People & Terror. Nations & Borders. Media & Limits. One Case, One World.

People and Terror

Anyone grounded in reality should be able to deduce that Superman can't be gay, Black, or Muslim, and that Wonder Woman is a trans or a man-hating, butch lesbian, of course.

That type of thing... Don't you just hate it when ultra-Left Commies like Trudeau or AOC try to impose their off-brand, fantasy-fueled Woke world on everybody?

Can't these people simply find contentment in the ambiguity of a bat-man's Robin?

A Globalised Localisation Scheme Based on Regional Acceptance of a Municipally-Defined National Identity Rooted in Ethnological, Socio-Educational, Non-Foreign-immigration anti-pro-Non-Secularism?

Gotta admit: at times, that does feel like what Western leaders are going for, no?

Today, I heard British journalist-activist Barnaby Raine, on Novara Media, hosted by Michael Walker, say the following: “Western civilization is probably the most violent idea in human history.”

He then fired off a list of means and weapons used in the systematic destruction of people.

Those who feel it is their patriotic duty to defend "The West" against "The East" already have "Communism" in mind and the millions slaughtered by the most evil rulers that ever existed, Stalin and Mao leading the charge, right?

Well, Western civilization also perfected another aspect, and it is this that seals the argument if one is determined to reduce the all to "who's the most" of the two: the West developed and perfected propaganda, then willingly applied its techniques on its own people to obfuscate any sense of reality one may have, doing so in order to render them easier to control, and to justify truly vile and violent acts.

For the vast majority of those millions of deaths attributed to Communism, the West has spun false evils and sucked out the humanity and all its blunders while forcing the world to see only humanity and how to err is human when the West is involved, attributing its higher death count to all sorts of externalities meant to protect an economic system that's approached as if a religion. That isn't to say that Stalin was a kind and wildly misunderstood man, but anyone with an objective view of history that hasn't been fed to them by Western establishment spinners and Hollywood should be aware that far more than "evil" is what accounts for many deaths.

Whether the KKK, Nazis, the staunchest of Zionists, and the most hardline Hindutva adherent, all share key attributes. I'd include the US' Military-Industrial complex to that list, though the same bonds that divide people into groups are entirely abstract in the case of the latter, but concretized through money.

Getting to the core of each, what one finds is a mindset that shares one identical focus that's best categorised as: a settler-colonial ethnic cleansing. This is really what's at the heart of the Khalistan situation, like Gaza, etc.

•     •     •

The individuals who are now chastising those who fail to see the Palestinians' struggle and Israel's long-oppressive treatment and now genocidal intent, some of them accused of cheering for the actions taken on 7-Oct by Hamas, that these instantly have fallen into New Delhi's trap for the identical game that it's playing as concerns all minority groups in India—whose parallels I drew prior to 7-Oct—and the empty, conservative-serving judgment they passed over Trudeau and the entirety of the Khalistan issue as a result, that, that simultaneously disappointed and angered me.

Deeply. Profoundly.

I lost a great deal of respect for the geo-political analysis community, having already lost much respect for the stupidly-tribalistic political analysis/commentator and news space as a whole.

Seeing many who are clear on the more obscure dynamics and interests at play through the conflict in Ukraine—and now in Palestine—act as if closeted fan-boys for a hard-right authoritarian leader whose acts of oppression they see as esoterism that sets Modi apart; seeing them brush nuance away with jovially parochial superficialities and embrace a black or white view in regard to a situation whose very clear parallels they fail to see... that, for me, tipped the lot into the 'disturbing' sphere, for a sound logic can't be what's applied in their assessments if such lapses occur across entire groups with any consistency, hence providing another facet of human behaviour I fail to understand.

In many ways, the curbed efforts to understand and limited sympathy displayed reflect a mindset that's not all that dissimilar to being an anti-war person because one opposes the war in Ukraine... in order to devote more military energy on the "china problem", because that's not a "war", that's a fight for survival.

Consequently, it calls their motivation into question, as well as their knowledge skills and their ability to reach an opinion if without any reliance on the form of consensus they, too, seemingly require, revealing that empty parroting is what ends up dominating their views on most things, the depth of understanding shown being limited to one case or cause, hence, disraveling that perceived depth of clarity to shallow and personal wants that, given the disregard for those who possess them, rarely imply any real "needs".

When taking into consideration other inconsistencies they betray, such as reprimanding those who called Xi Jinping a dictator while they continually employ "dictator Trudeau" for reasons that don't hold up to scrutiny, it becomes hard to discount the power of "narrative" and the influence this has on an outlet's or individual's decisions and positions, this aspect being of tremendous importance in molding the info landscape into groups, acceptance, in turn, swaying individuals to hold certain views that others then repeat without verification, for it stems from their tribe.

Past a certain point that some attain much faster than others, it becomes hard for me to take these people seriously no matter which side of the political spectrum they're on.

•     •     •

The Punjab region of India wasn't always India's.

From 1799 to 1849 and their defeat by the British East India Company in the Second Anglo-Sikh War, much of the Punjab was ruled by a regionally-focused Sikh Empire.

Twelve sovereign Sikh states—also known as Misls—formed the Sikh Confederacy that rose up during the 18th century; the colonial British put a halt on the self-government and stability they'd fought to gain.

Dal Khalsa, established by Nawab Kapur Singh in the mid 1730s, is a name that's undergone some revival since the 1970s; it once identified the combined military forces of 11 Sikh misls that operated in the Punjab region from 1735 until 1799.

A hundred years later, when the British left, the land they'd conquered was divided between predominant Muslim and Hindu lines, thus forming Pakistan, East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), and India. No consideration whatsoever had been given to the Sikhs and their desire for self-rule, a freedom they once enjoyed.

Khalistan may be an "imaginary" land, as it's oft referred to, but it signifies a region that was once the Sikhs, and it captures an ideal, and a situation that, in the face of constant oppression, Sikhs are increasingly eager to return to, though none of them have actually enjoyed that sovereignty themselves.

History had forged a division that was wiped away by a more brutal historical force, raising many questions and moral discussions that apply equally to those now living in North or South America, or elsewhere, but, unlike what New Delhi wants all to believe, the secessionist movement wasn't sparked on a religious-egotist whim for no reason beyond the cultish intolerance cultivated in Sikhs by extremists, which Canada allows them to do as we Canadians love to collude with terrorists, especially anti-India elements. I'm not sure why I do it, in fact, other than I'm Canadian.

Or, perhaps, on this at least, and in contradiction to its position on other issues, like Gaza, the Canadian government understands that the types of complexities involved are rooted in a past that played out over several centuries, and that a possible and harmonious future for the Sikhs lies in a present that allows them the freedom to express grievances and desires, and to undertake the political steps and actions that may lead to a political change, these same ones having been enjoyed by countless others—through arduous times and against powerful forces—to overcome their oppressors, slay their struggles, and gain their freedom.

It's just that, if truth be told, who has the right to act in a freedom-gaining way happens to be a selective bunch of countries determined by the West, OK?

•     •     •

This isn’t the piece I had in mind, the ‘official’ part 2 of “Modi’s Mental Media Machine” being more or less ready to post, which I’ve been holding off of given that the Indians have suddenly toned down their attacks and more sober pieces on the topic have appeared in Indian media in the last few days. No need to reawaken the vehement gossip monster, though this is just a lull before the next wave, I’m sure.

And, since then, along with a growing financial stress leading to my bile/reflux issue getting worse, I've shifted my focus toward those involved steps required to secure a corporate job, to then be hit with some bit of tech issues whose fault, between the ISP, router manufacturer, OS, and hosting all blamed on the other—whatever it was, it miraculously resolved itself (which worries me more)—all that while Indian internal events combined with New Delhi's attack on the Newsclick outlet and journalists, which came as a firm confirmation that I should emphasize the ethno-nationalist context that seems to be motivating New Delhi's handling of Canada's allegation and the direction it heralds, this, sadly, signaling a precursor state for a possible future, one that we're now seeing play out in Gaza after Hamas' brutal attack in Israel on 7-Oct.

Along with that came more proof that lessons are never learned through the grotesque tribalism displayed, yet again, as well as the through the mind-numbing to irritating degree of inconsistency betrayed by anyone who voiced an opinion on any of the major events of recent years.

A post will be dedicated to that subject, but the questions raised by the Canada-India row, which are the focus of this post even if in an oblique manner, are also applicable to the situation between Palestinians and Israelis, albeit the parallel will only be superficially drawn and addressed in this post.

