top of page

By:

Correspondent

21 August 2024 at 10:20:16 am

Hostile Havens

The murder of 24-year-old Kirandeep Kaur in west London is, first and foremost, a personal tragedy. A young Sikh woman from Punjab, who had moved to Britain in search of opportunity, was killed only weeks after giving birth. But her death has unfolded against a darker backdrop. Britain is witnessing an unsettling rise in anti-Sikh hostility, fuelled by the toxic convergence of identity politics, social media outrage and far-right mobilisation. A survey by the Sikh Network found that 40...

Hostile Havens

The murder of 24-year-old Kirandeep Kaur in west London is, first and foremost, a personal tragedy. A young Sikh woman from Punjab, who had moved to Britain in search of opportunity, was killed only weeks after giving birth. But her death has unfolded against a darker backdrop. Britain is witnessing an unsettling rise in anti-Sikh hostility, fuelled by the toxic convergence of identity politics, social media outrage and far-right mobilisation. A survey by the Sikh Network found that 40 percent of Sikhs questioned had either experienced or witnessed anti-Sikh incidents since mid-May, while nearly 90 percent believed hostility towards the community had increased. Britain has long prided itself on being a successful multicultural society. That confidence now looks increasingly fragile. The immediate trigger was the murder of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, allegedly by a Sikh man. Sikh organisations did precisely what responsible community bodies should do. They condemned the killing unequivocally and rejected any attempt to justify the crime. Yet reason was soon overtaken by rage. Far-right agitators seized upon the case, organising demonstrations outside police stations, marching through mixed neighbourhoods, and directing hostility towards Sikh families who had nothing to do with the crime. Nazi salutes and cries of “white power” were ugly reminders that the target had shifted from an individual suspect to an entire community. For Sikhs in Britain, this should prompt an uncomfortable reckoning. For decades, sections of the diaspora have believed that Western democracies offered not merely refuge but also political patronage for causes that found little acceptance in India. Britain and Canada became fertile ground for pro-Khalistan activism, often justified under the broad protections of free speech. Governments tolerated it, sometimes because it suited domestic electoral calculations, sometimes because it cost little politically. Kirandeep Kaur’s murder and the wave of far-right mobilisation is a reminder that Western democracies are guided not by sentiment but by political convenience. When their public moods turn, minorities invariably pay the price. Diaspora communities, however prosperous, remain minorities whose security ultimately depends on the health of the societies in which they live. British authorities must pursue hate crimes with the same vigour they apply to every other form of extremism. Equal citizenship demands nothing less. Yet the Sikh diaspora, too, would do well to reassess its political priorities. Romanticising separatist politics from thousands of kilometres away has brought little benefit to Sikhs either in India or abroad. It has instead provided easy ammunition to extremists of every persuasion instead. Britain and Canada may be liberal democracies in name, but they are not custodians of Sikh interests. Their governments will always act according to their own domestic calculations. Diaspora communities like the Sikhs risk discovering, in moments of crisis, that they have confused convenience with conviction. That is a costly illusion.

Omar welcomes Indus Water Treaty suspension, calls it “most unfair document” for J&K



SRINAGAR: Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah on Friday welcomed the Central government’s decision to suspend the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) with Pakistan following the deadly Pahalgam attack that claimed 26 lives. He also referred to the treaty as the “most unfair document” for the people of J&K.


“The Government of India has taken some steps. As far as Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, let’s be honest. We have never been in favour of the Indus Waters Treaty. We have always believed it to be the most unfair document to people of J&K,” Abdullah told reporters in Srinagar after meeting representatives from the tourism, trade, and industry sectors. However, he noted that the long-term impact of this move is still uncertain.


The IWT suspension is part of India’s response to the brutal attack. Other actions include expelling Pakistani military attaches and shutting down the Attari land-transit point immediately.


When questioned about the impact of the April 22 attack on the region’s tourism industry, Abdullah dismissed concerns about monetary losses. “At this juncture, we are not counting rupees or paisa. Not one of the businessmen or stakeholders in the tourism industry who attended the meeting lamented the loss of business. Not one of them expressed any concern about what would happen to them.”


“Right now, our priority is to express solidarity with the bereaved,” he said, adding, “At some point in future, we may sit down to discuss the financial implications (of the attack) on J&K’s economy. But not a single stakeholder present in the meeting raised a demand for monetary relief for the losses they are suffering.”


Omar described the tourist exodus from J&K after the massacre as “heartbreaking”. The future of the Valley’s tourism sector remains uncertain, with widespread trip cancellations following the attack.

4o

Comments

bottom of page