From the editor’s desk

Why the West ignores India’s genuine concerns

When the Canadian Prime Minister was leveling allegations against India in his country’s Parliament on September 18 that Canadian security agencies had been actively pursuing “credible allegations of a potential link” over India's involvement in the killing of Nijjar, a Canadian Sikh, in Surrey, British Columbia, on June 18, he was perhaps not thinking prudently or was not given the right sort of advice.

Even if the Five Eyes intelligence points a finger at India with the allegation that it was involved in the killing of the Canadian Sikh Nijjar, the Canadian government needed to exercise utmost caution and allowed investigations to conclude before announcing in the Parliament of India’s involvement. India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has categorically denied any Indian involvement, saying this is not the government of India’s policy. So in a global international order, countries need to talk to each other, more than before, to address issues of mutual concern. As it stands now, there is hitherto, no direct proof of India’s involvement in the killing of the Canadian Sikh Nijjar. In fact, the CCTV footage near the Gurudwara where he was killed, shows that the murder was much more complex and well-coordinated than was being thought of.

Nijjar’s killing might have been spared if the requests of the Indian government to the government of Canada to rein in the Khalistani supporters and the Khalistan propaganda in Canada were given due attention by the Canadian government. There are gangsters operating in Canada without any fear of being caught by the authorities concerned. They have a history of gang wars, and one of the gangs might have killed Nijjar, as the gang rivalry in Canada is very complex to understand.

The Khalistani supporters in Canada, in the guise of a political movement, seem to be a part of the flourishing gang rivalry in the country that has surprisingly been allowed to run riot.

But there are two significant issues here. First, why do the Western countries ignore India’s concerns? Initially, it was the case of terrorism in India, which was brushed under the carpet by the US and some European countries unless 9/11 happened in the US, and later 26/11 happened in India. When the West became a victim of Islamic terrorism of various denominations, they began to listen to the woes of India related to the risks terrorism posed to the world at large.

In the case of Khalistani supporters, who are spread out almost throughout the world, aspiring to carve out a sovereign state for themselves by separating Punjab from the Indian Union, it is pertinent to say that most of them have no real connection and compassion for their friends and relatives in reality. A handful of misguided elements, under the influence of foreign hands, are for secessionist activities against India. But these elements also pose a threat to other Indians living in Canada, even going to the extent of threatening Indian diplomats and consular officials. The West completely ignores India’s genuine grievance against Khalistan supporters in different countries, who from time-to-time show disrespect to the Indian nation and its symbols such as India’s national flag.

The first reason why the West does not listen to India in matters of threats from Khalistan supporters is because these elements have not threatened the countries of the West directly. So the West is unsympathetic to India’s concerns.

The second reason is that the West regards the Khalistani elements as very small in size, and therefore, according to their perception, unable to cause any real harm to any country. What the West overlooks is that these elements may be playing in the hands of both foreign state and non-state actors, who may use them to foment violence in India, and other places where Indians live.

The third reason is that there are countries that would rather see a weak India than a strong and resilient one. India’s rise internationally, both in economic terms and in diplomacy, is not appreciated by all countries. Only a weak India that will toe the line of these countries will be acceptable.

Then there are domestic political compulsions that force authorities in a certain country to support even extremist elements in their country, though they may be harming another country. There is also a trend to allow secessionist activities against one nation to flourish in another country just in the name of freedom of speech and expression. Though it is also true that no civilized country would allow its citizens to enjoy unrestricted freedom, where conditions of ‘reasonable restrictions’ apply in a bid not to let any right of its citizens become an absolute one. Therefore, the West, led by the US, must exercise utmost caution by not allowing any state or non-state actors the liberty to act against the sovereignty of any nation in the name of freedom in a democracy.

