WSN editor Jagmohan Singh sees the unfolding developments in Quebec and Alberta as a significant democratic moment—one that Sikh political thinkers in Punjab are watching closely to see what it reveals about how modern states respond to demands for self-determination.

Quebec has once again placed an uncomfortable but profoundly democratic question before Canada: if a people want to reconsider the political arrangement under which they live, should the state respond with fear—or with a ballot?

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon’s Parti Québécois has returned to government after the October 5 election, winning 59 of Quebec’s 127 seats. It does not have a majority, nor does its victory mean that Quebecers have endorsed independence. The PQ has secured 27.9 per cent of the popular vote, and according to pollsters, the current support for sovereignty remains around 30 per cent.

Yet a party openly committed to making Quebec an independent country can contest elections, win power and continue to argue publicly for another referendum. That is the point which Sikhs cannot fail to notice.

Nor is Quebec alone. On 19 October, the Canadian province of Alberta is preparing to ask its citizens whether the province should remain in Canada or whether its government should begin the constitutional process towards a binding referendum on separation. The present vote is itself non-binding, but the question is being put formally before the electorate.

Photo courtesy: Le Monde

Quebec and Alberta are very different political movements. Their history, grievances and social foundations cannot be casually compared with Punjab. Nor should anybody presume that Sikhs speak with one voice on sovereignty. They do not.

However, there are Sikh political organisations in Punjab which do openly seek self-determination. Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar), Dal Khalsa and Panj Pardhani Dal reiterated earlier in April from the portals of the Akal Takht their demand for sovereignty for Punjab and said they would pursue it through “legal, democratic and principled means.” These bodies are studying Quebec and Alberta closely—not simply because separation is being discussed, but because of how it is being discussed.

In his victory speech after Monday’s election results, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon said of the potential referendum: “Our national destiny will be achieved one day.” The same resonates in Sikh yearnings for self-determination.

Canada opposes unilateral secession. Its constitutional position is not that provinces may walk away whenever they choose. The Supreme Court of Canada made that clear in its landmark Quebec reference. The same Court also said something equally important: if a clear majority of Quebecers answered a clear question in favour of secession, Canada could not simply ignore that democratic expression. It would create an obligation to negotiate.

There lies the contrast with India.

The Indian constitutional system offers no comparable democratic route for a State or people seeking to reconsider their relationship with the Union.  India views advocacy of secession within the framework of treason, territorial integrity, unlawful activity and public order. Consequently, political demands touching self-determination enter the security discourse very quickly.

For Sikhs, that difference is not academic. Punjab has experienced the consequences of treating political alienation primarily as a law-and-order problem. The wounds of the 1980s and 1990s remain part of living Sikh memory. Even today, merely raising questions of sovereignty or self-determination can invite suspicion long before any serious democratic discussion begins.

Canada is demonstrating another possibility. It is possible for the province to say that we disagree with you profoundly; we will campaign against you vigorously, but you may organise, speak, contest elections and persuade your fellow citizens. This does not guarantee separation. Indeed, Quebec may reject independence again. Alberta may never proceed beyond its present exercise.

This is precisely the democratic point. The strength of a democracy is not tested when everybody agrees with the constitutional arrangement. It is tested when some citizens challenge the arrangement itself.

Various nationalities, religion- and language-based entities in the Indian sub-continent -from the Nagas to Manipuris, from Assamese to Tamils are taking interest in the developments.

For Sikhs watching from Punjab and across the diaspora, Quebec and Alberta therefore raise a broader question than whether another country will eventually appear on the map. Holding on to their aspirations, Sikhs ask whether the demand for self-determination can become a question for confident democracies, and whether India is a mature democracy.