As I already mentioned, regardless of whatever impression I may give, I don’t get off on doing the kind of “attacks” like those that I've primarily been posting as of late on India, this being so given that the main objective of such efforts are never to broaden awareness and deepen discussions, but merely to counter claims and/or weaken a “foe”. None of the Khalistan-related posts would have adopted that tone were they not in reaction to the despicable attacks by Indian government and media.

No, I'm not deflecting responsibility—I could have taken a different approach; I opted for the one I did adopt—but I do want to call attention to the role played by all involved in any 'feud', which includes those in the peripheries.

I’ve a certain skill for the insulting and condescending demands of such attacks, I suppose, which I do enjoy unleashing when I’m fired up… about a cause. Not a trolling antagonist, which, frankly, is an apt description for the whole media vomit that's comprised of the virulent anti-Canada and anti-Trudeau tirades that have been coming out of India.

There’s an unreasoned frenzy to it that makes it impossible to have anything resembling a debate, making any effort worth one’s while being about “perception”, which entails being sucked into the ‘game’ that’s been witnessed from Indian media, which is one I find despicable, all the more so if willingly calling oneself a “journalist” and purporting wanting to inform the public above all else.

What's nonetheless interesting about this case is how it cuts across the political parties and it isn't exploited by the opposition, so that one gets the sense that all of India is in agreement over Trudeau's allegation being "absurd". However, digging into the more obscure corners, seeking the brave Indian voices, one becomes aware of an undercurrent that's very present but mostly silent, for New Delhi's reach and influence over the Indian diaspora now extends over all areas of the globe; few dare to criticize the Modi government openly, fearing being labeled an "anti-India" element, the label usually followed by "terrorist".

Don't judge a book by its cover, we are told. And I remind you.

•     •     •

Going back to my comment in regard to the role of each in any feud: Very few citizens seem to realize the role that the public plays in such conflicts, and how they're all too often complicit agents—willingly or not—in condoning far worse acts than those against which they do so, but who, despite betraying a baffling ignorance if one prods sufficiently, nonetheless demand that all follow them in condemning those they condemn, or be condemned themselves.

Take Nicaragua's Sandinistas and Contras, East Timor versus Indonesia, Afghanistan's army and the Soviet one versus Mujahideen, Donbass' ethnic-Russians versus Ukraine's ultra-nationalists, Khashmiri Muslims versus Hindus, Khalistan-supporting Sikhs versus Hindus, and Palestinians versus Israelis, whilst not forgetting about Arabs/Muslims as terrorists versus the world. And I'm sure I'm missing a few obvious ones, but those should suffice.

Other than the last, which encompasses the driving attitudes of the rest and all that's wrong with the generalised views espoused by the West on such matters, what do all those other groupings share, each reflecting a conflict?

The first of each pair has been thoroughly vilified and is generally perceived as the 'bad' side that's often represented by irrational terrorist-like savages. This follows from the narrative that the Western media pummels into the populace; those who go against it risk being severely shunned.

In truth, knowing the details and what was endured by some, a whole other picture emerges, each and every time, showing the vilified in another light that, if examined with a  morally just eye, should force anyone to reassess one's definition of 'good side', and to see justification in what can only be construed as acts of desperation, no matter how despicably horrific those acts may be.

On such scales, evil very rarely occurs in a vacuum.

Most disconcerting is reflexively expressed view on "terrorism" and the link between today's Hamas in Palestine and the Soviet's "invasion of Afghanistan," labeling it such being a purely Western interpretation of what was, actually, a humanitarian intervention to rid the aggressively fundamentalist element that was squashing the otherwise thriving and progressive albeit socialist-leaning Eastern-European-styled life blooming in Afghanistan, the same element that the US allowed to take control of the country to then fight a 20-year war at a cost of a few trillion dollars to then hand control of the country back to those same fundamentalists.

There's no logic in fear and war; just point and shoot. Opinions or guns.

And, under the guise of war, it's anything goes, all the more so than usual.

Just food for broader thought; I'll return to this in another post.

•     •     •

Though I'll address this in that post, too, I do want to point out that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's firm support of Israel—which initially leaned toward "uncertainty"—along with a condemnation of Hamas as nothing more than vile terrorists, giving hardly any consideration to the plight of Palestinians, on the surface, does contradict what one would expect given his stance regarding the Khalistanis and Sikhs in general, for, even if one's sympathies lie with one struggle's victim yet not that of another, one ought to be able to see that one's justification-lending logic applied to one case instantly forces a nuanced view of the other in order to maintain the plausibility of one's position.

Drunk on Sobriety

While a sober and honest examination of any of the broader political, social, and moral aspects relating to any international issues—free of a nationalistic irrationality—is always great food to any discussion, that type of discussion is severely lacking and being cruelly starved.

"Toned down" the media may be, but I did come across a few freshly infuriating, one-sided reportages that delivered haughty hysterics wrapped in passive-aggressive, guilt-inducing condemnation, the whole, though, as I’d hoped, appears to be having a generally negative effect on the international community's view of India no matter how much anti-Canada hatred their efforts manage to drum up within India's borders.

But, some of the dust having settled among more reasonable elements of Indian society while the rest took a breather or turned their attention to cricket, I did, to my delight, come across more clearheaded pieces, one of which was shockingly different, though being so due to a minute shift in the author's adopted perspective that made all the difference: Sanjaya Baru didn't discuss the Khalistani-identifying Sikhs as abstract pieces of trash separate from, and of little value to, India; his treatment identified them as Indians embroiled in a domestic issue while he blurred the line between they and "anti-India" elements. Very adroitly handled, I found, which doesn't offer much of a positive if I were to point out that this offered a refreshing change from the perspective that seems to forget that at the other end of the abused Khalistani label lies a human being.

However, in keeping with the nationalist paranoia that's promoted and acted on by New Delhi and the BJP, the author's introductory paragraph does suggest a line that plays it very safe, hence why such a piece is allowed to be published:

"Recent events pertaining to pro-Khalistan activists in Western countries once again bring into focus the diabolical role of some overseas Indian groups working in tandem with various anti-India elements. This is a manageable challenge for the Indian State, even when caught on the wrong foot. One must, however, distinguish between the threat posed by such anti-India elements and the challenge posed by the growing political activism of overseas Indians, both in host and home countries. The latter draws attention to the complex nature of the political relationship between India and its worldwide diaspora."

Sanjaya Baru writes: Beyond Khalistan issue, BJP’s politicisation of diaspora is against national interest  |  The Indian Express

.

One of the more interesting aspects of that Baru piece, I found, was a rough breakdown of three predominant nationalist views that India ought to take toward Indians living abroad; these are all couched in, and defined by, aspects of colonialism, each of these betraying marked differences in the opportunities one sees, per the sublimated angst expressed. Or, in the words of the author: "In an essay on ‘India and Its Diaspora’ (Indian Foreign Affairs Journal, Oct-Dec 2006), diplomat Niranjan Desai recorded three strands of thinking within the leadership of the national movement on the potential relationship between overseas Indians and the home country.' These are:

1. The belief that India should retain "a close relationship with British imperial territories worldwide and [use] them as destinations for Indians." Proponents of this view "hoped that an over-populated India could relieve itself of this burden by continuing to encourage Indians to settle overseas."
2. Those in this group "asserted the rights of migrant populations and demanded equality of status and treatment of overseas Indians along with native populations across the British empire. As subjects of the empire, the group believed, both migrants and natives deserved equal status irrespective of national and ethnic origin. They, therefore, advocated that the government of free India be proactive in securing the rights of overseas Indians in their host countries."
3. In the third group are the likes of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, who "disagreed with all of them. Describing theirs as a “humanitarian” view, Desai notes that both Gandhi and Nehru wished that in overseas British territories, Indian communities should eventually merge with the native population and integrate with the host country. They should not retain any “dual loyalty” between home and host country. Nehru would often remind overseas Indians that they should seek to integrate themselves into their host countries, securing for themselves all the rights of citizenship of their host country."

What shocked me somewhat, I must admit, about the Hindutva-minded folks the more I contrasted behaviour and statements with actions and beliefs is how they revere Gandhi and Nehru in public, yet, albeit done with a pretense of respect, they don't hesitate to spit on them and spin a negative reinterpretation of their contributions, especially on all that pertains to pacifism, peaceful paths, and a non-opportunistic interpretation of "non-alignment".

