Why the West ignores India’s genuine concerns

From the editor’s desk

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.