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.

Selective Outrage

India’s left-liberal media has long prided itself on being the torchbearer of secularism, dissent and moral rectitude. In the aftermath of ‘Operation Sindoor,’ the precision military strike launched by the Modi government against Pakistan-based terror camps, it has revealed its not a principled commitment to peace or truth, but a disturbing penchant for ideological prejudice, performative sanctimony and selective outrage.


The operation itself was a textbook display of calibrated force and geopolitical prudence. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, often caricatured as ‘authoritarian’ by the ‘liberal’ English-language commentariat, chose patience over provocation. He consulted opposition leaders, held detailed discussions with defence chiefs and took key international stakeholders, notably the United States and Russia, into confidence before authorising limited military action. The symbolism of ‘Operation Sindoor’ was also carefully crafted: a pointed reminder that the attack’s real victims were Hindu women widowed by Pakistan-sponsored militants in Kashmir. The government’s briefings were also strategic and symbolic as two ranking female officers, one of them Muslim, were made the public face of the mission, underlining a new Indian confidence that blends military muscle with democratic pluralism.


But this was unacceptable for India’s entrenched ‘left-liberal’ press, steeped in academic jargon, Western validation and a knee-jerk hostility to anything remotely ‘Hindutva.’ That a Muslim officer briefed the nation on ‘Operation Sindoor’ was branded ‘tokenism’ by such commentators. Others crudely alleged that the April 22 Pahalgam massacre was the logical culmination of reported atrocities against Muslims since Modi came to power in 2014.


The semantic nitpicking over ‘Operation Sindoor’ was maddening. An editor of a prominent magazine dubbed the operation’s name as ‘patriarchal’ and coded in Hindutva tropes. In a bizarre case of moral inversion, sindoor was likened to symbols of ‘honour killings’ and gender oppression, ignoring both its cultural resonance and the cruel reality that these women had lost their husbands in cold blood. For years, India’s ‘secular’ commentariat nurtured a preordained binary: the Congress may be flawed but was at least ‘secular’ while the BJP was an inveterate ‘fascist.’ Thus, the 2002 Gujarat riots are always focused upon but the Congress-backed pogrom of the Sikhs in 1984 is either downplayed or rationalised. Terrorism in Kashmir is tragic, but state retaliation is ‘jingoism.’ A strong Muslim voice in government is ‘tokenism’ but its absence is ‘exclusion.’ Even journalistic rigour is selectively applied. When Pakistan claimed to have downed Indian jets, some Indian outlets rushed to amplify the story before verification, inadvertently echoing enemy propaganda.


Dissent is vital in any democracy. But when its becomes indistinguishable from disdain, when editorial choices are dictated by ideological conformity, then the press becomes a caricature of itself. Ironically, many of these journalists enjoy robust free speech and loudly lament India’s supposed slide into ‘fascism’ from the safety of their X handles. Yet they turn a blind eye to Putin’s repression, Erdogan’s purges or Xi Jinping’s camps. In their eyes, Modi remains the greatest threat to democracy even as they broadcast their outrage freely, without fear of censorship or reprisal. ‘Operation Sindoor’ was a statement of cultural self-confidence. That confidence has rattled those who have spent their careers gatekeeping Indian discourse. Today, their monopoly is over. The people are watching and they no longer believe that the emperor has clothes.

Comments

bottom of page