To kill or not to kill
Alok Tiwari
The last couple of months have not been easy for India’s foreign policy. The country has been accused twice by Canada and US of involvement in assassination or plotting to assassinate individuals in those countries. The Canadian accusation about killing of pro Khalistan activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar was met with furious denial by India and a visible deterioration in relations with it. US indictment accusing an unnamed Indian government official of plotting to assassinate another Khalistan proponent Gurpatwant Singh Pannun has met with more muted response. India has said assassination wasn’t part of its official policy and has promised to investigate the US charge.
Whether there is any truth in Canadian and
American allegations will probably never be known. Until more concrete proof
emerges, we must live with allegations and their denial. What is known is that
governments of all manner have indulged in such acts since forever. Though no
government will officially accept authorising assassinations in another
country, many countries have done it either through own agents or through paid
mercenaries. US’s own CIA has been notorious for eliminating characters it
considered inconvenient in foreign countries. Israel’s Mossad too is infamous
for this reason. It has been accused to carrying out killing of Palestinian and
others inimical to its interests even in enemy countries. Most recently it was
believed to have carried out killing of a top Iranian nuclear expert in Iran.
The way detractors of Russian president Vladimir Putin have died in recent
years, most of them falling to sophisticated poisons, can’t be all coincidence.
The act itself is not beyond the pale of
top intelligence agencies. This is also often result of frustration with the
legal way of dealing with situation. If you have citizens of another country
inciting separatism and violence in your country with the host country doing
nothing to check their activities the temptation to do something like this can
be great. Relations with host country, your own weight in international arena,
domestic political compulsions of host country may all become hurdles in
attempt to legally extradite such persons. People in India are justifiably
angered by Pakistan offering a haven to notorious characters like Dawood
Ibrahim and Hafeez Saeed who have inflicted tremendous harm on India.
The question before me is whether there is
any place for morality in international relations and if not whether there
should be. Should countries follow norms of ordinary decency that we expect
ordinary citizens to follow? What if some decide not to? Does that allow others
dealing with those countries to also abandon all notions rule of law and
justice? I am constantly puzzled by the desire of even well-informed segment,
rather especially the well-informed ones, to let their countries cross
boundaries that they would not allow their children to.
We would never teach our children to be
aggressive, vindictive, manipulative. We would never want citizens who say one
thing and do another and who do not own up to their wrong acts, we would not
want vigilante justice by gangs, we would not want us to grab what is not
rightfully ours even if we see some people in society do that and benefit from
such acts. But we are not just okay with our country doing all these, we
actually celebrate such stuff. Even in Canadian and US accusations, many have
seen evidence of a “new India” that is not afraid of eliminating its enemy
wherever. This without even knowing whether it was botched Indian operation or
some other plot.
It is the same mentality that to this day
vilifies Gandhi for insisting on giving Rs 55 crore due for Pakistan and Nehru
for taking Kashmir issue to UN. Those acts may have caused difficulties for
India but there is no denying that one was an act of justice and other an
idealistic move to let disputes be resolved by a neutral international body. A
lot of us however would rather that we had confiscated the money and resolved
Kashmir by force. Obviously, for them there is no place for morality or values
in international relations and realpolitik should trump all other
considerations.
I have already noted frustrations of doing
things the legal way. But should this mean we stop trying? The more desirable
way would be to use a country’s heft and influence to create systems that
enable countries to bring their fugitives to justice in quick and transparent
ways. That carries no guarantee of success but simply bumping off whom you
consider wrongdoers has other pitfalls. It is equivalent of demolishing an
alleged criminal’s house or staging a fake encounter because justice system is
too slow to punish them. The correct thing to do is to improve the justice
system, not find shortcuts.
If assassinations were to become the norm
internationally then no country would be safe. That is why civilian governments
have put checks on their rogue operatives who tried to go beyond the brief.
History is littered with “patriots” who would willingly choose the wrong way
with some twisted notion of serving the country. Countries that seek positions
of leadership internationally need to demonstrate their own moral values.
Without that they may succeed in doing some things but would not earn the
respect needed for that role.
In the end, a country is just an expression
of its own civilizational values. Whether India should follow other major
powers in authorizing clandestine assassination while denying doing that
publicly would depend upon what most of us Indians think. The country’s values
cannot be much different from our own. Principles are not for just mentioning
in speeches are international summits. They must be followed and following
principles sometimes entails a cost. Should one follow one’s principles and pay
the price or should one take the easy way out? Your answer will be your
country’s answer.
This column appeared in Lokmat Times on Dec 6, 2023
Comments
Post a Comment