
[Justin Trudeau courting Sikh constituents]
Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington has suggested something that’s never occurred to us Indians and even less to the Indian government — to lead the charge on branding Canada as “State Sponsor of Terrorism”. It would have devastating consequences for that country if the Financial Action Task Force follows up with sanctioning Ottawa. For years, New Delhi has focussed obsessively on Pakistan, leaving the equally dangerous source of international (Sikh) terrorism — Canada — free to continue stoking a cause that long ago became extinct in Punjab. The Modi government should now take up this task as top foreign policy priority, and on a war footing.
The blowing up of Air India plane Kanishka — flight AI-82 on June 23, 1985, over the North Atlantic Ocean killing 329 passengers and crew is the biggest aviation terrorism incident to-date. It took the Canadian government, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (main police agency), and intel agency over 20 years to investigate and take the perpetrators to court, and then did not have enough evidence to convict the two men accused in the conspiracy, Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri, who got away scott free, and Inderjit Singh Reyat who put together the explosive device, served some jail time. The shoddy police work, no doubt overseen by Liberal Party ministers, is one thing. But that terrorist outrage should have prompted the Indian government to seek international condemnation of Canada as state sponsor of terrorism, and take it to the FATF. Now that the two countries have vacated their respective high commissions of senior diplomats, it is time Modi ordered the MEA to go hammer and tongs in a campaign to villify and isolate Canada as a promoter of terrorism.
The more the Liberal Party government’s popularity has eroded in Canada, the more strongly its leader and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has sought to strengthen his support among the burgeoning Sikh immigrant community settled in large discrete pockets (around Toronto in the east and Vancouver in the west) — a policy initiated by his father and also PM, Pierre Trudeau — yea, dynastic politics is live and well in Canada as well!! — of affording Sikhs virtually free access to the country and encouraging the Khalistan cause.
Indeed, the Liberal Party in Canada has been the analog of the Congress Party in Assam where it helped enlarge its voter base by unscrupulous means — allowing Bangladeshis streaming illegally into the state across a porous border and immediately legitimizing their electoral clout by handing out voter cards, ration cards and other state and national identity documents. Such means helped Congress to rule Assam uninterruptedly for a very long time. It is exactly the same policy being followed by the Trudeau regime to hang on to power by its fingernails. He hands out resident visas to Sikhs once they somehow manage to reach the Canadian shores, often on forged passports and farzi visas. Until now when backing the Sikhs in their quixotic venture has become a political imperative for the ruling Liberal Party to retain power, even if the Khalistan Movement is really a cover for the growing criminal activity of Sikh gangs engaged in extortion rackets, trafficking in drugs and women, and running prostitution rings.
Rubin argues (https://www.aei.org/op-eds/opinion-india-should-designate-canada-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terror/ ) that Trudeau “errs by confusing militancy with legitimate religion” and suggests that Ottawa ponder the conclusion of the ‘Bloom Review’ — the report of the Independent Faith Engagement Adviser appointed by the UK government 5 years ago to monitor religious extremism among the immigrant population. That Review said that “Subversive, aggressive and sectarian actions of some pro-Khalistan activists and the subsequent negative effect on wider Sikh communities should not be tolerated.” And why the Canadian leader’s strategy of seeking protection for his otherwise legally unmaintainable Sikh policy by dragging the “Five Eyes” Intelligence sharing combine of exclusively English-speaking Anglosaxon countries (US, UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand) into the fray, has precipitated a “crisis” with Trudeau asking the US government/CIA to validate his claims of New Delhi’s complicity in the killing of the Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar last year. It has put the Biden Admin in an icky position. The “Five Eyes” members — US and UK, however, felt compelled to maintain solidarity with Trudeau and officially to wag a finger at India even though Trudeau himself confessed that what his government had by way of evidence is “intelligence information” not something that would stand up to legal scrutiny in court.
Rubin concludes: “Subjectivity, be it in the United Nations, the Financial Action Task Force, or on various country’s terror lists, undermines institutions; objectivity strengthens them. As such, India can do Canada, the United States, and Western Europe a service by designating Canada as a terror sponsor for its safe haven, if not support, for Khalistani militants. Western finger wagging does not defeat terror; financial crackdowns, arrests, and extraditions do. Ottawa and, for that matter, Washington (where President Joe Biden recently welcomed Sikh militants at the White House) may not like the limelight but as both capitals lecture others, the best way to avoid such unpleasant attention is to make substantive reform.”
