Making sense of the Indo-Canadian diplomatic spat

Deepak Sinha

A veteran paratrooper and consultant with the Observer Research Foundation, Deepak writes on matters of military and broader security concerns. His blog Para Phrase will seek to unravel issues in the security domain without fear or favour, mainly from a military perspective.

The ongoing Indo-Canadian diplomatic row is centred around the murder of Mr Hardeep Singh Nijjar in the suburbs of Vancouver. As to whether his killers have links with Indian intelligence or not, as Prime Minister Trudeau’s accusation in Parliament suggest, is moot.

Though neither Canadian intelligence nor police have provided any credible proof, unconfirmed reports suggest Mr Trudeau based his accusations on available technical and human intelligence. One cannot help but add that the Canadian Government’s track record in investigating issues concerning the actions by the Canadian-Sikh separatist lobby against India has been pretty dismal.

Its botched investigation into the Air India bombing conspiracy executed by Canadian-Sikh terrorists at Vancouver Airport in June 1985 comes to mind. Air India Flight 182 exploded in mid-air over the Atlantic, resulting in the death of 329 passengers and crew.

Flight 301 from Narita was luckier as the bomb transhipped in baggage from Vancouver exploded prematurely, killing two baggage handlers and injuring four others. The investigation took two decades to conclude, resulting in the conviction of Inderjit Singh Reyat to 15 years imprisonment on charges of manslaughter, which speaks volumes.

Understandably, the Canadians feel genuinely affronted by the possibility that such an attack was undertaken by a foreign power on Canadian soil. But, isn’t it time they realised that the concept of national sovereignty cannot only apply to the Anglo-Saxon universe? Attacks on individuals and groups hostile to the West, in their own or in third countries, is equally a violation of that nation’s sovereignty and as condemnable. Ofcourse, such attacks are always justified by assertions that the host nations are supportive of those terrorist groups!

It also seems profoundly hypocritical that the definition of ‘terrorists’ extends only to those attacking the West, while others indulging in similar acts elsewhere are seen as ‘activists’ fighting against oppressive regimes. Given this mindset, the western mainstream media obviously did not feel it necessary to comment on Mr. Nijjar’s antecedents or that he was deeply entrenched in the Khalistan Separatist Movement that had rocked Punjab for over a decade from the early 1980’s.

By the mid-1990’s Punjab had returned to near-normalcy, with no militancy to speak of. Despite this, unscrupulous elements have continued to keep the spectre of Sikh militancy alive as it provides them with a lucrative source of income with another avenue to bring in immigrants as political refugees. The call for Khalistan is now mainly restricted to radical elements from within the Sikh diaspora in the West. They, in connivance with Pakistan based and supported terror groups, mainly criminals involved in the arms and drug trade, continue attempting to reignite the insurgency, but with minimal success.

Despite their miniscule numbers, these radical elements are extremely influential within their own community and with local politicians, especially those belonging to constituencies that have a high percentage of Sikhs. It was their militant connections that allowed them to forcibly assume control of most Gurdwaras in their areas, which also provided them access to unlimited funds. In a manner of speaking, they are not unlike the Yakuza, and as with most such criminal enterprises, they also have rival factions jockeying for power and control.

The fact of the matter is that more questions have been raised than answered. With the Khalistan ship dead in the water, why would India risk its democratic credentials to assassinate an inconsequential Khalistani terrorist living on foreign shores? Could the killing not have been the work of a rival gang? After all, another even more influential Khalistani activist was killed subsequently in Winnipeg without any eyebrows being raised. For that matter, why is the Canadian Government so protective of these elements who are known to be fomenting and financing violence in the Punjab? Of a Canadian Sikh population of 800,000, the Indian Government has requested for the extradition of just twenty odd ‘activists’ against whom criminal cases are pending in India. Surely no democratic principles are being violated by acceding to this request?

Ironically, it appears that no lofty principles or questions of geo-politics and sovereignty are at stake in this on-going diplomatic spat. It simply seems to be about self-serving politicians, on both sides, using the situation to get a step up in the domestic political firmament. Suffice it to say that for Prime Minister Trudeau, presently facing political headwinds, a Sikh population that views him favourably is an electoral asset.

Prime Minister Modi must also be hoping that this will show him up as a strong leader and help overcome his mortification at the repeated humiliations heaped on him by President Xi with the Chinese occupation of territory in Eastern Ladakh. With the upcoming general elections, he must absolutely be seen in a positive light as a strong leader. Finally, what must not be lost sight of is the fact that whether Indian Intelligence organised it, or it was the work of a rival, the reputation of the Research and Analysis Wing has been enhanced. Moreover, Khalistani terrorists in the West can no longer behave with the same impunity as they have done till now without fearing retribution. That is undoubtedly a good thing.