In the US scheme of things, India is vital, but Narendra Modi is a hurdle. Hence, the direct and proxy attacks.
The United States Justice Department has indicted an individual from India, alleging his involvement in a conspiracy by an Indian intelligence official to assassinate Khalistani terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a dual US-Canadian citizen. The Indian government was prepared for this, as it came following months of diplomatic and intelligence-level talks. In contrast to the Canadian allegations, which were dismissed with disdain, India has constituted a high-level inquiry committee to probe the matter. The United States administration, on its part, continued its top-level engagements with India after discovering the plot in June and has appreciated India’s responsiveness. Both sides have managed to avoid a full-blown diplomatic drama given the significance of the partnership.
India has asserted that sanctioning assassinations abroad is contrary to government policy. If for argument’s sake, we believe that New Delhi does order hits on designated terrorists, it is difficult to believe that the Government of India and its intelligence apparatus are so intellectually challenged to want to eliminate Pannun, a perceived Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) stooge, on American soil. His head is not worth risking a strategically important partnership. Also, one would like to believe that an Indian intelligence official would not hatch a plot that has loopholes as glaring as those found in a poorly written thriller movie script. It is worth noting here the established perceptions of India and that of the US and its agencies—India is viewed as a soft state, not previously accused of such assassinations; whereas the US is known for it as well as for false flag operations.
From India’s perspective, this situation does not constitute the diplomatic or perception nightmare that many might believe it to be.
First, Canada and the United States are globally reinforcing that they harbour designated terrorists wanted in the world’s largest democracy, despite their lofty claims about democratic values, the rule of law, and partnership. Their attitude reflects a significant disregard for Indian sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national security. This enabling of anti-India terrorists will likely be highlighted repeatedly by the outspoken Indian External Affairs Minister, who does not shy away from holding the mirror to the West.
Second, while some may stress the reputational damage of the US indictment, there could also be a global recognition that like the US agencies, the Indian agencies are not averse to crossing the boundaries if compelled by national security interests. This impression, correctly formed or not, may prevent some nations from providing a safe haven to criminals and terrorists wanted in India. Many countries harbour resentment towards America for its interference in internal matters, regime change manoeuvres, and continuous moralising. The chances of them admiring India are higher than them despising it. Plus, not many nations would want to be on the wrong side of a sunrise nation with a global diaspora.
Third, the US is known for maintaining kill lists, and neutralising individuals through drone attacks, hired personnel, or agency operations; often resulting in innocent civilians becoming collateral damage. The CIA is accused of assassinations of political leaders and terrorists globally. It is alleged to have orchestrated high-profile assassinations of Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and scientist Homi Bhabha. There are rumours linking the CIA to the assassination of PM Indira Gandhi. Therefore, if the United States, either directly or through proxies, attempts to depict India as a rogue nation running assassination squads in foreign lands, it would be akin to a coal mine calling a pot black.
Fourth, from the domestic perspective, Narendra Modi should be grateful to everyone driving the amusing narrative that India is ordering hits on its enemies abroad. It is bolstering his 56-inch image that had taken a beating after having to withdraw the farm laws. The majority of Indians express frustration with the soft image of the Indian state and its inaction against those jeopardising national interests. They may not be as concerned with the global image, particularly when accusations stem from a superpower that is sheltering a wanted terrorist and that engages in the very actions it condemns India for.
Fifth, the United States is interests-driven, although it may portray itself as principles-driven. It has embraced the worst dictators and genocidal regimes when they were important for its strategic interests. Two examples—siding with the military regime of Pakistan that was committing genocide in East Pakistan, and warming up to Islam Karimov after the 9/11 attacks even though the US State Department report acknowledged a very poor human rights record in Uzbekistan. Notably, the US denied a visa to democratically elected Narendra Modi in 2005. However, it continued its warm ties with Karimov, despite the repression of people and the 2003 British report of two prisoners boiled to death by the regime. After the horrific 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, which claimed 166 civilian lives, including six Americans, the US continued military assistance to Pakistan—USD 1.1 billion in 2009 and 2.5 billion in 2010. It is in the fundamental character of the US to ignore the most severe human rights violations and acts of terrorism when the perpetrator is deemed essential to its interests.
The US has, on multiple occasions, triggered India—ranging from delayed assistance during the worsening pandemic situation to leveraging client nations and controlled media against the Modi government. On 2 June 2022, Secretary of State Antony Blinken commented on rising attacks in India while releasing the State Department’s annual report on international religious freedom, which led India to accuse Washington of engaging in vote-bank politics in international relations. Subsequently, on the 5th, Qatar summoned the Indian envoy over controversial remarks made by Nupur Sharma—eight days after the remarks were made—causing a ripple effect in the Islamic world. The US provided Canada with the alleged evidence of Indian involvement in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Even the Pannun assassination plot appears more like a pressure tactic on the Indian government.
The memory of past instances where the US has harmed Indian interests, such as in 1971 or more recently in Afghanistan, lingers in Indian minds. While it is ideal if the world’s two most important democracies become all-weather friends, the onus is on the United States to go the extra mile in gaining the confidence of the Indians with a consistently friendly and respectful approach. There is a growing unwillingness among Indians to tolerate US interference, regime-change agenda, moral pretence, and condescension towards the world’s largest democracy. Understanding the Indian sentiment is crucial because favourable public opinion will be essential to a stronger Indo-American relationship irrespective of the government in power.
As long as India remains a bright spot in the global economic scenario and China is perceived as a threat to the US, the latter will be drawn towards India. However, the US would prefer an Indian government that toes its line. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s refusal to succumb to Western pressure does not sit well with the superpower. After becoming the PM, Modi put aside the visa denial incident and strived to strengthen ties with the US. However, he will never compromise India’s strategic interests to pursue stronger bilateral relations. Although there is a grudging acceptance that the Modi-led NDA will win a third term, if it manages 40-50 fewer seats than the current tally, it will be a desirable outcome for the West as it will weaken Modi. In the US scheme of things, India is vital, but Modi is a hurdle. Hence, the direct and proxy attacks to paint the Modi government in a bad light.
The US dislike for Narendra Modi is the reason why the Indian intelligence and security apparatus should be concerned about potential assassination closer to home, given the CIA’s track record, rather than the poorly hatched and failed attempt on American soil.
Semu Bhatt is a strategic adviser and author specialising in governance, geopolitics, and conflict. She has a comprehensive understanding of Narendra Modi’s politics and policies and a consistent track record of accurately predicting his political decisions.