Rubin followed up a few days later with an op/ed ( https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-us-must-stand-with-india-against-canada/ ) in the Washington Examiner, pointing out that “Juxtaposing the Trudeau temper tantrum toward India with Canada’s muted response toward Pakistan in the aftermath of the 2008 Mumbai bombings simply reinforces the point” and that “Nijjar openly advocated violence against his opponents and endorsed terrorism to achieve his aims. His death, even if caused by India, was no loss.” Canada, he adds, “may be America’s neighbor and second-largest trading partner, but to side with Ottawa over New Delhi would be wrong. Trudeau’s progressivism may mirror the Biden administration’s, but his erraticism should concern Washington. He puts ego above national interest”. And he advised President Joe Biden for the US not to “sacrifice its India ties to help extricate Trudeau from a hole of his own digging. Biden must cut Trudeau loose and embrace Modi. Not only truth and justice but also 21st-century security and a grave and growing terrorism threat demand it.”

[Gurpatwant Singh Pannun]
But to focus on Gurpatwant Singh Pannun — the man at the centre of India’s differences with the US. Pannun realised sometime in the mid-2000s that there was a lucrative career to be made out of being a pusher and propagandist fulltime for Khalistan in North America and Britain, because his lawyering business in the US — such as it was, was not flourishing. Accordingly, the clean-shaven Pannun grew a beard, covered his head in a patka, to conform optically to the image of a Khalistani, and began frequenting and sounding off in anti-India protests in New York (such as the one against Modi for the killing of Muslims after Godra)! But Pannun and his ilk also saw how the early Khalistan backers in America, such as Ganga Singh Dhillon, funded by the US Central Intelligence Agency, made a very good living out of remaining in the public eye and playing on the grievance-fueled sentiments of the Sikh diaporas in the US, Canada, Britain, and Australia for a Sikh homeland carved out of Indian Punjab.
But first, a bit of history.
The Khalistan movement in the West got off the ground after the twin 1984 events: Operation Blue Star — a disastrous military operation Indira Gandhi ordered to rid the country of the Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale incubus she had created out of political whole cloth to contain the Zail Singh-dominated Congress party machine in Punjab and, later that year, her assassination by her Sikh bodyguards that led to the horrific massacre of Sikhs in the congested lanes and colonies of Delhi.
It was a cause the Pakistan Army’s Inter-Services Intelligence quickly converted with large dollops of funding, operational planning, and arms training of malcontents in Indian Punjab, into a potent separatist movement that began to gain traction among the youth of certain aggrieved sections of the Jat Sikh community. (The Jat Sikhs were especially incensed, it may be recalled, with the Indira G government’s decision to reduce the Sikh strength in the army from around 5+% to some 2% to make room in it for youth from other communities.) The charismatic Bhindranwale, always accompanied by a retinue of fierce-looking bearded youngmen with bandoliers strung across their chests and carrying bolt action Enfields — verily the vanguard of the Khalsa nation as they advertised themselves, struck fear in the Punjab population and occasioned admiration among the disaffected.
Except, that Khalistan dream died a lingering death when Jarnail Singh perished in the storming of the Golden Temple by the Indian army, and the redoubtable KPS Gill, heading Punjab Police, followed up by brutally finishing off what remained of the Khalistani presence in the state, both underground and overground. He did so by recruiting young Jat Sikh men from families who had seen their fathers, older brothers and relatives serving in the military or police, retired from the services, or employed at the lower levels of the state government, being bloodily shot by the Khalistanis seeking to impose a reign of terror in the countryside, and raping their sisters and looting their homes. These select young avengers in the ranks of Punjab Police commando were afforded the licence by the redoubtable Gill to hunt down these Khalistani killers, and eliminate them “like dogs”. The terrorised Khalistanis quite literally ran for their lives to Pakistan and from there to Canada, to Britain, to America, to Australia, to wherever they could find refuge, however they could get there.
The Khalistan movement in the West today is, for the likes of Pannun, mainly a commercial enterprise. They view it as a means of earning moolah by peddling dreams, and taking over gurdwaras there and channelling contributions by the faithful into their personal accounts. Thus enriched and on easy street, Pannun, in particular, finds that turning himself into a public nuisance pays, especially when he talks bombastically of dismembering India, and starting movements in the Indian northeast and elsewhere “to Balkanise and disintegrate the Union of India” as one of his posters declared. It gains him Delhi’s attention and alerts Washington to the possibilities. And this the dangerous aspect to this Khalistan game.
The Paki ISI still sees in these Khalistani yahoos a means of discommoding India and Indian interests and presence abroad — an activity Indian intelligence has been tracking diligently. But the wave of point blank shootings of state-protected terrorists (belonging to groups like Babbar Khalsa, etc) inside Pakistan responsible for planning and carrying out terrorist acts in India, sent shivers particularly through the Khalistani ranks abroad. They had not reckoned with the toothless Amma of an Indian government suddenly sprouting fangs. After Nijjar’s killing in June last year in Surrey, British Columbia, that Canadian intel had an inkling of but couldn’t prevent, Khalistani activists and sympathizers in the West were on tenterhooks — they didn’t know what awaited them round the corner.
And then the manifestly amateurish operation to take out Pannun came to light. It was appalling to find desi Intel minders who used whatsapp for communications and tasked a freelancer to recruit a hitman. Next they’ll do what? Advertise in New York Times that India is going after X, Y and Z? With the issue going so public, the Biden Admin’s ego was engaged, and they created a brouhaha. But Washington has been placated by the stringing up of a scapegoat — a mid-level RAW officer. (The lightweight Justin Trudeau and Canada can go stew in their own pot!)
It is an axiom of spycraft that governments think of the killings of their intel agents and assets as par for the course, as long as this is done on the sly and, to use an American idiom, “the shit doesn’t hit the fan”. This is the operating principle of all self-regarding intel agencies — create no public ruckus while conducting your business. By all means, kill off your enemies but do so without getting in the host country’s face. But, Pannun and others like him who know that survival depends on the protection provided them by Western laws and governments, have an incentive to cry themselves hoarse shouting wolf, and to be as publicly vocal as possible about real and imagined threats to their life and limb from Indian agencies. It is in this light that the fiasco related to the planned operation to kill Pannun must be seen.
But this shouldn’t fool anyone into thinking that Washington (CIA), London (MI 6), Ottawa, or Canberra don’t espy profit in keeping their fingers in the Khalistani pie, and cultivating that leverage for use in future contingencies.
That said, guardrails have to be erected, especially against a friendly America. Washington has to be told firmly that if CIA feels free to kill off “undesirables” for endangering its national interest — for God’s sake, it bumped off Homi Bhabha (by blowing up his Air India flight to Geneva) to prevent India from going weapons nuclear in the mid-1960s!, no person imperilling India’s territorial integrity would be spared, whatever the cost to bilateral relations. Unfortunately, this is not the attitude of the Modi government, which has served up a RAW officer as a sacrificial offering. Given the policy tilt, this is unlikely to be a one-off concession. Jaishankar has not brought up the matter of 61 Indian extradition requests to the US government, as a pink paper reported, for terrorists/criminals such as Tahawwur Hussain Rana who planned the 2008 Mumbai strike or Goldy Brar whose gang killed the singer Sidhu Moosewala or Ramachandran Viswanathan, a money launderer, residing in the US. Washington feels free to act tough on supposed Indian lawbreakers while shielding Indian criminals in its midst wanted by Indian authorities.
A contrary attitude to dealing with the enemies of state, is Israel’s. It tolerates not a smidgeon of danger from any quarter or source, from anywhere in the world. And shrugs off pressure. The Biden Admin warned against Israelis going into Rafah. This is precisely where the IDF advanced, and Mossad tracked down and killed the Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar. It goes proactively after those who mean Israel ill. Its reputation is so fearsome and inspires so much dread everwhere, that after Indira Gandhi got cold feet in 1982 and, to her great discredit, called off at the proverbial last minute the planned Israeli air strike operation to bomb the Pakistan nuclear weapons complex at Kahuta — a mission that was to be staged out of Indian bases in Jamnagar and Udhampur, an Islamabad, frightened out of its wits, thereafter assured Tel Aviv that it would never ever be part of any effort to do Israel harm in any way, including by giving its A-bomb to the Saudis, which was rumoured to be the deal for Riyadh’s financing the Chinese transfer of nuclear weapons and missile technologies to Pakistan, and to please therefore spare Kahuta!
Actually, there is a need in India for a ‘Special Operations Executive’-type of organisation that Churchill created in wartime Britain. It has to be outside RAW, operate under deep cover, and tasked to deal with dispatch against Indians and Indian-origin foreigners who grievously harm India and its national interest, or threaten its territorial integrity, because the fast-expanding Indian disasporas the world over, could source real problems in the future.













