“As if to underwrite the pain, Canada Day comes a week after the June 23 anniversary of Air India 182. … Voices rise to sing ‘we stand on guard for thee.’ It is only after the euphoria has passed that certain minority groups realize they are not a part of ‘thee.’
So wrote my late mother in an op/ed carried by the Vancouver Sun and the Calgary Herald in 1995. A decade after the bombing, the neglect of the victims and their families by Canada en masse was still a raw wound. Yet there was a degree of hope that Canada could rise to more than song, more than mere ceremony, in its attention to all whom had earned the right to the title of Canadian.
Nearly four decades on, hope seems almost a fool’s errand. From a survey conducted by the Angus Reid Institute, “nine-in-ten Canadians know little or nothing of Air India Flight 182 terrorist attack that killed 280.” It is only among males and females aged 55+, that awareness is moderately strong; 69% and 62%, respectively, indicated that they were aware “of the main events.” This in contrast to males and females ages 18-34, where 53% and 62% stated they “had never heard of this until now.” While the outcome of the survey was hardly a surprise, it is jarring to see data confirming what those of us with connections to the victims already surmised: that awareness of the worst terrorist activity in Canadian history is largely confined to those with living memory of 1985. Shachi Kurl, President of the Angus Reid Institute, aptly captured our sentiments.
There are many reasons as to why Canadians are so uninformed. At its core is a fateful decision made implicitly, or perhaps explicitly, by many Canadian politicians a long time ago and perpetuated thereafter: a perverse insistence to treat those sympathetic to the bombers as Canadians, but the victims and their families as Others.
This was made abundantly clear by retired Supreme Court Justice John Major who led the public inquiry into the bombing. He found that, in those early years, the families were treated as adversaries. Later, politicians endeavored to say as little as possible about the bombing, despite its infamy as the worst instance of aviation terrorism the world had seen prior to 9-11. (Two exceptions are the Honourable Joe Clark and the Honourable Bob Rae; both men deserve their honorific for their conduct on this file and other matters pertaining to human rights.)
The predilection of most Canadian politicians to distance themselves from the existence of extremism has only emboldened those players among the Indian Canadian population. Even last month’s public veneration of Indira Gandhi’s assassins and the mastermind behind the Air India bombing, went unremarked by Canadian political leaders. Such is the political strength of a small minority among the Indian Canadian population.
No doubt that minority will bristle at my christening them as “Indian Canadians.” Their hostility to India lies at the root of all this. But no other word is available. Given that the goal of the bombers was retribution against India, and to push India into carving out of an independent state Khalistan for some Sikhs (those who follow a particular sect within Sikhism, see also here and here), Khalistani extremism would be the accurate phrase. But apparently that is forbidden. In 2018 a Canadian national security report which made reference to “Sikh (Khalistani) extremist ideologies and movements” became a target and was subsequently altered to language deemed less offensive: “extremists who support violent means to establish an independent state within India.” Even the name of the sought-after independent state could not be uttered.
As Ujjal Dosanjh and Shuvaloy Majumdar wrote in 2020: “This is not the first time that politicians buckled to the pressure of well-funded fringe activists, but it was the first time a Canadian (and Five Eyes) national security document succumbed to the politicization of an issue that should always be above politics: national security. In the political row last year over the language to define the problem, was hidden another first: It is the first time that the issue of an independent Khalistan had been elevated to among the top five national security issues for Canadians (Foreword, p.4).”
It has not been lost on the many non-Khalistan-inclined Indian Canadians that concerns over other forms of domestic extremism have the attention of Canadian politicians, as they should. Groups that organize around themes of misogyny, racism, white-supremacy, anti-LGBT2SQ+, anti-Semiticism – the list is disturbingly long – must be called out. Presumably some politicians sincerely recognize the importance of using their stature to promote principles of equality and fraternity for the betterment of all. However, they stay silent when it comes to Khalistani extremism. That such silence contributed to the deaths of 280 Canadians makes political silence today even more astounding, as I said during a conversation with Ryan Jespersen about the bombing of Air India 182.
As I wrote last month, courtesy of Terry Glavin, “Adopting silence on this topic, instead of investing in an effort of meaningful dialogue, has enabled misinformation to flourish. Appeasing extremists, instead of engaging with all Canadians, has only made the situation worse.” Regarding the recent threats made to Indian diplomats, through an interview with Indian media on July 3, Terry Milewski said: “Surely this will, we have to hope, introduce at least a change in the Trudeau government… they can denounce this behaviour, they can make it clear, loudly and publicly, that threatening diplomats in this way is not acceptable.”
While Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly made a public comment via Twitter in the evening of July 3, it was neither loud nor even explicit as to what it pertained to:
As Terry Glavin writes in today’s National Post, “Indian authorities have good reason to be concerned about Canada’s determination to keep a lid on a recent upsurge in Khalistani violence… the Khalistani movement has undergone a revival in recent years, with Canada again providing a haven for several key figures wanted on terror-related charges in India.” Terry’s article is well worth reading, explaining as he does the sequence of events that led to the calls for violence that Joly concedes are “unacceptable.”
Perhaps the Canadian government is finally ready to fulsomely address the deeper roots of Khalistani extremism. But I am not optimistic. As Kurl’s polling confirms, this is not an area of awareness for most Canadians and so domestic silence will not pose any political difficulties to sitting MPs.
This returns me to the task of conveying to Canadians what happened to their fellow Canadians 38 years ago. Daunting as this is, it is a task that cannot be abandoned. And to that goal, there are a few bright lights to suggest maybe, just maybe, change is possible.
Prior to this year’s Air India 182 anniversary, the Edmonton Journal carried an op/ed of mine, in which I advocated that our iconic High Level Bridge be lit in red and white on June 23, in recognition of the Canadian origin story to the National Day of Remembrance for Victims of Terrorism. Given that other colours had already been selected for the bridge’s lights, this too seemed a fool’s errand. But somewhere in the City of Edmonton, staff members were receptive to my op/ed; they changed the colours. I hope they know how much others appreciate this visual, public recognition of the loss of 280 Canadian lives, including 137 youth, to terrorism in 1985.
High Level Bridge, Edmonton, 23 June 2023
As sunset took hold, those lights shone brighter. Perhaps a sign of better days to come.
High Level Bridge, Edmonton, 23 June 2023
Remembering June 23 