From the editor’s desk Joint action plan key to tackling challenges in Indo-Pacific

The current world order economically, politically, and militarily is volatile and calls for alliances and agreements. The two world wars, followed by a highly-tensed era of Cold War, which saw localized wars and situations that could potentially lead to wars, have taught countries not to remain isolated insofar as defence matters are concerned. India has also tasted four wars, and it knows how it is when a country is left to fend for itself in the face of a war which may have been thrust upon it. And it is not just about real wars alone. Every country has to be war-ready in the modern era, and strategize with solid planning to deal a heavy blow to the morale of the enemy if the need arises. Therefore, there has to be a relentless effort to increase a country’s influence in strategic locations, and in modern times it is best done through joint action plans and forging alliances with other countries. In this regard, the Indo-Pacific region is of great significance, especially keeping in mind China’s interest and its aggressive posture in the region. China’s ambition to be present in strategic areas globally to establish itself as a global superpower is now apparent. The Chinese plan of action to thwart attempts to build any other power center or a collective power center of countries in the Indo-Pacific region is hurting the interests of many countries. Basically, the Indo-Pacific region is inhabited by some of the world’s most populous countries, which are characterized by highly dynamic countries that include Australia, India, Japan, China and Indonesia.

The presence of such economic and political ‘heavy weights’ makes this region a vital center of international geopolitics. All of these countries would like to see their footprints expand globally in terms of economic, political and their concomitant military might; but for that to happen, these countries need to have a strong presence in the Indo-Pacific region.

Therefore, the recently concluded Indo-Pacific Armies Chiefs Conference (IPACC) assumes significance. The Indo-Pacific Armies Chiefs Conference (IPACC), which was organized by the Indian army with the US Army as the co-host, saw the 30 participating countries realizing the importance of and agreeing “to work towards a collaborative effort to address the challenges faced in the region.” Why would these countries reach an agreement to collaborate with a view to addressing the challenges in the region? A rising world power in the form of China is difficult to contain unless countries with collective interest in the region come together. China continues to show its aggressive intent in the Indo-Pacific. If China is able to establish its hegemony in the region, countries associated with this region will have to forget about a fair order that works for the benefit of all nations in this region. So the army chiefs and heads of delegations from 30 countries came together.

The Conference offered a democratic platform to the army chiefs and heads of delegations to hold free and frank talks related to the need for an open and inclusive Indo-Pacific region that follows rules-based world order. This is important for a stable and peaceful IndoPacific. The dignitaries, quite rightly, focused on the aspect of diversity in the Indo-Pacific. This diversity, they reckoned, is at many levels, and therefore there was a consensus to work towards a collaborative effort to address the challenges faced in the region. Insofar as concrete takeaways are concerned, what did IPACC achieve?

The Conference achieved what the participating countries had already envisioned earlier. For instance, the concrete outcomes of the event related to evolving a shared vision for military cooperation, fostering a sense of collective responsibility, sharing best practices, appreciating areas and communities vulnerable to climate change, synergizing approach to disaster relief, increasing military exchange endeavours, progressing defence diplomacy initiatives and reinforcing the importance of open and sustained dialogue. All these outcomes would pave the way for jointly addressing issues that impact the Indo-Pacific countries. This is how collective potentialities are gathered for collective benefits in the form of security and well-being of the participating nations, as also the security and well-being of other nations, who may not be directly linked with this region, but are impacted by what happens here. IPACC also provided an opportunity for the participants to benefit from exchange of ideas and views on security and other contemporary issues of mutual interest. .

The fact that the Indo-Pacific Armies’ Management Seminar (IPAMS) was also conducted during the IPACC event on such significant themes as “Partnering for Sustainable Peace and Security in the Indo-Pacific”, “Cooperation to Enhance Interoperability”, and “Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR)Evolving Mechanisms for Crises Response'' shows the commitment and eagerness of the participating countries to focus on contemporary areas of mutual interest, with the emerging message that the countries need to work together to boost collective responses. Moreover, in a globalized world, nations understand the value of joining hands together in matters of resource mobilization and cooperation. This is to ensure they have the benefit of robust defence and security arrangements, which are significant for the overall development and progress of a country. In that context IPACC has a big role to play.