It is becoming imperative for the West to acknowledge that friendship with India, though built on trust and commonalities of democratic principles, should not be taken for granted as India’s spinelessness.
In February of this year, Dr Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, India’s seasoned diplomat turned Foreign Minister, boldly discarded political correctness during a podcast with ANI’s Smita Prakash. He explicitly exposed the hypocrisy of the so-called Western democracies that persistently allowed the “politics of India” to be manipulated on their own soil. The world currently suffers from a troubling dichotomy: some terrorists are condemned while others are subtly supported or at least tolerated.
In the context of India, it is evident that certain elements harboured in the West enjoy a degree of immunity. While the West champions the cause of human rights and democracy, it seems to turn a blind eye when it comes to terrorists furthering their agenda against specific nations. There’s a dangerous tendency to categorize terrorists as “good” or “bad” based on geopolitical interests or narratives.
Dr Jaishankar has minced no words while calling out countries like Canada and the United Kingdom for harbouring and platforming wanted terrorists under the garb of human rights and freedom of speech.
On 9 September 2023, during a press briefing at the G20 Summit, he candidly emphasised that nations like Canada, which have been providing an increasing amount of political space to extremists wanted for murder and organised crime, “must exercise greater responsibility.”
However, Trudeau’s recent theatrics in the Canadian House of Commons, post returning home from a rather abysmal and forgettable G20—for him—in India, have ignited a diplomatic storm that are proving quite challenging to contain. Standing in the parliament on 18 September, he accused India of carrying out the extrajudicial killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a known Khalistani extremist. This was all said on the basis of “alleged evidence” of “potential links”. Trudeau’s vague claims of these “credible allegations” seem to have been amplified by western media houses, with almost all of them vilifying India based on mere conjectures regarding the shooting of a wanted man with a long-standing Red Corner Notice. As a follow-up to these allegations, the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Melanie Joly announced the expulsion of Pavan Kumar Rai, a top Indian diplomat based in Ottawa. India too, retaliated by summoning the Canadian High Commissioner, Cameron McKay, to the South Block for notifying him with the decision to expel one of their top diplomats for meddling in India’s internal affairs. It is to be noted, that with this third summons in 2023, Canada managed to surpass Pakistan as the most summoned country by India this year.
Very few prominent media houses decided to run critical reporting of Trudeau’s allegations, based on mere conjectures and lacking concrete forensic evidence. Terry Glavin of the National Post was one of them who deemed Indo-Canadian relations irreparable, solely based on Trudeau’s decision to “take sides in this gangland melodrama,” relying on solemn insinuations of India’s involvement. Largely though, media outlets openly displayed their predispositions towards the Canadian narrative without wondering about the existence of the smoking gun evidence. A Financial Times story dated 3 October reported, “officials who visited India, including the head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, David Vigneault, were only able to present the evidence orally to their Indian counterparts.”
The usual diplomatic process in such circumstances would have required the alleging country, Canada, to provide dossiers containing credible evidence to India with detailed linkages and forensic evidence. However, this has clearly not been outlined. From an Indian perspective, India has officially continued to highlight the lack of evidence presented to support any claims made, thereby urging the global media and the other Five Eye members to reconsider their strategy and position of supporting the absurd statement made by the Canadian Prime Minister. Whether this was a ploy to salvage Trudeau’s plummeting performance ratings, deflect the outrage of the Canadian public and opposition regarding soaring prices and inflation, shift the debate away from the interference of China in Canadian politics, or consolidate Khalistani funding from organised crime and illegal immigration scams for himself, will continue to remain a mystery for the foreseeable future.
The shocking failure of the global media in this diplomatic row lies in their inability to highlight the West’s consistent failure to uphold the basic fundamentals of the Vienna Convention. For instance, Article 29 of the Vienna Convention explicitly stipulates, “The receiving State shall treat the Diplomatic Agent with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom, or dignity.”
Canada, along with the United Kingdom, has disregarded this cornerstone of international relations by failing to provide appropriate security when Indian Missions were attacked or their diplomats were threatened, be it in Ottawa, Glasgow, or London. The incident in Glasgow, where extremists from the National Sikh Youth Federation attacked and prevented the Indian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, Vikram Doraiswamy, from leaving his car, was nothing short of a severe act of criminality. Posters calling for the death of the Indian High Commissioner to Canada, Sanjay Verma, were shockingly dismissed by Canada as freedom of speech.
Hypothetically, had similar incidents taken place in India against Eric Garcetti (US Ambassador to India), Alex Ellis (British High Commissioner to India), or Cameron McKay (Canadian High Commissioner to India), the same Western media would have been on an inconsolable rampage.
The dysfunctional relationship of the West with India has deep roots. It is becoming imperative for the West to acknowledge that friendship with India, though built on trust and commonalities of democratic principles, should not be taken for granted as India’s spinelessness. The second term of the Narendra Modi government has been assertive on foreign policy matters like no previous Indian government. Proactive measures have been taken via diplomatic channels, yielding positive results, while stern measures have been taken to shape bilateral relations even with countries like China. India’s diplomatic outreach and pressures have yielded some positive results. For example, in the UK, OfCom took strong action against Khalsa TV, a violent propaganda channel, banning it after Liz Truss’ arrival in India for the Foreign Ministers’ meeting in April 2022.
Trudeau’s ill-conceived statement has opened the floodgates to a barrage of misinformation and false narratives. Many pro-separatist organisations are using this opportunity to further their nefarious campaigns. Dr Jaishankar’s briefing at the Hudson Institute categorically outlined that this Rambo-like approach is not representative of India’s policy, whilst pointing towards toxic gang wars in Canada. Additionally, new findings, such as the ISI angle, continue to surface. Tariq Kiyani and Rahat Rao, identified as Nijjar’s handlers by Indian agencies, appointed by the ISI to promote the Khalistan agenda in the West, have been noted as probable murder plotters recently.
Sources have indicated that these two were dissatisfied with Nijjar’s hedonistic attitude, misusing the proceeds from organized crime, including drug trade and immigration scams.
The other critical piece missing in this diplomatic jigsaw is the significant role played by the Indo-Canadian narcotics syndicate, known as the “Brothers Keepers” gang, which actively traffics Colombian cocaine to Mexican cartels. This cartel comprises the Grewal and Dhaliwal clans. The fact that SFJ chief Pannun is being funded by them, according to the various dossiers submitted by Indian government agencies, needs to become a part of the public discourse which has so far remained insulated from western media coverage.
This diplomatic row is far from over and brings to light the deeply entrenched hypocrisy of the West when it comes to labelling and dealing with terrorism. The onus is now on the West to figure out how to deal with the monsters they helped create and patronised. Civil society in the West seems to be awakening from the long amnesia that had kept it cloistered from the politics of India being played on its soil. Reports prepared by Colin Bloom and William Shawcross, submitted to the British Parliament, are a testimony to the risks these feral and vicious pro-Khalistani extremist tropes pose to the wider civil society.
The international community needs to introspect and adopt a consistent, unwavering stance against terrorism, irrespective of the group or ideology. There is an urgent need for a unified global approach to combat terrorism effectively, without double standards or selective condemnation. Only through such collective efforts can we hope to create a safer and more just world.
- Adit Kothari is a Calcuttan residing in London as a Pravasi Bharatiya, working to dismantle the plethora of false narratives and misinformation on India and Hindutva.