Unlike Mahatma Gandhi, this being the reason that motivated a key RSS member to murder him: the Hindutva folks silently support violence as a means to their end. Conversely, though, they are damn quick to cry hinduphobia or whatever label suits their cries of international cries of victimhood should the tables ever be turned. I've zero respect for that type of behaviour, which has become a brashly adopted tactic in recent years

And Modi and the BJP's policies? They're best described by the second, but with a Modi twist, I suppose. PM modi, Baru argues, exploits a "highly personalised style of diplomacy and its use in domestic politics has blurred the distinction between the diaspora’s loyalty to the motherland and support for an individual politician."

I bolded what I think is a real salient point. It's also one that keeps coming back in diverse forms, and although this will never be acknowledged or mentioned by the BJP and those identifiable as ethno-nationalists, it certainly is a facet that the Hindutva exploit, Modi doing so particularly fiercely and efficiently.

The author adds:

"The BJP has, in recent years, taken a different view, increasingly mobilising overseas Indians for political gain at home. ... By blurring the distinction between religion and politics the BJP has also contributed to the politicisation of what was essentially social and cultural activity of overseas Indians. That this has had an impact on India’s diplomatic relations with nations hosting overseas Indian communities should not have come as a surprise to those well aware of the possibility."

Here as well, the author's nationalistic stance is made evident in the mildly-apologetic downplay of the media's role as agents of the BJP's propaganda arm when he states:

"Sections of the Indian media have played along with the BJP and interpret every criticism of the PM as criticism of the country. This trend has created great concern in countries that host the Indian diaspora. Many of them have begun to keep a close watch on political activists among overseas Indians for fear that Indian political rivalries could spill into their own domestic politics or derail diplomatic relations."

Surely, although making no reference to it, Baru must have had the events that unfurled in Leicester, UK, in mind? Most except the Hindus seem to be in agreement on the fact that the blame for having triggered that event rests on the Hindus and some anti-Muslim hate... I heard that "young Hindu men marched through the streets chanting 'Jai Sri Ram'–a Hindutva war cry–and attacked Muslims."

While New Delhi claims to care about all Indians but has an established history of disregarding all but the Hindus or the non-Hindus who are real keen on being considered second-class citizens, and as New Delhi also complains about vandalism on Indian missions that it labels "terrorism", what the Hindutva pushers fail to acknowledge but try to hide from the world is that there "has been a spike in anti-Sikh hate crimes in the UK and Australia," or that, in Canada, it is mostly Hindus who have been behind attacks on Sikh schools, which have been "routinely vandalised and sprayed with racist graffiti", which is what the Hindutva crowd call "terrorism", I believe.

And while New Delhi obsessed over a grieving Sikh leader and friend of the deceased, Nijjar, telling Indians in a fit of rage that they should return to India, New Delhi never seems to want to recognize the cries of Ron Banerjee, a Canadian Hindu nationalist who "openly called for the genocide of Muslims and Sikhs last year."

Game Blame

In Australia, a recent "attack" on a Hindu temple that New Delhi instantly pinned on Khalistani terrorists was deemed by many in the Brisbane community to have been actually perpetrated by Hindus; this revelation upset the Indian nationalists something fierce, who see such as an indictment of all of India's Hindus. 

Firstpost had reported on 3-Oct: 

"After media reports emerged alleging Hindus, instead of Khalistan extremists, of having orchestrated the vandalism of a temple in Brisbane March 4, the Queensland Police have clarified that they have not reached any such conclusion nor have they released any statement to this effect."

The portion I bolded is hilariously sad, in a way, showcasing who the media wants the blame to be pinned on no matter the findings rather than simply reporting official claims and contextualising these within a broader political landscape... like reporters are meant to do.

The Indian state and its media were quick to place all the pressure they could on anyone linked to 'the case', this, for the Hindutva folks, taking precedence over any murder, I'm sure, for good diplomacy and all.

From what I can gather, the police seems to be in agreement with the community, but they've no hard evidence and, so, have wisely opted to do their job, which includes not pointing any firm finger at anyone or any one group, but officials state neither having ruled out, per the article's claim, any Hindu involvement.

Nonetheless, Firstpost pushed its politics on readers—not the news—and concluded with the grossly biased and meaningless opinion of Amendra Singh, president of Australian Hindu Media, who'd posted on X:

“Reports suggesting that Khalistanis have been absolved from this attack are laughable. The basis for the reports appears to be a passing comment in Right to Information documents obtained by Khalistani sympathisers. Among much other information, one of the documents contain a ‘theory’ that the attack could have been carried out by persons other than Khalistanis.

“There [sic] not an iota of evidence to support this ‘theory’. The suggestion that Hindus would deface their own place of worship is baseless and absurd.”

Note that similar claims have been made about some cases of vandalism—uh... sorry, meant "terrorism"—carried out on some of the Hindu temples in Canada; there have been allusions and allegations that Hindus were behind some of these.

There were some legitimate cases of break-ins in 2020 and 2021, while the nation was in COVID lockdown, but the one 'major' case involved wayward teens who'd known that the temples collect cash donations that people can drop in locked boxes and took those, seeking easy drug money in.

As far as I know, even if New Delhi pinned the misdemeanor on Khalistani terrorists aided and supported by Canada, none of those were linked to them; what the Khalistanis can be unquestionably accused of is of holding protests in front of Indian missions in Canada as well as the UK, US, and Australia, and some of these have resulted in very limited property damage and/or vandalism. Things can get heated at these events, and there have been some pushing and shoving, though an amount that suggested "anger in reaction to treatment served" and nothing remotely close to the "assassination attempt by crazed anti-India extremists" that New Delhi would like all to believe.

This does the raise the question: Surely, if Indians are protesting the Indian government, New Delhi must realise that asking the Canadian government to simply block all such expressions of discontent is both immature, irresponsible, and lazily dictatorial?

What's evident is that New Delhi has not tried to understand the situation and to see things through a more reasonable and rational framing, or it has but disregards that reality, preferring instead to operate in a world where terrorists are genetically made, not socially molded.

One of the ways that New Delhi manages to avoid dealing with such scrutiny-failing logic is through guilt-inducing blame and by reinforcing the notion that what's being dealt with are vile entities that are detached from India, belonging in that abstract "scourge":category that the world must deal with as a whole, this being accomplished through the insistent usage of labels like "Khalistan terrorist" while never referring to them as Indian citizens except in an oblique manner, as a reminder of the control that New Delhi should be allowed to exert over these 'evil things' that don't really qualify as "beings".

Dehumanization. The US propaganda machine excels at this; they've dehumanized entire nations and ethnic groups.

But it's not a stratagem that's reserved to the US. Among a few other examples, Israel, for one, has certainly benefited from this, which they've spiced-up with anti-Semitism, a tactic that the Modi Mob has duplicated through its cries of Hinduphobia.

•     •     •

BNN Breaking is a new news site, founded in 2022 by Gurbaksh Chahal, a Punjabi-born Indian-American Internet 'wild-child' who started a path out of school and toward fast fortune at 16 to eventually lose the respect of all, along with most of his money, given the difficult time he has when it comes to keeping one's fists off of his girlfriends; a video found by the police established that he'd hit one 117 times within an hour.

Chahal worked the "sales" end of the internet, making his money through ventures that exploited the nascent adverts and ad-clicks market, and the BNN site—the confusion with BNN Bloomberg intentional?—does have a formulaic, sales-pitch feel to it that's hard to miss with a visit on its "About Us" page.

Chahal, having burned bridges in Silicon Valley and the required moneyed entities that make their world go round, seems to have found a new way to delve back into the sleazier end of the WWW and info 'game'.

Notice the "Pond5" watermark in the picture that heads the BNN piece, below. Pond5 is a stock media company. One has to pay to have access to their galleries; the watermark signifies copyright-violating use, which isn't a behaviour that's in keeping with the expectations set for site visitors through any of its self-promoting copy and the big names referenced as those in awe of BNN's analytical skills, though it is in line with the say-anything, two-bit-hustler's mentality that seems to define Chahal so well and the type of content-less, narrative-solidifying junk pieces that one actually finds on the site, while what's offered is reminiscent of what one finds on the internationally-geared Indian sites, including majors like NDTV, now also a part of the Reliance group.

The main difference, however, is the complete lack of overt links to, or mention of, India, for a focus on the Desi subcontinent isn't what Chahal offers, but BNN Breaking sure as hell seems to have made it its aim to provide all sorts of headlines and spins and empty bits that sure do happen to support the narrative weaved to New Delhi's benefit, which isn't always to India's.

