Bill, I have to take issue with this piece, because your conclusion seems to be baked into the assumptions. You begin by referring to Nijjar as a “dissident,” a term used to refer to a political opponent of an authoritarian regime. So from the start you imply India is an authoritarian state. This has been a favorite trope in the global press since Modi was first elected, but is very far from the truth. Modi’s “tightened control over the media” for example cannot have been very effective, given that Indian media is the main source of tough criticism of the Modi administration. You never mention that Nijjar is suspected by Indian authorities of having been involved in acts of terrorism.
Trudeau has made a big splash with this public accusation, but has provided no evidence — yet your article implies we should take him at his word. Even though as you note, we can reasonably wonder whether it would have been worthwhile for Indian agents to carry out this alleged assassination.
Canada’s government has displayed striking authoritarian tendencies of its own: the handling of truck drivers protests during Covid, the treatment of Professor Jordan Peterson and moves to curb freedom of speech, including a recent decision to give the telecommunications commission power to regulate podcasts. I really don’t see on what basis we should trust Trudeau more than Modi.
So I am not surprised that the Indian population by and large reacts with outrage at Canada’s unsubstantiated allegations, rather than assuming that its own government should be considered guilty until proven innocent. But in your argument this becomes further evidence that India has taken an authoritarian turn.
India is a vibrant and healthy democracy. An imperfect one, but that is also true to an increasing extent of the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and many other Western countries. To put India in the same basket with China and Russia does a disservice to public debate and certainly should not be a guiding principle for the West’s foreign policy, in my view.
Bill, I have to take issue with this piece, because your conclusion seems to be baked into the assumptions. You begin by referring to Nijjar as a “dissident,” a term used to refer to a political opponent of an authoritarian regime. So from the start you imply India is an authoritarian state. This has been a favorite trope in the global press since Modi was first elected, but is very far from the truth. Modi’s “tightened control over the media” for example cannot have been very effective, given that Indian media is the main source of tough criticism of the Modi administration. You never mention that Nijjar is suspected by Indian authorities of having been involved in acts of terrorism.
Trudeau has made a big splash with this public accusation, but has provided no evidence — yet your article implies we should take him at his word. Even though as you note, we can reasonably wonder whether it would have been worthwhile for Indian agents to carry out this alleged assassination.
Canada’s government has displayed striking authoritarian tendencies of its own: the handling of truck drivers protests during Covid, the treatment of Professor Jordan Peterson and moves to curb freedom of speech, including a recent decision to give the telecommunications commission power to regulate podcasts. I really don’t see on what basis we should trust Trudeau more than Modi.
So I am not surprised that the Indian population by and large reacts with outrage at Canada’s unsubstantiated allegations, rather than assuming that its own government should be considered guilty until proven innocent. But in your argument this becomes further evidence that India has taken an authoritarian turn.
India is a vibrant and healthy democracy. An imperfect one, but that is also true to an increasing extent of the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and many other Western countries. To put India in the same basket with China and Russia does a disservice to public debate and certainly should not be a guiding principle for the West’s foreign policy, in my view.