The ongoing geopolitical dynamics between India, Canada, and the United States regarding allegations of extraterritorial killings have revealed several interesting perspectives. Some argue that India lacks the ability to discreetly eliminate its state enemies, drawing comparisons to Israel and Mossad’s seemingly flawless operations. Others reject the notion outright, claiming that India does not engage in extraterritorial assassinations.
Another narrative states that Western powers are using these accusations to destabilise India’s rise as a non-white, non-Anglospheric global power. According to this view, despite strategic, political, technological, and economic convergences with India, Western agencies are perpetually conspiring against India. A focal point of this theory is the Five Eyes intelligence alliance—a current favourite of the Indian commentariat.
The Five Eyes, which includes the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, is a well-established intelligence-sharing network among these English-speaking countries. Since Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s accusations against India rely on intelligence rather than hard evidence, many speculate that the knowledge came from the Five Eyes. The clandestine nature of Five Eyes’ operations makes it a fertile ground for geopolitical intrigue.
Intelligence, as a tool of statecraft, enables countries to monitor one another in a global system that is fundamentally anarchic. If there is a mystery in state affairs, it lies in the covert operations of intelligence agencies. It is alleged that the Five Eyes countries even spy on each other, circumventing domestic laws by collecting intelligence on fellow members, then sharing the gathered information to bypass legal restrictions on domestic surveillance.
Despite the inclusion of additional countries like Denmark, Norway, West Germany, and France in intelligence collaborations after World War II, the alliance retains the name “Five Eyes” due to the original signatories of the UK-US treaty.
Also read: China-Pakistan SCO presence threatens India. Strategic engagement helps in other ways
Evolving goalpost of international espionage
The theory that the Five Eyes is determined to destabilise India’s rise is intriguing. In the current controversy with Canada, this assumption stems from statements by the other Five Eyes members urging India to cooperate with Canada. However, India has navigated similar accusations from the US rather well, specifically concerning an alleged assassination attempt on Sikh separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannu. India and the US have worked together on this issue, with the latter reportedly satisfied with the level of cooperation. In contrast, Trudeau’s undiplomatic and graceless handling of the allegations led to a proportionate snub from India.
However, diplomatic pragmatism appears to be working too. India’s National Security Advisor Ajit Doval reportedly met his Canadian counterpart in Singapore. India has now placed the ball in Canada’s court, asking for progress on long-standing extradition requests that have been ignored by Ottawa. Many in India believe it is time to focus on a post-Trudeau Canada, dismissing his actions as driven by domestic politics and double standards.
Additionally, India maintains deep and multi-dimensional relationships with three of the Five Eyes members: the US, UK, and Australia. Political disagreements, such as the ongoing Khalistan issue with the UK, have not fundamentally altered these strategic ties that have evolved in chasing convergences through ‘2+2 mechanisms’ and strategic partnerships.
Nonetheless, the Indian commentariat remains fixated on the idea that the Five Eyes are working to destabilise India’s rise.
This notion is peculiar, especially in light of declassified proceedings from the Donald Trump era. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, led by Adam Schiff, underscored that for the US pivot to the Indo-Pacific to succeed, intelligence cooperation of ‘five eyes’ with Japan, India, and South Korea must be expanded. While full membership in the Five Eyes was not considered ideal, a “plus-format” engagement was recommended by analysts.
During the Cold War, the primary focus of the Five Eyes was gathering intelligence on the Soviet Union. Now, as US strategic interests have shifted to the Indo-Pacific, China has become the new focal point of the alliance’s operations. In this context, there should be a logical convergence of interests between India and the Five Eyes countries on China’s activities that directly impact India on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and in the subcontinent.
Also read: Sweden’s Indo-Pacific strategy has an India-sized gap. Piggybacking US allies won’t work
Cold War baggage
Two key historical factors have contributed to ingrained anti-West sentiment in India’s strategic mindset—the era of colonial exploitation and the 1971 treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union. The same year, India asserted dominance in South Asia by liberating Bangladesh from Pakistan.
Yet, an interesting contradiction lies in the fact that during the 1962 India-China War, Delhi refused Washington’s assistance while the Soviet Union did not extend a helping hand. India suffered a crushing defeat and territorial loss, resulting in the establishment of the disputed LAC with China, which remains a hotbed of tensions today.
Despite various efforts to manage the LAC, India has consistently faced China’s unilateral attempts to alter the status quo.
In retrospect, it remains unclear if the 1971 victory compensates for the 1962 defeat. India now faces a weaker yet troublesome neighbour to the west (Pakistan), backed by a more powerful and aggressive eastern adversary with hostile intentions (China).
Nonetheless, memories of victory tend to overshadow those of defeat, and India’s strategic mindset became fixated on the Soviet Union and later Russia as its historical ally.
Cold War divisions shaped the global order for the next three decades, until the 9/11 attacks shifted the US foreign policy and China’s asymmetric rise pushed momentum in India-US strategic ties.
India and Soviet spying
Regarding intelligence infiltration into India, the deepest penetration was unarguably by the Soviet Union itself. During the Cold War, the Soviets relied on two key intelligence-gathering methods—secret informants and undercover agents referred to as ‘razvedka’ in Russian. According to declassified Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) archives, Western intelligence emphasised research-based intelligence, while the Soviets placed more value on undercover operations.
One of the most fascinating accounts of Soviet intelligence activities in India comes from the Mitrokhin Archive. Compiled by KGB officer Vasiliy Mitrokhin (1922-2004), these files, first published in parts in 1999 and then featured in a 2005 book, caused political controversy in India. They revealed that India had the largest number of KGB agents outside the USSR, with deep Soviet influence in Congress-ruled India. The USSR believed that it could win the Cold War by using proxy influence in the Non-Aligned Movement, utilising methods like political interference, illicit funding, and secret gifts—not only to Indira Gandhi but also to the Communist Party affiliates.
Mitrokhin’s revelations were later supported by memoirs from other KGB officers, such as Lt Gen. Leonid Sherbarshin, who specialised in South Asia and led the KGB’s foreign intelligence in 1989. Sherbarshin described how India’s academia was easily influenced by Marxist-Leninist ideology, mocking them as “soft targets” for Soviet propaganda.
Former Intelligence Bureau director Maloy Krishna Dhar’s 2005 book Open Secrets further documented how numerous Indian ministers and MPs were on the KGB payroll. Dhar also highlighted in later interviews how the defence ministry and military procurement departments were penetrated by the KGB. India’s long-standing reliance on Russian military equipment supports these claims, reinforcing the deep connections between India and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Since then, geopolitics has transformed.
One of the key legacies of the Modi-Rajnath Singh era is India’s effort to diversify its defence partnerships and reduce dependence on Russia. The government has opened India’s defence sector to foreign direct investment (FDI) and encouraged private sector involvement. Although these changes will take time to bear fruit, they are expected to significantly reshape India’s defence ecosystem in line with the ideal of self-reliance.
Today, India maintains a multi-aligned foreign policy, with continued engagement with Russia, but its most critical strategic partnerships are with countries like the US and France.
Anti-Westernism, a legacy of India’s colonial past and Cold War-era alliances, was once a dominant response in Indian strategic thinking. However, as global alignments evolve, it is crucial for India’s strategic reasoning to align with the new realities of international statecraft, particularly in relation to the challenges posed by China and its network of allies.
The writer is an Associate Fellow, Europe and Eurasia Center, at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. She tweets @swasrao. Views are personal.
(Edited by Humra Laeeq)