Back in the summer, the Government of Canada accused India of having orchestrated the assassination of a Sikh separatist in British Columbia. Freeze in relations between Canada and India resulted.
President Biden apparently spoke to Prime Minister Modi at the G20 about the allegations, but nothing much came of it.
Until today:
I’m putting this in MPSIMS as breaking news, as I don’t think it’s either GD or P&E material. But if it is correct that India has adopted a policy of international assassination of political dissidents, it certainly raises the question of being a rogue state.
And no, Discourse, the possibility of a foreign country having a policy of assassination in North America has nothing to do with either of these:
“Immigrant as a U.S. State Governor? Has this ever happened before?”
Although there is at least some difference between targeting folks who are your citizens who are also dissidents against your own government although residing abroad and targeting agents of enemy governments. To put that mouthful in concrete terms:
e.g. India killing a Pakistani government employee spy who happens to be in the the UK at the time is different from India killing an Indian citizen who is a critic of the Indian government but who resides in the UK.
The former is arguably legitimate statecraft. The latter is simply domestic oppression implemented across a border.
Ideally all the secret services of all the world would eschew “wet work”. Not gonna happen.
As always, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Sometimes a useful distinction can be made, but not nearly as often as people (and especially sitting governments) try to do it.
I will suggest that the “rogue state” designation is way, way over the top for these two events. It reduces the term to near meaninglessness.
Indian national Nikhil Gupta was charged with attempting to hire a hitman to kill a US citizen. Said hitman turned out to be an undercover member of US law enforcement. Gupta should receive a fair trial and be put in prison if found guilty. No clemency.
The target of the assassination attempt, “is general counsel for Sikhs for Justice, which supports the secession of Punjab from India.” I have come across no evidence that the target has ever used or advocated violence. It was appropriate for this matter to be discussed at the highest levels of the two governments. Perhaps Modi of India should be informed of US laws regarding state sponsors of terrorism and how they may or may not apply in this case.
Saudi Arabia faced exactly zero repercussions for the kidnapping and murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Why would India expect it to be any different for them?