The piece on the "string of break-ins" (above right) is "rehash" and "fluff" and an excuse for a headline that gives off a certain impression that can be easily linked to "terror", giving validity to the New Delhi's claims of targeted anti-India hate being on the rise in terrorist-facilitating Canada.

Pieces like the one below are posted simultaneously, the headline and an impression being the clear goal of that effort, and absolutely nothing else; what's mentioned in the opening paragraph is all there is—no stats or mention that support the claim of a "crime wave"—which the author turns into a 324-word article by offering sparse and vague details pertaining to each "major" crime. Sad.

Community-outlet handling of a major "crime wave"that's never substantiated—just a handful of quirky cases briefly mentioned—but said to be taking place in Canada's busiest city and financial hub, the type of thing that's so sparse and disjointed from its headline that it's of zero interest to someone living in Toronto, which makes such a thing in an internationally-geared outlet a clear sign that one should be looking at motivating factors behind such an effort and establish a discernible pattern if one is present, but rest assured that one will emerge if, indeed, you're dealing with a vehicle for propaganda.

BNN appears to be that, but, although I can't confirm this as of yet, it doesn't seem to have an agenda that's loyal to one cause; it seems to have many, such an effort being one of BNN Breaking's chief products, is the vibe I get, for there are too many pieces where the message is clearly not the aim, nor the actual message. Additionally, what's handled doesn't give the 'random' impression usually found when all one wants is content to draw traffic because ad impressions or clicks is the sole reason to have any content in the first place, period. Amen. Unlike what that self-righteous DMS&UY loser thinks—un-wealthy idiot, he is!

All is about creating an impression through a programmatic-ad-styled approach to news, hence, this is just a new wrapping for the same opportunistic and exploitative ad-click mentality that had initially convinced him to leave school at 16, already making good money buying and re-selling 'stuff' online.

In this case, and a main departure from similar ventures, stories aren't fabricated; certain aspects and events are amplified while others are disregarded.

One thing's for sure: big money was dumped on various SEO backchannels and indexing boosters and promo conduits, as well as on peripheral elements and entities, all done in order to attain top placement across the main recommendations engines and news aggregators. The kind of visibility BNN attained in under a year, with over 1,500 articles having made it to Yahoo News and MSN 's news feed, that's not really doable for a 'serious' news info of that type unless sleeping with the Google guys, having a mega-big name whose calls people actually want to answer and whose messages people feel like replying to—no longer so for Chahal—that's visibly active on such a project, offering a groundbreaking, wholly new, and still unique product, or, simply, one got damn lucky with the algorithm and who it happened to deliver your content to, these folks so overjoyed with such fare that they just had to share, encouraging others to do the same in between feeling a need to discuss your awesome site with whomever they bump into, virtually or in real life.

But with writing that's dripping with thickly cliched, sweet & sour sensationalism that's mostly fluff and context with no core resulting in stories that rarely qualify as anything that can manage to draw that kind of attention that quickly... unless some hefty time was spent on search and marketability optimizations, and much money was injected in sustained "sponsored content" placement and to ensure that one's site is repeatedly picked up as a targeted suggestion. Plus, Chahal has all the right connections in those ad-related spheres, and though they may not publicly talk to him, they'll still take money that privately came through him, I'm sure.

•     •     •

I plan on dedicating a post to some of the recurring lies and methods used by New Delhi and the media that willingly disseminates the spins and omits too much, so why bring up in this post the suspicion that Hindus may be behind some of the break-ins and vandalisms that New Delhi wants to blame on terrorists of the Sikh variety.or why mention BNN?

Because, while these do carry the broader implications shared by all topic-related examples presented within these series of posts, the ones offered under this title are particular instances whose complexities present fundamentals that can be contrasted against typical cases to gauge the veracity of one's stance and the consistency with which they apply their logic, if any is applied.

For example, BNN Breaking may be owned by someone that some readily identify as Indian, but Gurbaksh Chahal moved to the US when a young kid and he himself says that he has no real affiliation or loyalty to India, nor had he any opportunity to be indoctrinated by RSS ideology and to see value in embracing Hindutva in any manner that would motivate him to partake in their charade for political reasons that has him dumping large amounts of his own dough for the cause.

The lack of specificity in the campaigns that are discernible lead me to believe that money is the only true ideology that drives Chahal, placing him in a similar camp to those who've made a business out of riling up local folks wherever someone with money feels may be in need of some good ol' destabilising.

In that sense, a political belief can't be offered as justification, just as such a case belies justification for such means due to one's political beliefs given the absence of clear lines separating valid and co-opted efforts, or between acceptable forms of control and an abuse of power.

Further, info control applied on one's people and within one's borders may be defended by telling people not to meddle in that nation's affairs, but it becomes meddling once audiences outside that nation's borders are the intended target. But, if a propagandistic effort is initiated by a resident of a country targeted by the one who is to benefit from such efforts, identifying what constitutes meddling , rather than seizing an opportunity, isn't as clear cut.

Also, can we call it "meddling" if the false or misleading info that's disseminated outside one's borders only concerns that country and, therefore, can only affect external impressions of that country, and not the politics outside of it, although, it's always possible that another country's foreign policies may be impacted?

What about efforts from governmental agencies versus governmentally mandated ones versus private ones?

The Minister of Exterior Affairs, Dr. Jaishankar, made disparaging comments regarding George Soros's known Open Society efforts after Soros had remarked that a change in India's government would be a plus to the (Western) world. How does he and New Delhi reconcile that with what India allows itself, using its media to paint false images and malign anyone or any country that opposes it in some way, real or imagined, as well as the fact that India also utilises NGOs to sway local opinions and to help shape protests in foreign countries?

And if the Sikhs overwhelmingly claim "persecution" as the reason for seeking asylum in Canada, which Indian media tells us is a fraud (more in that upcoming part 2) as they implicate Canada in a made up "racket", does India have a right to specify the treatment they are to receive once in Canada as it monitors the movements and actions of any Sikhs inside our borders and expects Ottawa to deport—to face a harsh and unjust treatment—anyone that entertained notions of Khalistan, calling us out for failing to do so, all while branding Canada a "space for terrorists and extremists to grow"?

Should Canada have a right to ban political speech if it relates to separatist ideals? Some Indian officials thought it a "gotcha" to bring up Quebec's separatist past as if an ongoing struggle squelched by governmental efforts at the federal level (this, too: more in part 2), but talks of, and lawful political steps taken to that aim weren't rendered illegal. The actions of the Front de la libération du Québec (FLQ) were senseless one performed by a handful of misguided militants only, these thinking it wise to resort to fear and kidnappings to force "the crown" to recognize the seriousness of 'Quebecois' demands as concerns sovereignty. Pierre-Elliot Trudeau unleashed the army; things ended badly for the FLQ.

That the War Act was enacted had nothing to do with separatism, but wholly with the criminal actions undertaken by some group, who happened to be separatists. This was during our "Révolution tranquille" (Quiet Revolution), so things for Quebeckers—once oppressed under the rule of the English—were shifting through legit political means, just not quickly enough for some who were finding inspiration by the then revolutionaries in South America and Asia.

Today, there's far more talk of separating west of Ontario than there is in Quebec, as the Parti Québecois (PQ) managed to bring the province to referendums, the last one getting close but cementing a future without another one, people seeing little more than an emotional and financial drain that hindered developments while leading the province to a possible uncertainty, and it had also revealed that a "yes" on secession was fast becoming a mathematical near-impossibility, a fact that the provincial premier highlighted in a drunken comment involving "money and foreigners" that created quite a stir in the following weeks.

On the other hand is India's wish that any Khalistani attempts to hold a referendum be outlawed and punished.

Should separatist ideals themselves be banned? If so, wouldn't that make the US, and many other nations, rogue and illegal states?

And if many choose Canada for the lack of oppression they enjoy as concerns their beliefs, because, say what you will, in spite of our speech laws, it seems we value certain freedoms more than some who may preach their values.

Is Russia allowed to dictate to other countries that they actively monitor their citizens for anything it qualifies as "anti-Russia" rhetoric, as Moscow considers this to be terrorism, the attitude behind such comments presenting a clear threat to Russia's sovereignty and future? Can China, Iran, France, Mexico, or Zaire also impose such demands? How to keep track of one's country's criteria for who they qualify as an "undesirable" that they'd desire to have back?

Can Canada demand specialized, niche treatment for Canadians in India, holding New Delhi accountable for any hardships they may have endured? What about any anti-Trudeau talk that India isn't generating itself, can it be counted on to give a good spanking to any Canadian participating in any of that while in India?

Turn these types of questions toward the inverse expressed as "coups" that are now second nature to Washington and its wants outside US borders. Consider Israel in the mix, and the influence it applies on the US and the one the US applies on the Middle East. While at it, toss in Israel and Palestine in your considerations.

Those who support New Delhi's viewpoint, readily accepting the nefarious connotations linked with "terrorist" as those that apply to the Khalistani and their treasonous desire to secede, it goes without saying that they should applaud the efforts of London and Berlin, and now the US, too, among others, who see it fit to arrest anyone voicing pro-Palestinian sentiments, right?

Yet, that's not what's seen. A glaring hole in that consistency I prize. Not without reason.  

Modiating Matters

Those three aforementioned views relating to Indians living abroad and the relationship these ought to have with their 'motherland' and the role that a 'home country' should play in their lives is mostly on what I'd wanted to direct reader focus and reflection, for what underpins that discussion are issues that affect us all in one form or another, increasingly so as nationalities are both dissolving and, in reaction to that, being solidified.

Hence, with the rude awakening that was COVID, amidst the global changes and the forced globalisation scheme that was (is?) being wedged in as one naturally occurs and follows its course thanks to technology came inevitable pushback, the kind that, in the face of such changes, too often tends to be wrapped in a far-right, nationalistic reaction that, history teaches us, reaches a peak in popularity in a very cyclical manner that, in spite of the predictability offered, . These patterns are usually limited to set borders but occasionally spill into neighbouring countries, but, once in while, societal shifts occur on a grander scale that seems to want to pull many nations—if not limited to powerful entities—into a far-right frame of mind.

In that sense, given the "Nazis" in Ukraine, the far-gone-right and other extreme elements in the US, the rise in popularity of illiberalism, and, in the last couple of years, all the far-right governments voted into office to displace more left-leaning parties as extremist hate-groups of all kinds are popping up all over the globe, all as tensions keep springing up to tighten all those failed and lame layers that Western governments insist must be built on, because "always double-down and never hit reverse" is the real—though highly secret—translation of "E pluribus unum."

And, so, despite all the quibbling over the proper interpretations mired in Hitlerian comparisons that offer solid examples—though some would argue that—it is kinda real hard to overlook an indisputable instance of things going far-too-far-right, such as Israel's hard-right Netanyahu going into extreme territory in the hopes of covering his arse, the coalition he's sided with happy to trade in a genocide for a constitutional change, and anyways, Hamas' own actions have rendered the whole fuzzy, unclear; easy to spin into an "unprovoked" evil. But, in the end, who is it that's sporting the "terrorist" label, right?

Interestingly, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had initially adopted the same position as the West, offering his heartfelt support to Israel and a strong condemnation of Hamas terrorists, the latter being of a type that's equally a constant thorn in New Delhi's rear end, though keep in mind that India has far more terrorist groups and gang colours, many with separatist sub-shades, although there, as in Israel's bomb-loving landfills, they're all Muslims, too, except for the Christians, the Sikhs, the atheists, and all the other non-Hindu weirdos, of course.

So, there. India #1. Take that USA!

Following those public declarations, per the advice of his cabinet, Modi called a press conference, explained a BJP spokesperson in an  adopted "a more neutral position." One of Modi's advisers subsequently explained the change as Modi wanting to please the Americans as well as Israel, from whom India now gets a significant amount of weapons—Israel is currently India's biggest weapons supplier—as the BJP continues down the hyper-militarization path that Modi's Hindutva Horde has set the country on...

But he then changed his mind, believing a more neutral position to be the wiser course, per the ad vice he had received.

The latter was more in line with the long-held view of Palestine that had been a constant in India's foreign policy until Modi had taken power; the Congress Party or previous iterations of the BJP, as well as past coalition governments had all prioritized the Palestinians and their cause while New Delhi nonetheless maintained good relations with Israel due to its link with the US, but no meaningful, trade-based, bi-laterally-beneficial relationship had really been fostered between the two so that India had always felt a firmer bond with Palestine, for theirs was rooted in a struggle for independence and the shared understanding of both the post-colonial and on-going colonialist side-effects behind the tensions in the Middle East, vestiges of such lingering over India since 1947.

For the past few years, however, and until this past weekend, the Palestinians had become inconsequential, these not even receiving an ounce of consideration in the previous statements made by Modi as concerns that situation and the current, clearly genocidal developments underway.

The 12-Oct-2023 Foreign Policy piece states:

In 1974, India was the first non-Arab country to recognize the PLO as the “sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people,” and the next year, a PLO office was set up in New Delhi. India was again the first non-Arab country to recognize the state of Palestine when it was proclaimed in 1988. In multilateral votes after India and Israel normalized ties, India consistently sided with the Palestinian position, including support for Palestine’s application for complete United Nations membership.

After Hamas launched a multipronged attack against Israel from Gaza over the weekend, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, quite appropriately, sharply upbraided Hamas’s horrific actions. However, he has so far expressed no concern about the dire plight of the Palestinians trapped in Gaza.

“We stand in solidarity with Israel at this difficult hour,” he posted. “Our thoughts and prayers are with the innocent victims and their families.”

After speaking with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Modi added, “India strongly and unequivocally condemns terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.” Neither statement nodded at people in Gaza.  (Source)  

A key sign of this shift was New Delhi's abandonment of the widely-held tradition—by most world leaders—of making it a must to stop in Ramallah for a visit with the Palestinian government whenever one made an official stop in Tel-Aviv for a visit with the Israeli government. Modi no longer bothered to uphold that protocol, making no effort to even maintain the futile pretense he interpreted this as, having voiced the opinion that 'India has consistently shown its support, which hasn't changed the situation one bit.

The change in Modi's stance was purely politically motivated, and one has to wonder whether an informal BRICS meeting or phone conversation with Putin or other didn't play a role in bringing Modi back to , as the lot is seeking to establish itself further as the humanitarian-focused, anti-colonialist and non-supremacist-geared "axis" that the West is determined to see as evil imperialists who've duped the developing world since, after all, who in their right mind would prefer anything to do with Russia rapists and human-rights-violating Chop Suey over the saintly democracy of the God-led virtuous West?

So, like China and Russia, along with most located in that Global South—north of the equator not a disqualifier—India decided instead to rethink its message and to implore Tel-Aviv to show restraint and to soften its stance regarding Hamas slightly while still insisting that Israel had a right to defend itself.

This is, however, in keeping with the new form of non-alignment that's seen, which has far more to do with self-serving needs than with any peaceful path. The Modi government and India stand to gain something through a friendship with Israel while there are little benefits to be had through any firm friendship built with Palestine.

Oh, yeah! Other than the shared political benefits gained for BRICS, given that a unified pro-Palestinian position, like the one India used to have, would cement the BRICS partnership as the new way forward to the non-Western world who now see through their institutions' fraudulent means of colonialism.

This carries interesting implications, these adding weight to perspectives wherein the Modi government approaches humanitarian aspects as slogans and afterthoughts, the related acts done for self-promotional value above all else.

Modi first statement reflects the direction he's taken the country on; his instincts expressed the rightwing sensibility that befits the BJP's politics, which is what he's otherwise demonstrated through his actions or inaction.

His approach is to bend to pander, is what's deducible, the possible construals narrowing firmly to this one view the more one widens an examination of his government's policy positions and decisions.

This brings to light a paradoxical element of PM Modi's governance that, intriguingly, parallels aspects of Ukraine, and of Washington, who claims to care for Ukrainians whom they see as little more than expendable tools to an end that the West is happy to sacrifice them for as long as Kiev will let them.

Meanwhile, India cheers for Modi, who cares for all but controls with an iron fist the impression each is to have on his government as he destroys India to the benefit of elite Hindus.

What's remarkable is that Modi believes he should have a say, the shock arising naturally should one take into consideration the Hindutva pusher's propensity to see any foreigner daring to challenge India as, criminally, "meddling", while not forgetting about the grudge that's still held and mentioned—more so lately, of course—in regard to PM Trudeau's show of support for the Sikh farmers who'd made their way to New Delhi to protest. Voicing such an opinion was wildly outside the bounds of another nation's leader, was the judgment rendered by the Indian elites.

