Jagmeet Singh’s troubling dodge
Here is an incomplete list of qualifications for being prime minister: you should be able to categorically condemn political violence; you should hold a clear position on the national unity of our international partners; and you should not associate with political movements whose views you cannot endorse.
It is cause for real concern, then, that Jagmeet Singh, leader of the federal New Democrats and aspiring prime minister, can claim none of these.
After it was revealed that he has sometimes attended rallies in support of the Khalistani cause, an occasionally violent Sikh separatist movement in India, Singh was presented with a number of predictable questions to which he could not provide clear or consistent answers.
Does he support Indian unity, as is longstanding Canadian policy? Singh says as leader of a federal party it is not appropriate that he take a position. But surely this represents a sharp diplomatic departure that would strain relations with a country with which Canada has long struggled to deepen economic ties.
We and others decried Justin Trudeau’s gaffe-filled trip to India for its potential to set relations back, but at least the prime minister could say without hesitation that he supports a united country. Moreover, Singh’s attempt to finesse the issue surely compromises his ability to defend national unity at home.
In any case, if Singh intends to be seen as neutral, why is he frequenting rallies where separatist flags are flown and Sikh terrorists are celebrated as martyrs? The NDP leader says he will continue to attend such events to promote human rights. But he has plenty of less fraught platforms from which to disseminate his views. Canadians can be forgiven for wondering if something else is going on.
Singh is wrong that he should remain impartial on the Khalistan question and wrong that he can appear so while still attending Khalistani rallies. But most disturbing is his seeming inability to categorically condemn political violence.
In an opinion article published in the Globe and Mail on Thursday, Singh wrote movingly of the impact on his family and on his own development of the1984 massacres perpetrated against Sikhs by the Indian government. He wrote that he understands the anger of those who turn to violence, but that he condemns terrorism without qualification.
It’s a good piece. To understand the pain of the oppressed, and how it can metastasize into violence, is essential to creating a safer, more just world. At the same time, to understand is not to justify.
Yet just a few hours after it was published Singh was once again dodging and dissembling on the question of violence, undermining his own important message. Asked on Thursday whether violence can be justified in the Sikh context, Singh responded with a particularly obfuscating word salad. “Well, I think you’re actually on the complexity of the situation,” he said. “Given that it’s complex, it requires that thoughtfulness to proceed forward.”
Consider the domestic implications of this mealy-mouthed positioning. In his article, Singh compared the intergenerational scars of what he describes as the Sikh genocide to those of the Indian residential schools and other policies of forced assimilation on Indigenous peoples in Canada. So what would he say about violence as a means to redress the injustices in Indigenous communities that persist to this day?
The failings that Singh has displayed over the last week are not simply a problem for his party. Singh is a charismatic young leader who has the potential to be an effective advocate for progressive ideals. His party’s platform includes a number of important proposals, from universal pharmacare to strengthened worker protections, that would make a material difference in the lives of Canadians, but which our government would seemingly prefer to avoid. We would all benefit from a real debate. We will all lose if Singh continues to torpedo his credibility.