by Nilantha Ilangamuwa

The India-Canada diplomatic spat has grown into a fierce showdown, pitting Western powers against the Global South, with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s explosive accusation against India regarding the death of Canadian Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar sending shockwaves reverberating across the international stage. Speculations run rampant, fingers are pointed at India’s RAW and Pakistan’s ISI, even as both nations vehemently deny any involvement, leaving the murdered victim’s quest for justice in limbo as accusers present unsubstantiated evidence—a stark reminder of the escalating complexities of regional conflicts on the global arena.

Recent events only exacerbate the situation, with the suicide bombing in Mastung, Pakistan, claiming the lives of 60 innocents. Yet, instead of proactive prevention, the response remains mired in a blame game. The specter of a border wall, reminiscent of those in Israel or along the US-Mexico frontier, looms menacingly, casting a long shadow over the region’s future. At this critical juncture, India’s growing global political influence adds another layer of urgency to the equation.

However, the path to tranquility lies not in confrontation but in fostering mutual understanding between India and Pakistan—nurturing a climate of respect for each other’s sensitivities that can yield mutual benefits. Sadly, this genuine desire for rapprochement appears conspicuously absent, plunging the region into a predicament that darkens the prospects not only for these two nations but also for the entire South Asian region.

To safeguard South Asia from becoming a pawn in the hands of external forces, it is imperative to craft a comprehensive strategy to manage the long-standing rivalry between these two nations, with the paramount goal being the welfare of their populace. Since partition they have spent more time in conflict than in harmony.

Louis Mountbatten, the last British Viceroy of India, serving from 1947 to 1948, remains forever etched as the principal architect of the partition—a decision that, following his proposal, was haphazardly executed by Cyril Radcliffe, a man lacking understanding of the region. This arbitrary division severed historical bonds, driven primarily by personal ambitions, and shockingly, no statesman from either nation has had the courage or capacity to rectify this grave error to this day.

The catastrophic aftermath of this historic blunder eventually forced India’s hand in enabling the secession of East Pakistan, leading to its rebirth as Bangladesh in 1971. This, in turn, ignited a sequence of military conflicts and covert operations between India and Pakistan, tragically turning their shared borders into breeding grounds for extremists, terrorists, and a host of smugglers—an enduring testament to the far-reaching consequences of a decision made in haste.

Perhaps the most poignant aspect of this tragedy is the opposition to this division expressed by numerous local leaders, including Mahatma Gandhi himself, who championed Hindu-Muslim unity and undertook fasting and advocacy efforts to prevent divisions and communal violence. He unequivocally condemned the partition, proclaiming, “I see only evil in the plan and nothing but evil.

” Similarly, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, a prominent leader in the Indian independence movement and a staunch advocate for Pashtun rights, vehemently opposed the partition, advocating a united India where all communities could coexist peacefully. He famously implored, “I request the Congress and the Muslim League to make a sincere effort to bring peace immediately. If they do so, the Frontier Province will be saved, otherwise, God only knows what will happen.”

While initially reluctant to support partition, India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, eventually conceded to avoid further delays in independence and prevent the escalation of communal violence between Hindus and Muslims. On the other hand, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of the All India Muslim League, championed the creation of a separate Muslim-majority state, Pakistan.

He believed that Muslims and Hindus constituted distinct nations with separate interests, necessitating the establishment of a Muslim state to safeguard their political, economic, and social rights. Jinnah’s leadership and negotiatingskills were pivotal in achieving partition, yet it was the pervasive suspicion among communities that plunged the region into enduring darkness. Contrary to the trend of nations overcoming divisions caused by political conflicts or imperialist oppression, as seen in Latin America and Africa, the discord between Pakistan and India continues to evolve into a complex web of strife with each passing day.

In the backdrop of the current crisis surrounding Panjab (Khalistan), thrust into the spotlight once more due to the tragic killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, it is imperative to delve into this complex issue. This must be done before the dream-state known as Khalistan, with nominal recognition but devoid of legal status, transforms into a Balochistan of India.

Addressing the real problems in the region is paramount. Despite the current US-India camaraderie driven by anti-China motives, a domestically crafted initiative is essential to foster sustainable growth in India and ensure social stability in the region.

Consider this: if Israel can establish peaceful relations with Arab nations that were embroiled in decades-long conflicts for the sake of common interests, is it inconceivable for India and Pakistan to make sacrifices for peace?

The present plight faced by Pakistan can be strategically harnessed. Geopolitically, the United States once leveraged Pakistan to counterbalance India, which had cultivated strong diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union. Pakistan, under Yahya Khan, served as the covert conduit for Richard Nixon’s secret China trip. Pakistan made significant sacrifices to become a global political player alongside the likes of the US and China.

However, the United States has now aligned itself with India, further exacerbating Pakistan’s social challenges, as evidenced by covert interventions aimed at removing former Prime Minister Imran Khan from office. Understanding this geopolitical backdrop sheds light on the geopolitical context surrounding the Sikh Diaspora’s propaganda project, particularly in the West, focused on the Khalistan dream nation.

Sikhism’s illustrious history bears witness to the courage of spiritual leaders, warriors, and patriots who made countless sacrifices for India. Guru Nanak celebrated the nation’s rich cultural diversity and preached a message of unity and compassion. From the martyrdom of Guru Arjun and Guru Gobind Singh to the reign of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, these figures left an indelible mark on the nation’s destiny. However, reports suggest that British colonization in the 19th century aimed to create divisions between Sikhs and Hindus by distorting Sikh history, and these British manipulations persisted, ultimately contributing to the development of a distinct Sikh identity.

The Khalistan movement evolved into a potent strategic weapon utilized by the Soviet Union to undermine U.S. influence in Pakistan, employing tactics ranging from media manipulation and political negotiations to disinformation campaigns, notably during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. In the midst of this geopolitical chess game, the Sikh leadership was unjustly painted as anti-Hindu during the Afghan invasion, as the Soviet Union posed as a crucial ally to Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

Meanwhile, persistent allegations have emerged of clandestine collaboration between the United States and Pakistan’s government under General Yahya Khan, dating back to 1971, with the purpose of fueling a separatist movement in Punjab. Following the dramatic Operation Blue Star in June 1984 and the tragic assassination of Indira Gandhi in October 1984, a wave of horrifying atrocities against Sikhs swept across India. This remains a deeply sensitive and unresolved issue, casting a long shadow to this day.

Hence, it becomes evident that the issue of Khalistani separatism cannot be resolved through mere accusations. Rather, it has evolved into a complex problem necessitating an understanding of the historical social context that sowed divisions between Sikhs and Hindus. This issue has now taken on an international dimension, manipulated by great powers. First, British colonialists sowed the seeds of division between Hindus and Sikhs, and subsequently, it became a tool for the Soviet Union and the United States to advance their geopolitical ambitions.

The term “Khalis” signifies purity, and “Sthan” denotes land or place, loosely translating to “Pure Land” of Khalistan. Paradoxically, this region has witnessed some of the most impure events throughout its history. It’s crucial to emphasize that the majority of people living in this area, who have been victims of a history distorted to serve the interests of external parties, steadfastly reject separatism.

Therefore, it is imperative at this moment to make a genuine attempt to establish peace between India and Pakistan, one that is more resolute than previous agreements, such as the Liaquat-Nehru Pact in 1950 or the Shimla Pact signed by Bhutto and Indira Gandhi in 1972. This is a precondition for Punjab to be established without external interference. If not, harboring dreams of sustainable development in this region appears to be nothing more than a pipedream.