[ad_1]
Cole Burston /AFP by way of Getty Pictures
Michael Kugelman is director of the South Asia Institute on the Wilson Middle in Washington, D.C.
The present India-Canada disaster has uncovered a pointy disconnect between India and the West on the difficulty of Sikh separatism.
Ever since Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau alleged attainable Indian involvement within the June assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Sikh separatist chief in British Columbia, New Delhi has doubled down on a long-standing grievance: Canada is residence to harmful anti-India extremists that Ottawa refuses to curb. It’s a controversial competition, and one which Ottawa has by no means endorsed.
In New Delhi’s view, these anti-India components are exemplified by Nijjar, a supporter of the Khalistan motion that seeks a separate Sikh homeland in India’s Punjab state. Indian officers accuse Nijjar of heading the Khalistan Tiger Drive (KTF), a banned violent group. New Delhi formally categorized him as a terrorist in 2020. Just lately leaked Indian intelligence stories declare Nijjar funded terrorism in India and arranged arms coaching camps in Canada.
India’s determination to situation a brand new journey advisory urging Indians to “train utmost warning” in Canada and droop visa companies for Canadians is supposed to sign that with anti-India components allegedly working with impunity in Canada, Indians are unsafe there. (On Sunday, Canada issued its personal new journey advisory that warns Canadian residents in India to “keep vigilant and train warning.”) On Saturday, Indian Exterior Affairs Ministry spokesman Arindam Bagchi referred to Canada’s “rising repute as a secure haven for terrorists, for extremists, and for organized crime.”
India’s positions on terrorism, particularly Islamist militancy, usually converge with these of Washington and different Western capitals. It is a totally different story with Sikh extremism.
Within the speedy post-9/11 period, earlier than the China problem turned the core driver of U.S.-India cooperation, counterterrorism constituted a key focus of partnership — and particularly after the November 2008 assaults in Mumbai, India, wherein gunmen killed 166 individuals, together with six Individuals. U.S. and Indian officers blame Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Pakistan-sponsored and India-focused terrorist group, for the assault. After the assaults, Washington ramped up its covert presence in Pakistan, and one among its prime motivations was to assemble extra data on LeT.
Washington and New Delhi usually see eye to eye on the threats posed by LeT, but additionally by al-Qaida, Jaish-e-Mohammad (one other Pakistani India-focused group) and the Islamic State. Joint statements from conferences between senior American and Indian leaders — together with one after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s state go to to Washington in June — usually comprise sturdy pledges to fight terrorism.
Samuel Corum/AFP by way of Getty Pictures
Nonetheless, U.S and different Western officers haven’t categorically condemned violent Sikh separatism. U.S. officers and lawmakers did denounce two actions by pro-Khalistan protesters on the Indian Consulate in San Francisco earlier this yr. One was an try by pro-Khalistan demonstrators in July to set the consulate on hearth. The opposite was in March, when separatist demonstrators breached the entry boundaries of the identical facility and put in two Khalistan flags on the consulate grounds.
They have not endorsed New Delhi’s categorization of Nijjar as a terrorist (Indian press stories declare Nijjar was on a U.S. no-fly record, however Washington hasn’t confirmed this). Washington hasn’t formally designated any violent Khalistan teams as terrorist organizations — although it did designate one other South Asian separatist outfit, the Baluchistan Liberation Military in Pakistan, in 2019.
A number of causes could clarify why India’s warnings concerning the risks of Sikh separatism have not galvanized Western governments. Above all, the Khalistan motion, in contrast to Islamist terrorism, not often poses a direct risk to the West. Its violence primarily targets India (although its supporters have threatened Indian diplomats within the West, and in 1985 Sikh terrorists blew up an Air India jet that took off from Montreal, killing all onboard, most of them Canadians).
Moreover, Sikh separatist violence has declined lately, conserving it out of the headlines within the West, the place many are unaware how severe a risk it was, and maybe lowering governments’ risk perceptions. A Khalistan insurgency raged in India within the Eighties and Nineties. Again then, the truth is, U.S. officers have been fairly involved about it: A declassified CIA memo revealed in 1987 referred to Sikh extremism as a “long-term terrorism risk.” Three years earlier, radical Khalistan supporters had seized a Sikh temple in Amritsar, India, sparking a bloody authorities crackdown and prompting two of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s Sikh bodyguards to assassinate her. This provoked revenge assaults on Sikhs and spiritual violence which, on the time, was the worst for the reason that 1947 Partition of British-ruled India into impartial India and Pakistan. Indians have not forgotten about these traumatic occasions, however many within the West, particularly exterior Canada, aren’t even conscious of them.
Democracy additionally drives the West’s restraint. India believes many harmful Sikh separatists are primarily based in Western international locations — Canada, Nice Britain, Australia and the U.S, all members of the “5 Eyes” intelligence-sharing alliance. However these international locations uphold democratic rules that give nonviolent Sikh activists house to assemble and reveal. They do not need to provoke insurance policies that danger conflating the small variety of violent Sikh separatists with the a lot bigger variety of nonviolent Sikh group members — a few of whom have advocated peacefully for a separate Sikh state. (Some Indian commentators declare that in Canada, Trudeau’s need to not upset Sikh voters prompts Ottawa to deal with Khalistan extremists with child gloves.)
Within the coming days, Washington can count on to get an earful from India a few rising Khalistan risk emanating from Western soil and the necessity for Washington and its 5 Eyes allies to do extra to counter it. It’s going to be a fragile dialog, and never simply due to New Delhi’s present perceptions of Western impassivity — and in addition the rising issues amongst U.S.-based Sikhs, intensified by FBI warnings, about potential risks to their security. There is a historic grievance, too. Some distinguished Indians — together with Indira Gandhi and former senior intelligence officer B. Raman — have alleged that the U.S. covertly backed Sikh separatists within the Seventies and Eighties, when Washington was in a Chilly Conflict alliance with Islamabad, a possible sponsor of the Khalistan motion (India has lengthy accused Pakistan of backing Sikh separatists, and Pakistan formally denies the fees, however former senior Pakistani intelligence officers have acknowledged that Pakistani operatives have supplied help to Sikh separatists).
There is not any proof to help the allegation that Washington covertly backed the Khalistan motion. Nevertheless it underscores the distrust that stricken U.S.-India ties in a earlier period. The connection has since skilled speedy development, particularly with Washington now viewing New Delhi as a essential counterweight in opposition to Chinese language energy. And but, differing U.S. and Indian positions on Khalistan at this time are a sobering reminder that even in an in any other case deep partnership, some historic baggage nonetheless lingers.
[ad_2]
Source link