Absolutely nothing humanitarian can be said of the treatment they'd received right from day one. And New Delhi's treatment was of no concern to anyone, period. Whether Sikh farmer or Sikh Khalistan terrorist, the attitude shown by Modi and his Hindutva Horde is the same: bullying others into minding their own business, and shaming any human rights organisations who may back up the claims of nosy bodies, the same organisations they themselves refer to when it suits their purpose.

•     •     •

It's no secret that the Jews have tremendous lobbying power in the US... or do they?

These subjects always offer touchy aspects and tough-to-navigate waters that end up forcing one into a camp no matter how neutral one aims to remain, ditto if one is a Westerner that's opted to remain silent, which is taken as being the same as refusing to adhere to the establishment's preferred and/or laboured version of events.

That said, a slip up, such as identifying "Jews", and this despite there being an entity that aptly fits the label of"Jewish lobby", can easily result in one being branded an anti-Semite if they fail to properly qualify their usage, as more ethnic groups than not are represented by a lobbying group if not some special interest caucus, and in this sense, the usual, negative notions assigned to corporate lobbyists—the sense that the term usually draws up—have little in common with those ethnically-geared groups that actively see to the interests of those they represent.

I'm purposefully avoiding "religion" because that's where "present one's interests" and "coerce and bend to one's will" start to blur in ugly ways that are more closely aligned to the usual "lobbyist" sense. Anyhow, in terms of religion, I think all can agree that, in the US, Christian Fundamentalists, primarily through the GOP, hold far more sway over the White House than any other religious denomination.  

That's in part why one must be careful when referring to that "Jewish lobbying" group, but, mostly, because Jews aren't the issue; it's Israel. The surreptitiously-maintained-yet-obviously-applied pressure on—and through—the establishment that always seems to fall in line with Israel's weapons and security needs and budgetary gaps is actually the "Israel lobby".

I'm not quite sure what the proper practice is in terms of how each entity is to be viewed in relation to the other. Is the Israel Lobby a subset of the Jewish Lobby, which also regroups 30+ Jewish special interest groups with the soft influence that's expected and a part of a healthy democracy? If so, are Christian Zionists and non-Jews meant to be viewed as allies of the Jews, willingly fighting for their cause, or do they have their own agenda, their desire to see Israel continue to prosper motivated out of purely self-serving reasons? And what to make of all those American Jews who are against the hardline stance usually pushed by the Israel lobby, along with its machismal "new Jew" image?

Can you guess which ethnic-geared entity has the most powerful lobbying group in Canada? 

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress, comprised of 29 groups and hundreds of local groups operating under provincial branches. Which is why those Galicia SS, like the one who received a standing ovation in parliament, were rebranded as heros despite their heroic 'participation' being hidden from public records.

Knowing that such an entity has an influence on our government, especially in relations to events in Ukraine, and given Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland's roots, this should be upsetting to all Canadians.

Is that right? Or should I instead have said:  ... upsetting to just the non-Ukrainian Canadians?

Should Canadians be more sensitive to the hyphenated national identity practise common in the US?

Does the multicultural framework that's applied within Canada justify meddling in Canadian affairs in ways that hold no ground in a society like India's that's striving to attain ethnic homogeneity?

The difference as concerns Canada is sure to be along the same lines as the one that's put forth in Hindutva literature in regard to Muslim countries:

"Hindutva thus envisions India to have always been a Hindu nation, and perceives Islam and Muslims as an alien force which, through invasion and war, caused a seismic demographic shift to the detriment of the natural state of Hinduness in the subcontinent" (Flåten 2016).

Why Am I Reminded of Sanctions?

Frankly, in terms of the actual negative effects Modi's rash acts in revolt of a simple request for collaboration are having on the Indians, at home and abroad, this Al jazeera piece "India wants to take on Trudeau. It’s taking down its own diaspora | Opinions" was more interesting.

And, no, I haven't turned into an Al jazeera promoter; they swing wildly toward all sides, at times, making their agenda a hard one to pin down as they may very well occasionally mirror the liberal media perfectly just as they may undercut them with a deeply humanitarian perspective. It's more of a 'feel' that relies on a good understanding of particular events that Al jazeera is covering rather than any hard rule one can count on to sniff out their stance and agenda, this being so as it's one of the truly rare 'international' outlets

Surprisingly, Al jazeera's "The Bottom Line" hosted by Steve Clemons—who's not shy to lie and bend things to the establishment's desired narrative—recently had world-renown economist Jeffrey Sachs on as a guest to discuss the Ukraine war; he hasn't been shy about placing the blame on NATO, nor about qualifying the West 's behaviour as stupid and dangerous.

Roughly a year ago, Clemons had that despicable crook and opportunistic fraudster, Bill Browder, on his show, the two clearly lying in support of the anti-Trump and anti-Putin double-whammy narrative then preferred by our rulers, and a crook; they'd indirectly trashed people who held a view such as the one that Sachs was now invited to tell, for, without a doubt, Clemons and his producers and higher ups were all very familiar with Sachs' views long before booking him for a 5-Oct-2023 appearance.

That seems like a clear sign that Washington is now desperate for an exit ramp, but one that the Pentagon can spin into some sort of victory that will allow them to save face and avoid having to fess up to all the lies.

•     •     •

That said, it's hard to say whether New Delhi seems to be cluing in on the consequences of its knee-jerked revenge/pressure tactic applied through its visa ban and the demand to withdraw 41 diplomats, both of which Trudeau has not countered since, after all, “Canada is not looking to escalate,” a phrase that the India media loved to bounce back as a form of derisive insult, one said whilst unable to assess one's own actions and their full significance, apparently?

For it is the Indians who are feeling the effects of Modi’s actions, these meant to be seen as reprimand for daring to make "absurd" allegations.

Also tossed in there but barely discussed is the fact that Modi was "reportedly in the process of cancelling Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) cards for those who have supposedly carried out “pro-Khalistan activities and anti-India propaganda”. The OCI card provides lifelong, visa-free access to foreign citizens of Indian origin. Canada, on the other hand, has continued to issue visas to Indian citizens."

Be aware: the wrong banner may get an Indian kicked out of India. So always praise India and Modi. No matter what. If you value being Indian.

But relax, at least. on the bright side, "Anti-Canada rhetoric and personal attacks on Trudeau have been on overdrive in India from the government and from media houses that have followed suit," because this deserves to be applauded, somehow?  Heaven forbid Canada should establish anti-Canada laws and condemn hate-filled anti-Canadian lies! That'd be bad news for assassins, maybe? But, presently, it'd instantly turn more than half of India into "terrorists", if Canadians were to apply India's logic, I guess?

But. back to the down side, though, we're also informed that "Canadian citizens of Indian origin who don’t have an OCI card and visit India regularly to visit family, attend social gatherings or attend to their businesses are now unable to travel."  

Plus, with far more students and other groups finding themselves traveling to the West—though doing so by going easterly—or traveling to India during summer vacations, holidays, and study breaks, to eventually come back and resume their studies or employment, etc., which includes all those beginning school , though all those due back for the September semester would already get a tardy slip, no doubt, but, nonetheless, the situation has been causing some troubles, but mostly worries, for Indians and members of their diaspora.

Meanwhile, those whose papers are in order and who don't fear reprisals for any anti-India funny business who find themselves having to leave the country are afraid that the Canadian government will eventually decide to retaliate, leaving them unable to get a visa granting them re-entry back into Canada.  

Additionally, the uncertainty created by the situation has resulted in a high-volume of queries regarding travel conditions, much of it sparked by bogus travel advisories that warned Indians of “growing anti-India activities and politically condoned hate crimes and criminal violence in Canada”.  With a staff reduction imposed as 41 more a re expect to be pulled out India, the backlog is sure to affect Indians far more, especially since Canadians can't even apply for a visas, their entry into India being barred in retaliation for the allegations made by the Canadian government.

•     •     •

News18, which is part of the Hindutva-serving media arm of Mukesh Ambani's Reliance empire, offered a look on the matter as well, which they've taken to calling a "standoff". Gotta love the summary, which doesn't summarise the purported topic one bit, it just uses the space to set the narrative of an evil and irrational Canada, albeit the fact that events hadn't demonstrably unfolded as implied.  

Studied Students

A story published Friday, 13-Oct, in The Canadian Press titled "Financial stress, exploitation takes deadly toll on international students as temple reveals 47 deaths" dealt with the same Indian student topic but brought the focus on the students and their situation, the "row" a mere backdrop to what really mattered: the Indian students' welfare.

