Western critics are not seriously discomfited by India killing terrorists at home, or even covertly in Pakistan. What they cannot stand is the killing of Western citizens. They argue that this is unwarranted since there is rule of law in the West. That is laughable for anyone familiar with Khalistani proponents in Canada. In the US, every Irish bar in Boston used to have a collecting box to fund Irish terrorists.
Let me focus on just two points in the India-Canada confrontation over the killing in Canada of the alleged Khalistani terrorist, Hardeep Singh Nijjar. First, hypocrisy is deeply ingrained in Western critics on the right to assassinate foes abroad. Second, Mossad-style assassinations are a tempting form of vengeance, but cannot end terrorism and must be avoided.
Western leaders and media are demanding penalties on India if investigations confirm government involvement in Nijjar’s killing. Adrienne Watson, White House National Security Council spokesperson, said ‘targeting dissidents in other countries is absolutely unacceptable and we will keep taking steps to push back on this practice’. The Economist declared in an editorial, ‘If India ordered a murder in Canada, there must be consequences.’
Really? Did The Economist and other Western media demand consequences for US killings abroad? Is it not common knowledge that the US and Israel have been the greatest foreign assassins?
The Western media say India should not go down the disreputable assassination path followed by Russia and Saudi Arabia. Why don’t they say India should avoid the path taken by the US? Because they think it’s okay for the US to assassinate foes abroad, but not Russia or Third Worlders like Iran and India.
Western critics are not seriously discomfited by India killing terrorists at home, or even covertly in Pakistan. What they cannot stand is the killing of Western citizens. They argue that this is unwarranted since there is rule of law in the West. That is laughable for anyone familiar with Khalistani proponents in Canada. In the US, every Irish bar in Boston used to have a collecting box to fund Irish terrorists.
This is deeply hypocritical. The US made eight assassination attempts on Fidel Castro, including the use of an exploding cigar. The CIA plotted the murder of President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam and Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, though actual executions were done by others. The CIA abetted the overthrow and murder of President Salvador Allende in Chile. US Congressional Committees found the CIA to be so cavalier that in 1975, President Gerald Ford enacted legislation prohibiting political assassinations.
Yet, assassinations have continued against those the US deems to be terrorists. Wikipedia says the US assassinated over 1,000 suspected terrorists in Iraq, including top members of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Baathists and Shia insurgents. This cannot be called apolitical. It executed at least 60 top radical Islamists in other places including Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, Qassem Soleimani, head of the Quds Force in Iran, and Imad Mughniyah, deputy head of Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Israel is equally famous for assassinations that it calls self-protection. This has been condemned by the UN and other human rights bodies. But the US and Nato allies have winked at it.
Jewish terrorism began during British rule under the Palestinian mandate. The Irgun and Stern Gang killed hundreds of Palestinians and dozens of British agents. They were called terrorists at the time. But once the Israeli state was formed, the same killers became top politicians (Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir), fawned over by many US leaders and media. They sanctioned the killing of thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese belonging to Hezbollah. Arguably, this was civil war.
But when Palestinian terrorists killed 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, Israel promised revenge, hunting and killing every attacker and several other Palestinians at locations ranging from Rome, Paris and Lillehammer in Norway to Lebanon and Cyprus. This could not be called self-defence. It was vengeance, pure and simple. Yet, there was more admiration than condemnation from Western leaders and media.
Steven Spielberg’s 2005 film Munich portrayed the Munich killings and subsequent hunt for the perpetrators. The film did not end on a triumphant note about successful Israeli revenge. Instead, the Israeli killers wondered whether vengeance was sensible, since every killing merely created new martyrs and spurred endless tit for tat.
India has termed its involvement in Nijjar’s killing as ‘absurd’. Yet, many Indians on social media are celebrating India’s copying of Mossad and James Bond. They ask, if the US and Israel can kill terrorists abroad, why not India? The question is germane, yet so politically awkward that it has not been answered by either Western politicians or media. But the answer comes from Spielberg’s film. Vengeance may seem thrilling. But it simply perpetuates an endless cycle of killing that can be stopped only by a political solution.
Another award-winning film, the 2012 documentary by Israeli filmmaker Dror Moreh, The Gatekeepers, interviewed several former heads of Shin Bet, the Israeli intelligence agency. Every one of them said that vengeance could not produce a solution, only political negotiations could. They blamed both Israeli and Palestinian politicians for playing to the gallery instead of seeking a permanent solution.
This has lessons for India. Its public may love heroic tales of Indian James Bonds executing enemies. But Nijjar’s killing simply gives Canadian Khalistanis a new martyr behind whom to rally and grow. Assassinating Khalistanis abroad is as futile as Israeli assassinations of the Munich killers. Let none cheer such folly.
This article was originally published by The Economic Times on September 26, 2023.
