India’s alleged involvement in the killing of Sikh separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada and in the plot to assassinate Gurpatwant Singh Pannun in the US against the so-called ‘Khalistani’ threat throws open a question that Chanakya’s Arthashastra offers an answer to.
Morality and legitimacy in the utilisation of violence in statecraft are often in mutual conflict. According to the Arthashastra, if morality is seen as pursuing a ‘just cause’ that would eventually lead to a more prosperous and secure state, then it is the guiding light for the use of violence and other coercive means. There is, however, a difference between the means employed to address internal and external enemies. For the external enemy, Bheda (logic or trickery) and Danda (force) can be employed, but for your own people (especially those in the core of the kingdom), all means except force can be used. In the former, the use of force is seen as moral. However, Matsya Nyaya (law of the jungle) in the internal realm can also be curbed through force. These principles provide the guidelines for the legitimate use of violence.
By and large, nation-states cannot afford to be moral entities all the time in a fundamentally anarchic international system. However, with sovereignty assuming a central role in the modern international system, the morality principle is, at least in theory, subsumed by legitimacy. In practice, nations guard their sovereignty and violate others’ in the pursuit of national interests. Legitimacy comes to the fore when the actions of a state are perceived to violate the sovereignty and accusations follow.
India has been at the receiving end of accusations by Canada and the US. In the case of Canada, it was the killing of the ‘Khalistani’ separatist Nijjar outside a Gurdwara in Surrey, British Columbia, on 18 June. This was followed by a damning indictment last week in the Southern District Court of New York of Nikhil Gupta, a PIO (Person of Indian Origin). He was charged with murder-for-hire for the alleged plot to assassinate Pannun. Gupta’s criminal antecedents and drug dealings were reportedly known to Indian authorities. A senior official allegedly contacted him for the assassination in exchange for dropping criminal charges against him in Gujarat.
The diplomatic row after the Nijjar killing has somewhat subsided, although Canada has yet to publicly produce sufficient evidence. Following the revelations in the US indictment, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told reporters in Ottawa: “The news coming out of the United States further underscores what we’ve been talking about from the very beginning, which is that India needs to take this seriously,” adding, “The Indian government needs to work with us to ensure that we’re getting to the bottom of this.” It is unlikely that Trudeau’s call will be heeded by India.
Also Read: Manipur violence won’t go away unless Modi’s ‘vision’ takes a U-turn
Outcome of the Pannun case
The indictment of Nikhil Gupta seems to be backed by evidence not only against him but also towards the possible complicity of R&AW, India’s foreign intelligence agency, in the plans to kill Pannun, a dual citizen of Canada and the US. Classified as an ‘individual terrorist’ by the Indian state, Pannun is a ‘Khalistani’ separatist who has been issuing threats against India. Following the killing of Nijjar, he openly threatened India with acts of violence. On 4 November, he asked Sikhs to stop flying on Air India planes after 19 November, citing a potential threat to their lives—rekindling memories of the bombing of an Air India plane by Canadian-Sikh terrorists in 1985.
Since evidence was presented in the Pannun issue, India constituted a high-level inquiry committee on 18 November. The inquiry can be expected to result in the R&AW being absolved. Overall, the matter may fade and issues of much greater importance would continue to shape India-US relations.
That said, there is no foretelling the outcome of the Pannun case. We cannot rule out the emergence of more embarrassing details, including unambiguous evidence against Indian intelligence agencies about their alleged involvement. Should that happen, Indian citizens and the world at large may demand clear official statements from the government of India. We cannot afford to just wish away the consequences of possible further exposures.
Also Read: Canada blinded by its absolutist human rights values. Sikh hardliners will bite it back
The strongman image
Three issues demand interrogation at this stage. First, does a ‘Khalistan’ threat, based outside the country, warrant actions like killing its leaders wherever they are? Second, what are the checks and balances in India’s national security system to ensure that intelligence agencies act only on the orders of the political leadership? Third, is there a necessity for parliamentary oversight over intelligence agencies?
Terrorism abetted by Pakistan has been the preferred route for Khalistan supporters who pursue the path of violence. This poses a potential threat that needs to be monitored and dealt with. However, the heydays of this threat have long since passed and Punjab has moved on. There is practically no worthwhile support for the Khalistani cause in Punjab. The question that arises then is why would the government indulge in the killings that it is now accused of.
The motivation for adopting such methods and actions could lie in the style of statecraft and governance that the ruling BJP has advertised — a strong government. It pushes this as the primary factor that differentiates it from the Congress governments of yore. Actions carried across the Line of Control such as the Balakot strike were trumpeted and ‘Muh-tod jawab’, a jaw-breaking response, became the prevailing expectation of the public. This is notwithstanding the rather timid response to the excesses by China in grabbing pieces of Indian territory. Regardless, the vaunted “56-inch chest” dimensions image of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has undoubtedly attracted many followers and perhaps played a role in the BJP’s electoral success. Pakistan and India’s Muslim communities are natural targets based on Hinduism-based ideology. Indian Muslims are portrayed as ‘outsiders’ in the context of an ancient Hindu civilisation.
After the farmers’ protest led by the Sikh community in Punjab, the BJP has apparently lost whatever foothold it had in Punjab. There is even a conspiracy theory going around that the Amritpal Singh saga was orchestrated by the central intelligence agencies in a manner similar to how the Congress party propped up Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale to split the Sikh community. Amritpal is now cooling his heels in an Assam jail.
It might have been this temptation to project strength that led to the scheme of targeting ‘Khalistani’ terrorists enjoying safe havens in the US, Canada, Europe, and Pakistan.
What I witnessed two months ago adds credence to this theory. A senior Army veteran, who is also a member of the RSS, read out a list of persons who were neutralised by the Modi government to an audience of students in one of India’s most hallowed institutions. It was a projection of the strongman/strong government image. One could not miss the propaganda targeted at the impressionable minds of a segment of India’s future leadership.
Also Read: Army’s move to learn about ancient texts is important. But it needs a broader focus
Checks and balances
The larger question that begs an answer is: if the government has indeed done what it is accused of, was the action taken in the national interests or in the interests of the ruling party?
There is also the question of who in the existing system is responsible for ultimately authorising such killings. The answer is straightforward. The executive head of the government takes this call, as is the practice in most nations around the world. In India, that is the Prime Minister.
The number of times the Indian government has carried out such killings is something that can never be known nor revealed. But for sure, in certain specific cases, India would have had ‘just cause’ and legitimacy to do so.
There are no safeguards in place that can act as checks to such powers of the Prime Minister. So, there is a case for parliamentary oversight of the intelligence agencies. This has been pushed by Congress leader Manish Tewari since 2011. He made another attempt to press the point in 2021 after the Pegasus affair. Unsurprisingly, the Bill has not found support even within the Congress party. Would the present round of national embarrassment involving an intelligence agency provide any ballast to the parliamentary oversight scheme? ‘No chance’ is all that one can say. But that does not take away the need for parliamentary oversight.
The moot question in this saga is whether the BJP’s interests have transcended national interests. We will never know for sure because in all such cases, individuals are the conventional scapegoats. Thus, to go back to the Arthashastra, in the real world, nations are likely to come to grief if they embrace the pursuit of morality and legitimacy as a consistent objective.
Lt Gen (Dr) Prakash Menon (retd) is Director, Strategic Studies Programme, Takshashila Institution; former military adviser, National Security Council Secretariat. He tweets @prakashmenon51. Views are personal.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)