The piece opens up with the harsh and sad fact that "at least 47 international students from India have died from drug overdoses and suicides in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, according to figures gathered by the Gurdwara Dukh Nivarin Sahib in Surrey."     

The article states that: "Citing Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) data, Professionals in International Education News reported that Canada had a total of 807,750 study permits in 2022, an annual increase of nearly a third, and that 41 per cent of study permits are held by Indians."

I'm hoping there's a decimal place missing to that 41% or we're looking at 331,177.5 Indians, and fractions of anyone of any nationality tends to get messy, perhaps, even lead to a criminal investigations if unable to produce proper data protocols. And getting rid of 0.5 of an Indian is never easy. And far harder than twice as many Blacks if half an Hindu the Hindutva Horde kept their eye on.

I kid. Suicide isn't an easy subject.

Sure enough, as one would expect—and not just because the title said so—financial stress plays massively into this, while being away from home and all the ways that one is comfortable with are now alien except through diaspora-linked entities, making isolation another important part of the problem.

With that, the same costs that Canadian students are faced with, if no longer living at home, are the same as the ones faced by international students, who often see themselves being slapped with all sorts of extra costs, from purely exploitative ones to justified, tax-related ones. 

On the exploitative end are all kinds of fraudulent services (citation, below) that often operate in lien with institutions or schemes based in the student's home country if not limited to these, as well as abuses imposed by employers taking advantage of the situation they face through below-minimum-wage cash jobs.

Otherwise, I find it normal and reasonable that foreign students pay higher per credit rates than Canadian citizens whose taxes partially subsidize schooling, including at the university level. However, the article offers the following: "estimates from topuniversities.com calculate domestic undergrads pay $6,463 a year while international students pay around $36,100." 

The difference makes it clear that schools are relying on foreign students to cover funding cuts and increased costs, as the average fee for Canadians is only a tad higher than the one I paid over 20 years ago.

But, despite the attempts to smear Canada with a "special" on the sad state of affairs here, as told by the 'disillusioned' Indian student's who'd come to Canada and hadn't been served up with steady rainbows, as I'd mentioned, it would appear that much of the blame lies within India and Indian culture; the article tell us: 

Most Indian students come to Canada in hopes of becoming permanent residents and to be able to work in Canada. This is due to a scarcity of well paying jobs in India as well as corruption.

Jeevan Sangha, former editor of a South Asian magazine in B.C., says “one of the biggest issues that we’ve seen is that a lot of the exploitation is happening by the hands of our own community.”

There are also many unequipped students who come to Canada because universities offer referral fees of about $2,000 per student to International English Language Testing Systems (IELTS) centres in India.

In 2018, Niagara College found that a third of its Indian students required support to complete assignments in English.

Immigration Consultants in India, at times also falsify documents to send more students, part of the reason why 700 students in Canada faced deportation earlier this year.

IELTS centres have also been found falsifying test results.

In 2018, for instance, Niagara College had to re-test 400 students who were suspected of having fake test results. In 2022, Times of India reported another 950 students in Canada and the USA who had allegedly paid roughly $23,000 each for fake IELTS results. (Source)

In all the complaints related to this subject that have been voiced over the last few years, all that comes out of those that can eventually be identified as Hindutva pushers is a narrow view that seeks to lay the blame on any and all factors that lie outside of the Hindus' sphere of control, and anything that can be drummed up and offered to substantiate whatever attack is being made is served up to that end and rendered valid through all that these efforts disregard or omit.

What I always end up wondering is whether the news folks who push these one-sided semi-stories are aware of those details that redirect blame toward India, or do they believe that the causes and issues that they manage to attach to whomever their target du jour happens to be actually reflects the topic they present well. If so, I can only imagine that their staff do all the leg work for these anchors whose focus is on looking good, sounding sharp, and reading what’s in front of them?

Facilitating? Who and What?

If we accept that talk of separation should not be allowed given what it may encourage and the beliefs this may possibly instill in others, what the hell are we to make of India’s gross lies and attempts to defame both Canada and non-Hindutva-embracing Sikhs, New Delhi’s efforts geared toward generating a hatred, which they oftentimes achieve through uninterrupted campaigns aiming to vilify whomever or whatever the government deemed to be a national threat, even if for the lamest of reasons.

The following video posted on India Today’s site actually substantiates none of the claims made by the Indians, who, once again, have made sure to include no Sikhs in the conversation; they’re only allowed to publicly voice a short, pre-approved phrase on the issue, as you can be sure that no outlet will take the risk if there’s any leeway possible for them to express their genuine sentiments on the issue of Khalistan and/or any persecution endured by Sikhs.

India Today presents “details of the case” that are accessible to all as if a ta-da that reveals India’s innocence but does none of that.

And Jaishankar “calling out Canada” is also a ridiculous claim to make, as Jaishankar merely refuted the accusation and, again, called the allegation “absurd”. There's a lot of that in Indian news segments, as if repeating the same content-less assertions somehow grants these the content that's claimed to be there but isn't. Seems to track with a certain crowd, anyhow.

Regardless of the false indignation put on display for the world in the hopes that acting as if a victim of prejudicial aggressions played out by Canada will convince the globe that "India" and "murder" are two words that simply do not belong together, that the Indian government and media so brashly lies to achieve as much, doesn't that count as being way worse than the apparently evil act of daring to allege that a country's government may be linked to an assassination if considering the aim toward which such behaviour is applied?

Plus, Canada didn't surprise India with a public announcement in its parliament; the Hindutva media machine was already spinning narrative-subverting lies while Trudeau was still in India, which, along with the cold treatment Trudeau received that was later turned into “Modi scolded Trudeau”, substantiate claims made that New Delhi had been informed in the weeks prior to the G20 summit it hosted, but that it refused to give adequate reply to the matter and snubbed Trudeau after he tried to follow up with the case once in New Delhi.

The announcement made by Trudeau was to advise Canadians, publicly giving a warning to the Indian diaspora of what was to come due to the media frenzy that the case was to generate since the Canadian government, finding themselves being refused collaboration by New Delhi, was deciding to press on with the case anycase anyhow as the biggest piece of evidence, it turns out, which is a fact oft omitted by Indian media and officials, is an intercepted conversation between Indian officials wherein the mention of Nijjar's assassination is made.  

What's bold is India's attack on Canadian police forces

Details of Hardeep Singh Nijjar's murder accessed; Jaishankar calls out Canada over supporting Khalistanis - India Today

The Unbearable Illusion of Being (Indian?)

At the latest UN meeting in New York, India's Minister of Foreign Things, Dr. "Mind Yo Beeswax" Jaishankar, delivered his usual 'nothing but good to come with India as G20 leader, for more problems have been solved by the Indians in the 15 minutes after the summit's opening speech than in all of the history of non-Indian progress achieved since the dawn of time until today.

"...this willingness to work in an open-minded manner on specific domains is now [thanks to India] a defining characteristic of the emerging multipolar order," said Jaishankar, who then addressed the assembly's President, having said, "all nations pursue their national interest. We, in India, have never seen that as being in contradiction with global good. When we aspire to be a global power, this is not self-aggrandizement but to take on greater responsibility and make more contributions."

More of that self-aggrandizing talk followed; in there was an assertion that 'greatness' and a propensity for limited-to-India 'good' are what make India's G20 Presidency not only much different than all those that preceded 2024's, but India's is and always will be unrivaled, certain to forever be remembered as the greatest G20 summit in history, having transformed a toilet back into a planet in under 12 months! So says the promo, anyway.

Hearing the Hindutva extremists, what all should question is how humankind made it this far without India having gone global centuries ago in order to ensure that millions of lives are saved and brought out of poverty, for the world has hope with an India going global, taking our hands, and leading the way to a New World done right for the first time, finally, as this also coincides with India's first time wielding ultimate power over the universe. Those G20 meetings; boy, we're we ever seeing those all wrong until India came along and told us how to see things, I guess.

I'm being tongue-in-cheek, obviously, but only slightly so; the bragging that's offered hand-in-hand with a detachment from reality is dizzyingly maddening at times and maddeningly insulting at other times, and it all turns very creepy after a while, with cultish vibes, too. And it takes all kinds of forms, such as the "...which produces genuine leaders..." in the subtitle (right).

