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.
Marco, many thanks for your thoughtful response. I would say that only one thing is baked into my assumptions, which is that Modi has indeed turned India into a democracy with authoritarian characteristics. His governments' repeated assaults on freedom of speech and thought in universities and the media are well documented. This is no "trope". Certainly, the Indian media contains tough criticism of him, but he has done his best to quieten it down, with considerable success. Hence my phrase about authoritarian characteristics rather than claiming he is a straight-out dictator. His use of tax authorities to intimidate the BBC after they produced a documentary critical of him was straight from an authoritarian playbook, for example. What should we make of the prison sentence given to Rahul Gandhi for defamation? Yes, it was overturned by the Supreme Court so India's constitution remains intact, but the case and the verdict were nonetheless overtly political acts. Modi has, moreover, plainly pursued sectarian policies.
I don't agree that calling Nijjar a dissident somehow slants things from the start: Nijjar could have been called a separatist or secessionist too, which also implies rebellion but I don't think any of these words implies dictatorship. Concerning supposed acts of terrorism, I never say this because as far as I know the Indian authorities have provided no evidence at all for this. The only clue I have seen offered is the notion that Nijjar was somehow involved in setting up "training camps" for Sikh fighters, but there's been no evidence offered for that, either. Whatever you think of Canada, I don't imagine that terrorist training camps would go undetected or unremarked. All we know for sure is that Nijjar was an advocate of secession. What we haven't been told, by anyone, is why it should have been so important to kill a mere "advocate" so many thousands of miles away.
Should we take Trudeau at his word? Well, I did say, explicitly, that we are not in a position to judge the merits of the case, and I am not clear what further I could have said to make this point. The reality is that the accusation has been made, first privately and then publicly, so it is clearly a story with consequences, and I would argue that the responses to it are themselves revealing.
Finally, I would say that the common pretence at being "like-minded countries" and basing partnerships on "values" is hokum. The same approach to India would be being taken by the West if he were an out and out authoritarian. It is all about interests. Saying this did not, on any reading, place India in the same basket as China and Russia. To do so would be utterly wrong.
Bill, thanks for your thoughtful rebuttal. I agree on some of your points and disagree on others, and hopefully at some point we'll continue the debate over a coffee or a glass of wine. I certainly agree on your last point, namely that on current foreign policy engagements it is all about interests -- whether that is a healthy state of affairs is another matter. But thanks for bringing your insightful and thoughtful perspective to what is indeed one of the most interesting and revealing recent developments in global geopolitics.
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.
Marco, many thanks for your thoughtful response. I would say that only one thing is baked into my assumptions, which is that Modi has indeed turned India into a democracy with authoritarian characteristics. His governments' repeated assaults on freedom of speech and thought in universities and the media are well documented. This is no "trope". Certainly, the Indian media contains tough criticism of him, but he has done his best to quieten it down, with considerable success. Hence my phrase about authoritarian characteristics rather than claiming he is a straight-out dictator. His use of tax authorities to intimidate the BBC after they produced a documentary critical of him was straight from an authoritarian playbook, for example. What should we make of the prison sentence given to Rahul Gandhi for defamation? Yes, it was overturned by the Supreme Court so India's constitution remains intact, but the case and the verdict were nonetheless overtly political acts. Modi has, moreover, plainly pursued sectarian policies.
I don't agree that calling Nijjar a dissident somehow slants things from the start: Nijjar could have been called a separatist or secessionist too, which also implies rebellion but I don't think any of these words implies dictatorship. Concerning supposed acts of terrorism, I never say this because as far as I know the Indian authorities have provided no evidence at all for this. The only clue I have seen offered is the notion that Nijjar was somehow involved in setting up "training camps" for Sikh fighters, but there's been no evidence offered for that, either. Whatever you think of Canada, I don't imagine that terrorist training camps would go undetected or unremarked. All we know for sure is that Nijjar was an advocate of secession. What we haven't been told, by anyone, is why it should have been so important to kill a mere "advocate" so many thousands of miles away.
Should we take Trudeau at his word? Well, I did say, explicitly, that we are not in a position to judge the merits of the case, and I am not clear what further I could have said to make this point. The reality is that the accusation has been made, first privately and then publicly, so it is clearly a story with consequences, and I would argue that the responses to it are themselves revealing.
Finally, I would say that the common pretence at being "like-minded countries" and basing partnerships on "values" is hokum. The same approach to India would be being taken by the West if he were an out and out authoritarian. It is all about interests. Saying this did not, on any reading, place India in the same basket as China and Russia. To do so would be utterly wrong.
Bill, thanks for your thoughtful rebuttal. I agree on some of your points and disagree on others, and hopefully at some point we'll continue the debate over a coffee or a glass of wine. I certainly agree on your last point, namely that on current foreign policy engagements it is all about interests -- whether that is a healthy state of affairs is another matter. But thanks for bringing your insightful and thoughtful perspective to what is indeed one of the most interesting and revealing recent developments in global geopolitics.