Reuters Doesn’t Really Understand Why India Is Opposed To Sikh Separatism

From India’s perspective, these anti-state forces have exploited Western liberalism to live cozy lives and fund their separatist activities back home through illegal activity, all the while the host governments fail to crack down on their interconnected domestic-international crimes due to “political correctness”.

Reuters’ recent report about how “India PM Modi's Sikh Separatist Fight Driven by Security, Politics” completely misses the point when it comes to informing their audience about this issue. They imply that India doesn’t have any evidence connecting foreign-based members of this movement with crime in Punjab and hint that it’s overreacting to the threat that they pose. There’s also innuendo that Prime Minister Modi is driven by domestic political calculations and not by legitimate national security ones.

It becomes clear after reviewing this piece that Reuters doesn’t really understand why India is opposed to Sikh separatism. This cosmopolitan civilization-state always opposes separatism out of principle in order to safeguard the historical unity of its diverse people. Those who employ terrorist threats in pursuit of this goal, like the ones that the individual at the center of the latest scandal made to India’s national airlines last month and even its parliament earlier this week, and deeply despised by the state.

Both were made after that person was allegedly targeted by Indian assassins in June, however, during which time they were presumably under federal protection as is standard protocol in such situations. This observation leads to the next point regarding how unacceptable it is for America to host and even arguably protect such an individual who makes terroristic threats to its strategic Indian partner. The same goes for Canada and other Western countries that harbor Delhi-designated terrorists-separatists.

From India’s perspective, these anti-state forces have exploited Western liberalism to live cozy lives and fund their separatist activities back home through illegal activity, all the while the host governments fail to crack down on their interconnected domestic-international crimes due to “political correctness”. This is deemed to be a betrayal of their bilateral partnerships with India, which is made all the more insulting after they refuse to take action to curtail these individuals’ activities after being made aware of them.  

The FBI chief’s upcoming trip to India to discuss the Department of Justice’s charges against the unnamed government official who’s accused of orchestrating June’s foiled assassination attempt will be a defining moment in their ties. He’ll share whatever evidence he claims to have in support of his government’s accusations while they’ll share everything that they have in support of their own claims regarding the allegedly targeted individual’s criminal activities.

From there, both sides will proceed with their respective investigations, though it’s premature to predict how they’ll end. One possible scenario is that the unnamed Indian official and the person who they allegedly hired to organize the assassination are found guilty by the American courts. The second-mentioned, who’s presently in US custody after being detained in the Czech Republic, might later be sent back to India as part of a deal if Delhi agrees to take disciplinary action against the unnamed official.

Truth be told, however, India isn’t expected to “fall on its own sword” for a variety of reasons. Considering this, any guilty verdict by the American courts would likely generate lots of opprobrium from India, which would predictably maintain its innocence. To make matters worse, the US probably won’t curtail the activities of the Delhi-designated terrorist-separatist at the center of this scandal, who might continue operating with impunity and possibly even make more threats against India.

In this much more likely scenario, Indo-US ties could worsen to the detriment of their shared geostrategic interests in managing China’s rise. That outcome might speculatively be by design, however, if America’s liberal-globalist policymaking faction that’s once again thought to be calling the shots believes that it’s required to keep the incipient thaw with China on track as was explained here. In that case, Indo-US ties would be reduced to a bargaining chip in the US’ New Cold War rivalry with China.

Scenario forecasting aside, the most important point for readers to remember is that the US’ hosting of Delhi-designated terrorists-separatists who continue to make public threats against India – including while under presumable federal protection – crosses a red line in their relations, thus making it a pivotal issue for their future ties. Unless the US reverses its informal policy of waging Hybrid War on India via these “plausibly deniable” means, there’s a high likelihood that their strategic partnership will suffer.