I can't possibly be the only one who's struck with an urge to grab a marker and doodle Hitlerian moustaches all over their nationalist faces as they prattle their political infomercials that sell an oversaturated image of an India-as-global-leader wherein the coarse, ugly film grain is impossible to miss once one has peeked below the thick surface gloss weaved by Modi and media, having taken the time to examine any segment individually, earnestly?

Actually, I probably am the only one. And that's OK. Maybe. Worrisome, perhaps, but OK(?).

To be brutally frank: for any Westerner, the Modi Mob's pom-pom girls and brouhaha boys turn rather insufferable rather quickly if one is submitted to Indian news for many continuous hours. It's hard to describe the precise and disturbing vibe that shines through, though the slow-mo, happy-but-violent-suburb scene in David Lynch's Blue Velvet did come to mind when I tried to seize on a way to describe the feeling that washes over me after too many segments. It's an onslaught of grotesque absurdism wrapped up in a savage banality that expresses the violent consumerism one would expect had K-Mart conquered the world and its owners had turned disturbingly dictatorial. Nightmares involving brown and orange polyester spring to my mind, but that's an "age thing", no doubt. So is the K-Mart bit, I bet. But, were you there, you'd know precisely what I'm talking about.

The elements and mechanisms used by Indian media to their propagandistic and cheerleading end are now, for the most part, ubiquitous, being employed daily in media outlets throughout the world, but few have done so in such a sustained and mean-spirited manner that reflects deep passion with a lazy follow-through as what the Indian media is now delivering consistently since the BJP's grasp tightened firmly over New Delhi and its institutions.

And, having already surpassed what I can manage to absorb without my mood turning sour and super sweary for the next few hours, Jaishankar continued, hitting a sore spot that gets me from zero to swearing in less than two blinks  

"When Sri Lanka faced its economic crisis, it was India that first stepped forward," added MP Jaishankar, who managed to subtly suggest that much of the world is now 'dependent' on India, "and they follow our experiences closely and evaluate our solutions for the larger relevance."

Wow. Way to dress up sickly opportunism, truly despicable competitive practises, and an obsessive self-love as something noble once combined. It takes a special kind of scum to achieve such a feat, methinks.

Assessed properly, all the goals that Indians have dedicated to a plan, including their objectives and the language that's associated with these, all provide too many glaring contradictions, some of these being of a fundamental nature that rips open heavy concerns regarding New Delhi's genuine intent while simultaneously raising many doubts in regard to its trustworthiness and loyalty.

For me, this issue and the manner that it's manipulated is one that definitely stretches well past what I'm willing to tolerate.

Due to the harm it seeks to inflict on a nation through the fear it instills in another, it's also one where it becomes proper to ask whether such behaviour also qualifies as terrorism?

To make matters worse, India promotes the real culprits behind Sri Lanka's financial woes, and it meddled in its affairs in a manner that wasn't to the best of Sri Lanka's interests, directing it to the IMF to boot while India lent it money per the Western model, which places a burden on Sri Lanka while offering no long-term gains or benefits.

The problem is the same for nearly all developing nations, which India knows full well, as these, in order to "open up their markets to the world", have been forced into the veritable debt trap laid out by the West through its institutions, namely, in this case, the IMF and World Bank.

But anything, no matter how damaging to a nation it may be, is better for all than China if you're India, am I getting that right?

China stepping in as it did forced a positive change for the developing world, one that Modi tries to pass off as India's doing while spitting vile venom at China's efforts, smearing Beijing at every turn without an ounce of thought for all those who have benefitted and all those who may benefit. Because harming others is beneficial to India.

Even the highly-biased, London-serving and Commonwealth favouring think tank, Chatham House, concludes:

"Sri Lanka is not in a Chinese debt trap. Its debt to China amounts to about 6 per cent of its GDP. However, Sri Lanka’s generally high debt levels show the country needs to improve its debt management systems."

Under its Belt & Road development program, China has funded several large-scale infrastructure projects in Sri Lanka, which include: an international airport, hospitals, a sports stadium, a convention center, and a port in the southern coastal town of Hambantota, the last striking a fair bit of controversy because of India's interest in the area, who's now in partnership with Japan for a trade route linked through several ports.

To offer just one viewpoint that contradicts the one pushed by India, and the West, obviously, who's hoping to preserve those institutions despite India being one of the few remaining non-Western fans they have left, even if there's a slew of evidence that establishes the contrary opinion and none to support the one India loves to shout, well,  here's one from a Sri Lankan economist, who states:

When considered as a nation, all Chinese loans are profitable.

The Confusion: Government Taken Separately from the Nation as a Whole Gives the Wrong Impression

Confusion prevails when looked at the loan purely from the government point of view. The government is liable to repay the full loan and interest. That includes 40% of the project cost that came back to Sri Lanka’s private sector, goods and services purchased by Chinese workers in the island and paid by them to the private sector and indirect economic benefits earned by Sri Lanka’s private sector during the construction stage.

This is what ails Indian, American and NGO lobbies. They conveniently forget the massive economic benefits already earned by Sri Lanka’s private sector (40% plus much more) even before the project is completed. They also forget indirect economic benefits that are continued to be earned by the private sector after the project asset is operational.

It is not that they forget these; they maliciously disregard these benefits to Sri Lanka.

Debt Trap: The Unfortunate Leftover of US and Indian Pushed Reconciliation[.]

Sri Lanka is sadly in a debt trap. This is not due to Chinese loans as Chinese loans have already showered Sri Lanka with more than 40% of the loan value as private sector economic benefits even before project completion! Debt trap is due to commercial bonds issued in various western capitals at commercial USD bond rates.

You can read more here: 

15-May-2019 Is Sri Lanka Really a Victim of China’s ‘Debt Trap’? | LankaWeb 

13-Oct-2020 Why Chinese Loans to Sri Lanka are Well Worth | LankaWeb

Betting. Wrong. And Horses. This is Not Sikh Stuff

I've offered lots to think about as concerns meddling, and for the potentially problematic perspectives concerning such that arise and are seen.

Based on what I've examined versus what is said, Modi may seem like a good ally but my money would be on Xi. I'll touch on the whys in a brief "Overpass" entry,

I've skirted around the issue for some time, not daring to affirm a clear position, being well aware of the Indian government's propensity to lash back and out, and sideways, too, using the BJP prompted and guided media to spin any lies and flood the internet with them.

Inside India, New Delhi's version floods the nation and loud dissenters are silenced.

Whereas I see nothing to fear in the Chinese, that's not the case for the RSS-indoctrinated, Hindutva-embodied Hindus. Modi scares th ehell out of me, frankly. There's one man I wouldn't want to even mildly upset while standing in front of him. I can imagine him snap and froth all too easily.

And haven't we all seen enough yet to comfortably assert: The whole countering China thing is pure idiocy that has done nothing but blowup in the US and West's face.

Truly.

Ridiculous.

Not sure people worked things out, but, offering just one major blowback: Biden's recent muscling to "corner the chip market" may have triggered iPhone's slow demise while it's sure to have lost Apple head-spinning numbers in sales annually, leading to the closure of many manufacturing plants. And India that's always pissed on China and Huawei, pushing them out of their Indian market...

Like I said, what I'm seeing is India dig a whole for itself. It showed its hand to its BRICS partners—unless a ruse against the Americans—which places both funding dynamics and resources in the Global Majority's favour, an aspect I'll touch on in a brief "Overpass" entry.

Then you have morons, like Moron Chavda (right) and his pro-militarization guest that says a whack of stupid things, these spending their time fuelling a false reality and a false sense of greatness that may deflate with much damage.

So, yes, ditto as concerns the BRI; ridiculous and wasteful competition in order to retain control over key matters is what the US and India are pushing for, which is just another way of ensuring global division, doing it through enviro-taxing redundancy to boot. That's Ol' School thinking. Get with the times, boys!

All countries are open to join the BRI, and not as debt-trapped-idiots of China, who'd love to share the funding and handling of segments with rich countries. But not as a leverage over other countries for conflicts it itself did its best to instigate, or not. Those days: "bye-bye," is what the world says, minus a few haters and hegemoaners.

BRI. It's a global project they've, essentially, gifted to the world through its launch.

I'll be honest: I never thought I'd ever sound like a Chinese advert, but there you go.

For India, hate and delusions of grandeur are what's motivating their share of global idiocy and instability—contrary to New Delhi's claims—but what is the West's true motivation?

Oddly, they sell us fear but justify it through their greed.