Fareed Zakaria, who had known as for international interference in India, now whitewashes Khalistani terrorist Nijjar

On Monday (October 2), CNN launched an episode of India-born US journalist Fareed Zakaria pontificating on the diplomatic row between India and Canada following Justin Trudeau’s absurd allegations in opposition to New Delhi. In the 5-minute video, the son of Former Congress Minister Rafiq Zakaria, Fareed Zakaria goes on at size to whitewash Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar. He trivialises the true menace of Khalistani terrorism by casting aspersions over the authenticity and gravity of the hazard they pose to India’s nationwide safety and the lives of patriotic Indians inside and out of doors India.  

Today’s final look: why Trudeau’s startling allegations are taking part in out very otherwise in Modi’s India pic.twitter.com/brVKd0Qjzo

— Fareed Zakaria (@FareedZakaria) October 1, 2023

Zakaria additionally accused India of indulging in jingoism over the Canadian allegation and implies that the Khalistani terrorism situation is being exaggerated for political positive aspects by PM Modi and BJP within the run-up to the Lok Sabha elections in 2024. 

Zakaria begins by quoting Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the place he had accused India of being concerned within the killing of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar, on Canadian soil. 

He then goes on to whitewash Hardeep Singh Nijjar by briefly describing him as a Sikh “activist” and head of a Sikh temple (Gurudwara) and tries to say that he was gunned down by unidentified assailants in June within the temple’s parking zone. 

Zakaria sidestepped the truth that Nijjar had an Interpol arrest warrant in opposition to his title as early as November 2014 for being concerned in critical offenses like homicide, amongst a bunch of different unlawful actions. 

Zakaria intentionally omits the truth that Trudeau was pandering to Khalistani terrorists by elevating the problem of Khalistani terrorist Nijjar’s killing with India for political causes. While giving a political spin to India’s response to the problem, he didn’t point out the alliance between the NDP and the Liberal occasion. Jagmeet Singh’s NDP is a identified occasion of Khalistani sympathisers in India.

Instead, he offered Trudeau’s absurd allegations in opposition to India as a transfer to get Justice for Nijjar. He claimed that the motive of Justin Trudeau in making these allegations was to disgrace the Indian authorities by airing these allegations publicly and compel it to cooperate within the investigation.  

In truth, he had earlier given a name to the US authorities to immediately intrude in India’s inner affairs. He advocated for (the US govt) to ally with India’s companies, press, NGOs, and cultural teams, not directly hinting that the US authorities ought to put money into regime change ways as an alternative of searching for wholesome bilateral relations with India. 

Back then, he had additionally focused India for focusing by itself nationwide curiosity insinuating that the perfect ally of the US ought to prioritise US pursuits above its personal pursuits.

Later within the video, he delves into, “why Trudeau’s startling allegations are playing out very differently in Modi’s India”. Citing some snippets from Indian media and political analysts, he laments that these tales have “released a spasm of Jingoism”. 

He then goes on to color a contrasting image of Canada as seen from a Western lens vis-a-vis how India has began to painting Canada as – “a safe haven for terrorists.”  

In the video, Zakaria states, “In India, the reactions are very different and reveal in fact that Justin Trudeau blew it. Just look at the Indian press, the story has released a spasm of Jingoism in which TV anchors cast Canada not as a multicultural haven and stable democracy, you and I may know but as a rogue state bent on protecting terrorists.” 

To spotlight this level, he performs the clip of Arnab Goswami the place he referred to Justin Trudeau as a supporter of terrorism, an open terror backer, and a terrorist sympathiser and added that he’s on the level of no return. 

Zakaria argues that political analyst Sushant Sareen has aptly described the Country’s response, “if we did it, it was right, if we didn’t do it, you are wrong.” 

If we did it, it was proper; if we didn’t, you have been flawed https://t.co/0btTVWeAlD

— sushant sareen (@sushantsareen) September 26, 2023

Arguing that with this case, India is misrepresenting itself as a sufferer of Western bullying on the home entrance, Zakaria added, “An analysis peace of the Hindustan Times conjures up memories of Western colonial powers ganging up against India claiming that Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar’s killing will be a rallying point for the Anglo-Saxon bloc to come together against India.”  

While explaining to his viewers why India was accusing Canada of offering a secure haven to terrorists, he downplays the Khalistani terrorism within the title of a separate homeland, ‘Khalistan’. He blatantly lies by mainstreaming the perimeter Khalistanis by claiming that Nijjar was one amongst many foreign-based Sikhs who advocate for Khalistan.    

Regarding this, he mentioned, “Indian officials have accused Canada of providing a safe haven for terrorists, that might sound like a puzzling and absurd allegation but it is a reference to the fact that Nijjar was a Sikh separatist. One of many Sikhs abroad who advocate for a separate country for Sikhs, the homeland they want to create, Khalistan, the idea that goes back decades, the efforts include armed militancy in India that peaked in the 1980s.”  

Subsequently, he whitewashes the continued crimes and public requires violence in opposition to Hindus by Khalistani parts. For this, he mischievously downplays by quoting The Economist which claimed that Khalistan is merely an “idle talking point” within the Sikh diaspora.    

He mentioned, “As the Economist notes, the movement for Khalistan was responsible for the death of thousands in the 1980s and 1990s but has since been little more than an idle talking point in the Sikh diaspora and has negligible support in India.”

It will not be a problem of nationwide safety, it’s a political booster for Modi

Casting aspersions on India’s concern concerning nationwide safety and the lives of Indian nationals overseas, Fareed Zakaria goes on to say that Canada catering to India’s demand to behave powerful on Khalistani parts could be “politically useful” for PM Modi and BJP.  

He mentioned, “Whatever the reality in this one case, tensions between India and Canada over “Sikh activists” within the Indian diaspora have been long-running. As the FT notes, India’s accusations that Canada has been too tender on “Sikh activists” deserve some scrutiny. But it’s also true that taking part in up this sort of menace to India is politically helpful for PM Narendra Modi and his occasion BJP.”  

Citing the instance of the Pulwama terror assault and subsequent response by India, he argues that Trudeau’s technique to hunt justice by naming and shaming India is essentially flawed. 

Painting ‘Hindu Nationalism’ as anti-minority and anti-West, he sermonises, “You see Justin Trudeau’s whole strategy of naming and shaming India fundamentally misunderstands the dynamics of Modi’s Hindu nationalism which is rooted in the belief that India’s Hindu majority has been passive for too long in the face of minorities and foreigners. When presented with an opportunity, Modi knows how to translate it into political gold.”  

He continued, “In 2019 a suicide bomber carried out the worst attack in decades killing dozens of Indian soldiers, India blamed Pakistan militants and sent in the Indian Airforce and carried out strikes on what it said was a militant training facility in Pakistan. Though Pakistan denied the strikes hit much of anything. Nonetheless, it was the first time that such a cross-border operation had been carried out in almost fifty years.”  

Connecting the dots of then vs. now, and not directly underscoring the truth that Canada is changing into new Pakistan for India, Zakaria concluded by lamenting that this portrayal that Modi is standing in opposition to Sikh separatism and Western bullying shall be an election plank for him, regardless that it won’t be actual or harmful.  

Fareed Zakaria ranted, “As Bloomberg noted, Modi went on a victory lap, saying in a campaign speech that he believed in barging into the house of terrorists and killing them. He implied without any evidence that the opposition parties’ sympathies lay with the terrorists. Pollsters reported a boost in Modi’s approval ratings after the strike. Now Modi faces another election, and he will surely be helped if he can run by standing against Sikh separatism and Western bullying, regardless of how real or dangerous either threat actually is.”