Receive free updates on Indian politics and policy
we will send you myFT Daily Digest Email summary of latest news indian politics and policy There is news every morning.
“We have great respect for each other because we are both democracies,” Joe Biden said when welcoming Narendra Modi to Washington in June. A joint statement from the leaders of the United States and India emphasized “rules-based The common belief that the international order must be respected.
That statement Posted on June 22, four days after Hardeep Singh was killed Nijarhe was shot by 34 bullets in a Vancouver parking lot.
The Nijjar killings did not attract international attention at the time. But that changed dramatically after Canada accused India of involvement in the killing of Sikh activists whom India considered terrorists.
India rejects Canada’s accusations, calls them ‘ridiculous’ and already many are happy Comment Canada and its Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are expected to be humiliated. This view seems to be based on two ideas. First, Canada has provided no evidence to support its claims. Second, Canada’s closest allies—the United States first, but also the United Kingdom and Australia—are so invested in their relationship with India that they will do their best to cover up anything untoward. This will leave Canada hanging in the balance.
India’s assessment may still prove correct. But I doubt it. Trudeau may come across as a lightweight at times, but it’s highly unlikely that he would make an accusation of this seriousness without evidence.In fact, much of the original content seemed intelligence Actually from the United States. Therefore, it is unlikely that these accusations will disappear into thin air.
Obviously, the United States regards confronting China as its most important security challenge and regards India as an indispensable partner. Australia and the UK are also eagerly courting the Modi government.
But allowing India to commit murder on Canadian soil — if that were the case — would be a more immediate threat to national security than a temporary setback against China.
If the Indian government concludes that it is now free to pursue its enemies – foreign or domestic – no matter where they live, it will set a very dangerous precedent for multicultural societies like Canada, the UK and Australia .
Who will be next in the line of fire? What other countries might think they want to commit some murders in the West too?For example, China accuses the UK of harbor Criminals on the run from justice in Hong Kong. Like Indians, the Chinese often seem to blur the line between supporting secession and supporting terrorism. If the UK or other Western countries refuse to hand over Hong Kong activists – or Tibetans or Uyghurs – will China conclude that it can safely kidnap or kill them in the emerging world order?
It is believed that there are over 250 different ethnic groups in the population of London and London. toronto. Many of them are distrusted or hated by the governments of the countries they left behind. Türkiye, for example, often accuses Western countries of harboring Kurdish terrorists. intense situation The importation of political violence can also easily trigger conflicts between different immigrant communities.
While Modi supports a “rules-based international order,” many Indian policymakers are cynical about the idea. Like the Russians and Chinese, they argue that, in effect, the United States makes and breaks rules based on its own needs and whims.
Shashi Tharoor, a prominent Indian opposition politician and former United Nations official, expressed this view while mocking Western condemnation of India’s role in the Nijjar killings. debate pointed out: “In the past 25 years, the two main perpetrators of extraterritorial assassinations have been Israel and the United States.”
But this argument misses an important point. The United States killed dangerous enemies such as Osama bin Laden in countries where attempts to use local justice systems were considered futile. But Americans don’t kill so-called terrorists when they appear on democratic soil. The Israelis are also not believed to have assassinated anyone in the West since a killing in Paris more than three decades ago.
India’s resentment over Canada’s alleged tolerance of Sikh terrorism reminds me of the anger in Britain in the 1980s and 1990s over Irish-American support for the IRA. Deadly bomb explosions were common in Britain at the time, and the Irish Republican Army twice nearly wiped out high-level British government officials. Still, it would have been unthinkable for Britain to send a commando force onto the streets of Boston or Vancouver.
The sycophantic tone adopted by many Western governments in dealing with Modi may give New Delhi the impression that it can get away with anything. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called Modi “the boss”. US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo called him “incredible and visionary” during a visit to Delhi.
There is no doubt that the United States and its allies desperately want to live in harmony with India. But if Canada provides compelling evidence of India’s role in the Nijjar killings, then legal and diplomatic processes will be initiated that cannot simply be wished away. After all, “rules-based order” may mean something.
gideon.rachman@ft.com
Svlook
