Our Political Desk
Recent developments in India’s political landscape, particularly regarding foreign policy, are deeply concerning. The ongoing tension between India and Canada over the alleged killing of pro-Khalistan terrorist Harjit Singh Nijjar has exposed a troubling rift between the party in power and the Opposition. This divide not only weakens India’s foreign policy but also raises questions about the national interests that should, ideally, be above partisan politics.
The party in power, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, was democratically elected by the people of India. It holds the mandate to pursue policies that protect the country’s national security and global standing. However, it seems that the Indian Opposition, in its eagerness to criticize the government, is ignoring this democratic reality. The Opposition’s failure to stand united with the government on foreign policy issues, especially on matters of national security, is disturbing.
The current controversy stems from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s allegations that India was involved in the killing of Nijjar, a known supporter of the separatist Khalistan movement. Canada’s accusations, however, are not backed by credible evidence. Trudeau initially claimed that Canadian intelligence supported his allegations, but later admitted that his evidence was based on information that was not definitive. This admission should have put an end to the accusations, yet the diplomatic row between the two countries has only deepened.
India has made its position clear: it is willing to cooperate with Canada if credible information is provided. However, instead of engaging in constructive dialogue, Trudeau’s government has continued to push a narrative that appears to be motivated more by domestic political concerns than by facts. Canada has long been home to a vocal segment of the Sikh diaspora that supports the Khalistan movement, a separatist cause that seeks to create an independent Sikh state in Punjab. Trudeau’s party, which relies heavily on support from Sikh-Canadian voters, appears to be appeasing these elements, even at the cost of damaging relations with India.
On the other hand, India’s response has been measured but firm. Following Canada’s expulsion of Indian diplomats, India withdrew its officials from Canada, citing concerns for their safety. This was not a tit-for-tat reaction but a necessary step to protect its personnel. The Canadian government’s actions, however, seem more retaliatory, as it has failed to offer any substantial evidence to support its claims against India.
The Khalistan issue is not a new problem. It has its roots in the separatist movement led by Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale during the 1980s, which culminated in the Indian Army’s controversial operation at the Golden Temple in 1984. The unrest in Punjab during that period was a dark chapter in India’s history, and it was not until Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao’s tenure that the situation was brought under control. Rao, often overlooked in the Congress Party’s narrative, played a crucial role in restoring peace to Punjab and holding elections that helped the state return to normalcy.
Similarly, Rao’s government also worked to stabilize Jammu and Kashmir after the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits and the rise of militancy in the region. Under his leadership, assembly elections were held, and stability was restored, providing a significant boost to the Congress Party at the time. These instances highlight how past Congress leaders managed to navigate complex internal security issues with strategic diplomacy and decisive action.
However, under the current Opposition, particularly the Congress and its allies like the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in Punjab, there seems to be a disconnect between the past and present approach to such matters. The Congress, which once prided itself on its strong foreign policy legacy, now seems more interested in playing political games than in safeguarding national interests. Their criticism of the government’s handling of the Nijjar controversy appears to be more about attacking Prime Minister Modi than about addressing the actual issues at hand.
It is worth noting that India’s foreign policy has undergone a significant shift under Modi’s leadership. The appointment of S. Jaishankar as External Affairs Minister has been a game-changer. Under Jaishankar’s stewardship, India has strengthened its global standing, built stronger alliances, and taken a firm stance against terrorism, especially in the context of Pakistan’s support for militant groups. India’s new foreign policy is more assertive and pragmatic, moving away from the outdated Nehruvian doctrine that often left India vulnerable to external threats, particularly from China and Pakistan.
In this context, the Opposition’s stance on the Canada issue is not just shortsighted but also harmful. By siding with Canada, without demanding credible evidence, they are undermining India’s position on the global stage. More alarmingly, they are giving credence to separatist movements that threaten India’s unity and security. Punjab Chief Minister Charanjit Singh Channi and Congress spokesperson Jairam Ramesh, for instance, have made statements that seem to support Canada’s baseless allegations, further complicating the situation.
The Indian Opposition must recognize that foreign policy is not an area for political posturing. National security should never be sacrificed for the sake of opposing one individual or party. The Modi government’s foreign policy has brought tangible benefits to India, from isolating Pakistan on international platforms to improving ties with Middle Eastern countries. These achievements should be acknowledged, not undermined, by the Opposition.
Hence, I as a political observer feel that the Indian Opposition needs to recalibrate its approach to foreign policy. Rather than opposing for the sake of opposing, they should focus on constructive criticism and support policies that serve the nation’s long-term interests. The current situation with Canada is a test of India’s resolve, and the Opposition would do well to stand united with the government in defending the country’s sovereignty and security.
