to bring more people to the relative safety of their shores.
If you maintain this attitude when foreign governments kill Indian citizens on Indian soil because 'they were political agitators and had it coming', then I will accept your point. For what its worth I'm not for extrajudicial killing, even though I understand that through democracy Western citizens have some level of responsibility for past killings done in their supposed national interest.
I'm sure the political and media class will stress to separate Indian immigrants from the Indian government (in fact from the articles I've read I think this process has already started). However many locals will not buy that argument and will see it as foreign political agitation being imported in line with the increase in profile of Indian political activists operating in Canada.
In Australia, past examples of this occured with Anti-CCP activists protesting in Australian major cities. As a consequence China sends foreign agents to exert their influence such as organising pro-CCP students in Australian universities to counter protest. Australians end up watching foreign political battles over something that doesn't concern them playing out in our public sphere..
Of course the Cathedral will play up this kind of thing as the right to free protest, but much of the public here would just prefer that they shut their mouths and get on with life. Pro-Indian government activists can say 'well they started it', but regular citizens here can find that an incredibly weak argument. People don't care who started it, they just want it to stop. It has nothing to do with us and the easiest way to make sure this doesn't happen is to not allow people to immigrate from countries with significant political instability. With more acts like this there will be more pressure to limit immigration. Normally I would laud this and from my point of view many political dissidents (including the deceased) who refuse to live quietly should fail the citizenship character test, but the brazenness of this sort of foreign interference sticks in my craw.
As a slightly more nationalist Indian than the one you replied to, here's my perspective: I don't really care if Canada stops immigration from India. I have no plans to leave India, and any Indians who do wish to do so can fend for themselves. The Indian government doesn't need to facilitate people who want to emigrate. If that's the price India has to pay to whack a terrorist abroad, I would support more terrorists being whacked. If it leads to anti-india protests in Canada, well that's nothing new. Khalistanis in Canada, the US and the UK have organised such protests in the past, even to the point of attacking the Indian high commission. If Canada doesn't like extra-judicial killings, it could have extradited the guy designated as a terrorist by a fellow democracy and allowed him to stand trial in India.
The Indian government rules India, not Canada. Canada is a sovereign country and is under no obligation to extradite anyone to India. Why does its refusal to do so mean the Indian government can commit murder in Canada?
Legally or practically?
Legally, it doesn't. Practically, it means cost-benefit considerations change in the general terms. Canada is under no obligation to extradite anyone to India; Canada is also not under no obligation to not extradite anyone to India. How willing Canada is to extradite people in general is going to shape how other actors approach it on the subject of dissidents abroad.
Refusals of extradition leading to unilateral as the requesting country considers other methods isn't an uncommon thing, it's an established part of history. That's why extradition agreements aren't a political favor, they are a mechanism to limit score-settling abroad or permitting other country's internal political disputes from being based in one's own territory. Just as the premise of providing support to another country's dissidents from your own territory to weaken them is a tactic as old as time, so is the tactic of extraditing another country's trouble-makers back to them. Canada refusing to do so is a position- it's not the end of the matter.
Canada is a sovereign country under a Westphalian model. So is India. The Westphalian model offers no endorsement to India's alleged activity, but it also offers no remedy to Canada, because there is no legal appeal to enforce corrections for violations between Sovereign countryies, because if there was they wouldn't be Sovereign.
This is why international politics is generally described as amoral and anarchistic- because the ability to enforce one's preferences is limited to one's own willingness to retaliate.
More options
Context Copy link
Would you apply that logic to Afghanistan refusing to extradite Osama bin Laden?
No, because we were at war. If we had been at peace, then yes. Another difference is we have an extradition treaty with India. Presumably, there is a good reason he wasn't extradited and there was a possibility of negotiating something but it didn't happen for some reason. The solution to this general problem has been worked out between these two countries and India shouldn't be resorting to something approaching an act of war.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link