Transnational Repression: India’s New Strategy? – OpEd

By

Allegations of India orchestrating the assassination of a Sikh separatist in Canada have sparked a diplomatic crisis, revealing a possible new strategy of transnational repression targeting dissent abroad.

The diplomatic landscape is increasingly shaped by allegations of transnational repression, a strategy purportedly employed by nations to exert control beyond their borders. 

Recently, this approach has drawn intense scrutiny following allegations that India was involved in the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a prominent Sikh separatist leader, on Canadian soil. This incident has not only strained India-Canada relations but also raised serious questions about the extent to which India is willing to go in pursuing its geopolitical objectives.

In September, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau revealed that his government possessed credible evidence implicating Indian government agents in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who was shot outside a Sikh cultural centre in British Columbia. The accusations suggest that Indian officials sanctioned covert operations within Canada, specifically targeting pro-Khalistani figures like Nijjar. According to reports from The Washington Post, intercepted communications by Canadian authorities mentioned India’s Home Minister Amit Shah and a senior officer from the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), directly implicating them in orchestrating actions against dissidents abroad.

Diplomatic Fallout: India and Canada at Odds

The fallout from these allegations has been severe. Canada expelled several Indian diplomats, accusing them of involvement in violent acts and intelligence-gathering operations targeting Sikh activists. In response, India expelled a similar number of Canadian diplomats, framing their removal as a measure to ensure the safety of its own diplomatic personnel. This tit-for-tat expulsion has turned a serious diplomatic dispute into a full-blown crisis, illustrating the depths of distrust between the two nations.

The situation escalated further when Canadian authorities identified the notorious gangster Lawrence Bishnoi as a key player in the violence against Indian dissidents in Canada. Bishnoi’s alleged connections to the Indian government add another layer of complexity to the accusations of transnational repression. The implication that India may be leveraging criminal networks to target political opponents raises alarm bells in the international community about the ethical implications of state-sponsored violence abroad.

This growing tension has provoked reactions from other countries, including the United States. Washington has historically had a complicated relationship with New Delhi, balancing its strategic partnership with concerns over human rights and democratic governance. As the Biden administration navigates this diplomatic minefield, the question remains: will it apply pressure on India, or will it choose silence in the face of allegations that could undermine the integrity of its ally?

Transnational Repression: A Tactic of Control?

The concept of transnational repression refers to a state’s attempts to control its dissidents and opposition abroad, often through intimidation, harassment, and even violence. For India, which has faced increasing dissent from various ethnic and political groups, the adoption of such tactics appears to be a calculated strategy to silence opposition voices and reassert authority over its diaspora.

The allegations against India suggest a shift from diplomatic engagement to aggressive tactics aimed at eliminating perceived threats to its sovereignty. The targeting of Nijjar, a prominent advocate for an independent Sikh state, highlights a broader strategy by India to suppress movements it perceives as separatist threats. This aggressive posture may also signal to other countries that India is willing to act decisively against those it deems enemies, even if it involves transgressing international norms.

However, such actions come with significant risks. The backlash from the Canadian government indicates that states are increasingly unwilling to tolerate extraterritorial violence on their soil. The repercussions of India’s alleged actions could reverberate beyond Canada, potentially affecting its relations with other nations that host Indian diaspora communities, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia.

US Reaction: Silence or Pressure?

As the situation unfolds, the role of the United States becomes crucial. Historically, the U.S. has approached its relationship with India through a lens of strategic partnership, especially in the context of counterbalancing China. However, allegations of transnational repression put the Biden administration in a precarious position. 

The U.S. could choose to remain silent, prioritizing its strategic interests over human rights concerns. Such an approach, while beneficial for immediate geopolitical goals, risks undermining the principles of democracy and human rights that the Biden administration has often championed. On the other hand, if the U.S. decides to confront India over these allegations, it could strain relations, potentially affecting collaborative efforts in areas like defense and counterterrorism.

The challenge lies in finding a balance. U.S. officials have called for investigations into the allegations while also emphasizing the importance of dialogue between Canada and India. However, without tangible actions to hold India accountable, the allegations may become a footnote in the broader narrative of international relations.

A Diplomatic Minefield for Modi

For Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, this diplomatic crisis presents significant challenges. His government has long been criticized for its handling of dissent within India, and these allegations may exacerbate concerns about authoritarian tendencies. The international community’s response could significantly influence Modi’s standing both domestically and abroad.

Modi’s administration has portrayed itself as a champion of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, framing the fight against separatism as a matter of national security. However, the use of extrajudicial means to silence opposition raises fundamental questions about the legitimacy of such an approach. As international scrutiny increases, Modi faces a delicate balancing act: he must appease nationalist sentiments at home while navigating a complex diplomatic landscape abroad.

The implications of this diplomatic row extend beyond Canada and India. As other nations watch how this situation unfolds, the response to India’s alleged transnational repression could set a precedent for how governments manage dissent in an increasingly interconnected world. Countries grappling with their own diaspora issues may be compelled to reconsider their diplomatic engagements and strategies in response to India’s actions.

Finally, the allegations surrounding the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar serve as a stark reminder of the lengths to which states may go in asserting control over their populations, even in foreign territories. The diplomatic fallout from this incident could have lasting repercussions, shaping the future of international relations and the norms governing state behavior. As Canada and India navigate this tumultuous period, the world will be watching closely, eager to see whether principles of accountability and respect for human rights prevail in the face of aggressive state actions. 

Debashis Chakrabarti

Debashis Chakrabarti is an international media scholar and social scientist, currently serving as the Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Politics and Media. With extensive experience spanning 35 years, he has held key academic positions, including Professor and Dean at Assam University, Silchar. Prior to academia, Chakrabarti excelled as a journalist with The Indian Express. He has conducted impactful research and teaching in renowned universities across the UK, Middle East, and Africa, demonstrating a commitment to advancing media scholarship and fostering global dialogue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *