’84 Riots Deeply Regrettable, But Not Genocide: Canada

[kdsingh80]

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110103/punjab.htm#4

’84 Riots

Deeply regrettable, but not genocide: Canada

Perneet Singh

Tribune News Service

Amritsar, January 2

Even as the Sikhs for Justice, a New York-based human rights advocacy group, is gearing up to file a petition with the UNO seeking the recognition of the 1984 riots as genocide, it has come to light that the Canadian Government had rejected a similar petition filed by Newton-North Delta MP Sukh Dhaliwal and Brampton West MP Andrew Kania in June last year.

Rejecting the petition on September 20 last year, the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs said: “Events of 1984 were clearly horrific and deeply regrettable. The importance of seeking justice for the victims should not be diminished. Nonetheless, the crime of genocide is a specific intent offence requiring a high threshold of proof of intent to destroy an identifiable group. As far as the Government of Canada is aware, there is no evidence of such intent in this case.”

The reply also mentions about the Nanavati Commission report and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s apology for the 1984 riots. “In August 2005, the Nanavati Commission report on the 1984 riots was tabled in New Delhi. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh subsequently issued a public apology to Sikhs and the nation as a whole on August 1, 2005, offering a rehabilitation package for the victims and promising action on specific cases named in the report,” it stated.

The response to the petition also dwelt upon India’s vibrant democracy, independent judiciary and free Press. “India is a fully functioning democracy with an independent judiciary and has bodies such as the National Human Rights Commission and 18 state human rights commissions that are designed to receive and process human rights complaints as directed under the Indian ‘Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993’. There have been two commissions of inquiry and eight inquiry committees appointed by several Indian Governments since 1984, who were all tasked with examining riots.”

“Canada recognises that it is the responsibility of the Government of India to fulfill its international human rights obligations and to ensure the safety and well-being of its citizens regardless of religion and ethnicity. Canada also recognises that India is a highly diverse country facing many challenges but serves as an example where civil society and democracy flourish and the Press plays an active and responsible role in reporting alleged human rights abuses,” it further added.

However, Canada had expressed regret over the violence and loss of life that resulted from the riots. Dubbing promotion and protection of human rights an integral part of its foreign policy, it said: “Where there have been allegations of gross human rights violations or crimes against humanity, Canada stresses the need for independent investigations and the importance for accountability of those who are responsible.”

Meanwhile, on a recent visit to Amritsar, Dhaliwal had said he had filed the petition on the people’s demand and was willing to do so once again

[Xylitol]

After the American economy crashed the govt realised they were brown-nosing the wrong country and apparently it makes more sense to sell out canadian values to Eastern countries now...

[chatanga1]

Nonetheless, the crime of genocide is a specific intent offence requiring a high threshold of proof of intent to destroy an identifiable group. As far as the Government of Canada is aware, there is no evidence of such intent in this case.”

the intent to destroy the sikhs in delhi at least, is easily proven. we look at the fact of over 2773 recorded deaths, but there were something like 20,000 sikhs that were injured. Again it comes down to money, as Canada and India value trade more than human rights. India has always used its trade with european countries as a weapon, when it comes to human rights record.

[kdsingh80]

the intent to destroy the sikhs in delhi at least, is easily proven. we look at the fact of over 2773 recorded deaths, but there were something like 20,000 sikhs that were injured. Again it comes down to money, as Canada and India value trade more than human rights. India has always used its trade with european countries as a weapon, when it comes to human rights record.

Strictly speaking no country in world care about Human rights as long as their own interest is served.China Killed thousands of tibetans and destroyed many monastries,yet no one speak about it,similarly no one cared about what happened in Rwanda,but when Saddam invaded Kuwait USA along with all its allies went their to steal the oil

[Mithar]

10 years ago Canada or any western country would not have been scared to say the truth. But with the high economic growth of China and India, all western countries want to have good relations with these two emerging economies even if it means turning a blind eye to human rights abuses. History is written by the winners (which doesn't necessarily mean the right side). Sikhs lost the war during militancy years and as a result have been branded as terrorists. Our genocides are not even considered genocides since we lost the war. In the end what it comes down to is money, that is all that really matters for all governments.

Edited January 4, 2011 by Mithar

[Guest]

10 years ago Canada or any western country would not have been scared to say the truth. But with the high economic growth of China and India, all western countries want to have good relations with these two merging economies even if it means turning a blind eye to human rights abuses. History is written by the winners (which doesn't necessarily mean the right side). Sikhs lost the war during militancy years and as a result have been branded as terrorists. Our genocides are not even considered genocides since we lost the war. In the end what it comes down to is money, that is all that really matters for all governments.

Totally agree with you 110%..!!

[kdsingh80]

10 years ago Canada or any western country would not have been scared to say the truth. But with the high economic growth of China and India, all western countries want to have good relations with these two emerging economies even if it means turning a blind eye to human rights abuses. History is written by the winners (which doesn't necessarily mean the right side). Sikhs lost the war during militancy years and as a result have been branded as terrorists. Our genocides are not even considered genocides since we lost the war. In the end what it comes down to is money, that is all that really matters for all governments.

Oh really .In 1985 Rajiv Gandhi visited USA and was welcomed By USA govt with open arms,on the other hand The same USA don't allow Narendra modi to visit USA

because of his alleged involvement in 2002 Gujarat riots.

