海角社区官网

That I had the thought at all points to what Singh represented to many Sikhs and Punjabis like me. Yes, it mattered that he was the leader of a federal party during an election campaign, and a provincial politician before that, and a lawyer before that. But he was and is also one of our own. Now that he has stepped down as leader after a crushing defeat, having failed to win even his own riding, I鈥檓 left with an array of feelings 鈥� none of them terribly good.

Perhaps his position as the country鈥檚 most prominent Sikh is what caused that mischievous thought to enter my mind. Here, after all, was a very public figure who, having a culture and language in common with me, shared what is otherwise an almost entirely private part of my life. It鈥檚 precisely the hidden nature of that duality that one occasionally wants to make visible 鈥� even at inappropriate times.

One might say that to focus on his identity rather than his accomplishments 鈥� or, indeed, his failures 鈥� is to diminish not just Singh but also myself, reducing us to mere categories. Perhaps. But focusing on that commonality also gets to the core of why representation matters: when the majority culture inevitably can鈥檛 see your duality, you are forever looking to connect with those who can.

I didn鈥檛 get around to asking Singh a question; I left that to my more capable colleagues. Were I to go back, however, knowing that he would soon no longer be leader of the NDP, there are some pointed ones I might have asked. For one: Why did you never present a compelling and comprehensive vision for progressivism in Canada instead of being content to snipe from the margins? And further: Why, during severe crises in housing and affordability, did leftist politics in Canada diminish under your watch, while the populist right flourished? Why were so you personable and disarming off the cuff but so leaden and given to soundbites in prepared remarks?

More simply: Why, Jagmeet, did you leave me in a position in which who you are meant something to me, but my disappointment in what you did 鈥� or did not do 鈥� was made worse precisely because of who you are?

That last question is, of course, absurd, a projection of the personal onto the political that asks far too much: 鈥淧lease, Mr. Singh, in addition to doing your job, could you deal with my issues, too?鈥�

Politics, however, is unfair. Just ask Chrystia Freeland, Pierre Poilievre, Kamala Harris or any other number of figures who have recently been subject to forces and individuals beyond their control. Yes, it鈥檚 ridiculous that I, as a grown person, would seek these things out from a politician 鈥� to ask more of Singh not only because he鈥檚 the leader of the country鈥檚 main progressive party but also because he鈥檚 a Sikh. Still, that doesn鈥檛 stop the feeling from being real. When we say we want politicians to stand for something, we often mean it in more ways than one.

We are also living amid a surge of anti-Indian bigotry, particularly online. It鈥檚 thus tempting to want Singh to have been more successful, so that he could be held up as an example of what 鈥渨e鈥� are capable of, who we can be. That鈥檚 a dead end, though. There鈥檚 nothing to be gained in trying to prove one鈥檚 worth by highlighting a community鈥檚 best to our country鈥檚 worst.

It was important that Singh was up there, on TV screens and in newspapers and magazines, proudly proclaiming who he is. Who we are. It鈥檚 just that now 鈥� in an era of menacing politics within and without; of global political realignment and a murky future for progressivism 鈥� it鈥檚 fair to say Singh was both admirable and decent yet also believe that wasn鈥檛 enough. Right or wrong, harsh or not, if Singh represented some of the best of Sikhs and Punjabis in Canada, then I wish he鈥檇 been, well, better.