Infamous for its known bias for harbouring anti-Indian sentiments, earlier this week The Washington Post published an article, ‘An assassination plot on American soil reveals a darker side of Modi’s India’. The article definitely sets a dark tone. It also reminds that the opinion is rooted in the worn out Western exceptionalism in the ‘white’ world.
It is quite evident that the American government led by the Biden administration is just a facade. It is run by left oriented ‘activists’ who essentially believe that they can achieve superiority only by snatching the ladder of ‘non-west’ and so called rest of the world who is quickly catching up with the saturated west.
The impeccable timing of the article is not coincidental or accidental. When the largest democracy of the world is currently undergoing its arguably most consequential general elections, the western toolkits are activated. Notably, the article stated that India has become part of the expanding roster of countries employing tactics which were previously associated with other regressive regimes of the world.
The article elucidates the incidents involving the alleged assassination attempt of a Khalistan advocate in the US and a murder of another in Canada which did not lead to any public censure of India by the US. Today, India is geopolitically and commercially significant to the US.
However, the misconstruing of the journey truly begins when the article links the issue of extrajudicial killings with what it views as the rise of ‘deepening authoritarianism’ in India. Certainly the killing of activists, and journalists, etc on foreign soil is appalling. Jailing them is the worst symptom of creeping authoritarianism. However, surgical targets and individuals who fit the description of credible threat to national security is what the US and its allies have been doing for decades.
For instance, Barack Obama, otherwise known as the ‘liberal hero’ blatantly subverted the global norm in the name of fighting terrorism. In 2009, when he became the President of the United States, he immediately did away with the previous dispensation’s torturous interrogation process of terror suspects. He adopted the use of drones for the extraterritorial killing of terrorist suspects. It has been reported that Obama had become such a drone enthusiast that while Bush, in his term, authorised about 50 drone strikes, the former pushed the number to 506.
The case study of ‘Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta’ (2012) involved the targeted killing of three American citizens by the US drones in Yemen in 2011 during the Obama administration. The alleged plot to assassinate Gurpatwant Singh Pannun by the Indian agents find resonance with this case.
The case was dismissed on the grounds that the court viewed it could not provide any remedy to the extrajudicial killings when the government claimed to be at war, even far from any battlefield. The then attorney general Eric Holder stated in one of his letters to a senator that the high level officials appropriately inferred that al-Aulaqi posed an imminent threat against the United States. The officials involved also evaluated the circumstances before carrying out the operation that killed al-Aulaqi and claimed that it was not feasible to capture him at the time. It was further clarified that although it is better to capture the suspect where feasible, there are instances that must be discerned that the government has the upper hand.
However, it does not mean to use arbitrary military force. Further, juxtaposingly it was also mentioned that the use of force in foreign territory would be consistent with international legal principles, generally with the consent of the nation involved or when the nation is incapable or unwilling to deal with the threat effectively. It is then not considered illiberal, authoritarian or analogous to transnational repression. It then revolves around what one nation views as an imminent threat to its own security. With a pinch of salt, it comes down to where extrajudicial incidents occur and if the government of that state was involved or not.
As India’s influence augments within the new world order, India needs to come out of the shadows. Leverage its power and potential to translate a relation of mutual trust and the situation of being caught in the act in prevention. Thus, bringing India in the position to simply declare or defend its intent clearly and not with a guilty conscience just like the great powers do when they act to defend their own interests and own their part.
Another case when a US drone killed Ayman al-Zawahiri, an “Egyptian surgeon”, as addressed by Al Jazeera, but a dreaded Al Qaeda terrorist, as per the Western media—in Afghanistan in July 2022, the West joined in to laud the Americans. Even Justin Trudeau, a Left-‘liberal’ icon, couldn’t stop himself from congratulating the Biden administration, forgetting his much cherished advocacy for human rights and international norms.
The same Trudeau has recently opened a warfront against democratic India, accusing it of killing Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Khalistani terrorist, on its soil. The West has been preoccupied with whitewashing Nijjar’s criminal past and projecting him as a “temple leader”. There has been a flourishing Khalistani ecosystem especially in Canada along with the US and the UK since the 1980s, during Justin Trudeau’s father’s tenure. In fact, the 1985 Kanishka Air India bombing, which was the deadliest terrorist attack before 9/11, wouldn’t have happened but for Canadian complicity. Ottawa simply refused to arrest and extradite Talwinder Parmar, the mastermind behind the Kanishka bombing.
Pretentiously, the Washington Post writes how Sikh activists are merely trying to revive the demand for a sovereign Sikh state called Khalistan. When the western media is so interested to intervene they should also realise how it breaches the Indian constitutional spirit by endorsing such unwarranted secessionist sentiments. The state of India’s democracy doesn’t and should not influence a nation’s ability to defend itself from threats established on foreign soil. Creating a correlation between the two is lousy yet deceiving.
The dubious nature of western liberal order, coupled with the principles of liberty, democracy and free speech is conveniently tweaked. No wonder the likes of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi are “terrorists” who have to be hunted down however. But Talwinder Parmar, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun are labeled as “activists” who deserve to be protected even when they threaten to unleash the reign of terror. Why is that when the US does the same action it is absolved from all the crimes and becomes the self proclaimed vanguard. And if any other non- west country, here India does the same it is shamed and tagged as the bad guy?
To put a stop to such asymmetrical viewpoints and perception wars, India needs to stop being defensive. Play hardball and state that it is facing a war with a stateless enemy who shifts from country to country, and it is the government’s responsibility and a right to combat such potential threats.
Although India is not a traditional ally of the US, they however share a strategic relationship based on their mutual liberal and democratic temperament, which makes them natural partners. The time is to nurture and further embolden the relationship. It can only happen when the American media is ready to at least reduce their hit jobs like commentaries and can be sensitised about the Indian issues.