Why USa govt did not raise issue of Sikh genocide in 1985 if they were not scared of speaking the truth.

[chatanga1]

Oh really .In 1985 Rajiv Gandhi visited USA and was welcomed By USA govt with open arms,on the other hand The same USA don't allow Narendra modi to visit USA

because of his alleged involvement in 2002 Gujarat riots.

Why USa govt did not raise issue of Sikh genocide in 1985 if they were not scared of speaking the truth.

there's 2 things that are different from the mid 80s and now, concerning US and the sikhs. i bet in the mid 80s the only time the US would have heard of sikhs was in 1984, even now i suspect we barely figure on their radar across the world.

also, with different avenues of approach, the Sikhs have began to make their voices heard in US, albeit because mainly because of the 9-11 repercussions on our community. Modi case i suspect was to please the muslim world, after all they were his victims in gujerat.

[kdsingh80]

there's 2 things that are different from the mid 80s and now, concerning US and the sikhs. i bet in the mid 80s the only time the US would have heard of sikhs was in 1984, even now i suspect we barely figure on their radar across the world.

1980s was the era of cold war.Indira was never in the good books of USA.Sikh movement was quite strong in India and at that time both USA and Soviet use to poke their noses all over the world.I read some theories that in 80s Sikh separatists were supported by USA While India as usual was an ally of soviet, so I really doubt that USA was so ignorant that it never heard of sikhs

Modi case i suspect was to please the muslim world, after all they were his victims in gujerat.

I agree that Modi case is to please muslim world but still there is no direct proof that modi was responsible for riots so if USA allowed Rajiv in 1985 there is no reason for it not to allow Modi

[dalsingh101]

Did you guys forget it was Clinton who put pressure on India to ease up on Panjab way back when? If anyone needs to be cussed, it is successive British governments more than any American one. These jerks just turned a blind eye to it all, whilst claiming to be the 'friends' of Sikhs. They say you can tell who your real friends are in times of need... and when it was needed they general swallowed and propagated the 'fundamentalist' 'terrorists' line here.

Kdsingh was right when he made the statement that in reality no country is truly bothered about human rights abuses. Westerns nations have just learned to use such issues for political mileage and point scoring as well as propaganda for justifying aggressive take overs of foreign lands. They may point a scornful finger and shake their heads in feigned disgust but when it has suited their 'interests', they have never hesitated to do deals with dictators and human rights violators and even help prop them up.

In any case, why would any western government want to sour relations with a massive potential market for the sake of a disempowered minority, over religious issues at that?

What did Sikhs have to bring to the table? Fresh fruit and veg and dairy products?

When I look at it clinically and coldly, it's like the 84 and onwards experience shattered the illusion of our invincibility and starkly brought home the uncomfortable reality of our powerlessness and lack of political clout in the modern scheme of things. If we had any pretensions of being like our 18th century ancestors, who took on and defeated powerful armies and governments of their times, bitter ground realities seem to suggest this is something akin to wishful thinking.

Edited January 5, 2011 by dalsingh101

[Xylitol]

Kharkoos were accounting for themselves very well until the community made the mistake of going against the advice of a bhramgyani and some seasoned kharkoos and boycotting elections. After that a fanatical congress unleashed hell and promoted all sorts of abuses.

[HSD1]

The truth is that a modern state needs to seperate military, political and religous authority to a certain degree in order to create a stable environment. When someone who only knows about one area starts interfering in the others it leads to weakness. Just watch what happens in pakistan as religious authority tries to overide both military and political authority. Sikhs need to learn from this.

What did Sikhs have to bring to the table? Fresh fruit and veg and dairy products?

If we brought anything to the table, what would stop others from simply taking what they wanted anyway? Sikhs have nothing that acts as a deterrent. If you want support from outside you need to find a patron willing to give you money and aid in return for future allegiance. India's policy of non-alignment has led to a complete lack of foreign countries willing to help out anyone in india. Pakistan only uses revolts against india for political capital, deep down they really want peace and trade with India rather than a state of animosity.

Edited January 5, 2011 by HSD 2

[Mithar]

Kharkoos were accounting for themselves very well until the community made the mistake of going against the advice of a bhramgyani and some seasoned kharkoos and boycotting elections. After that a fanatical congress unleashed hell and promoted all sorts of abuses.

True, the BIGGEST mistake the Singhs made was boycotting the elections which allowed the Congress to win, and within a year or two, the Kharkoos were finished.

[dalsingh101]

Kharkoos were accounting for themselves very well until the community made the mistake of going against the advice of a bhramgyani and some seasoned kharkoos and boycotting elections. After that a fanatical congress unleashed hell and promoted all sorts of abuses.

The levels of infiltration in outfits was astronomical.

[chatanga1]

so I really doubt that USA was so ignorant that it never heard of sikhs

bro its not that they were ignorant, my point is that the Sikhs were insignificant as a community for US, we were(like many) a grain of sand in a desert to them. Also, i dont think that india was any kind of a threat to the US, although they sided with russia in the cold war(mainly down to control freak rulers), and the US had what to gain from supporting Sikhs against India?

for the US, Afghanistan was a direct confrontation with USSR, but any confrontation with India would have had little or no impact on the cold war.