Political assassinations or “targeted killings” on foreign soil have always been debatable. Here, the accusers of the “wrongdoing” (killing a political opponent without due process of law) have been accused in some other cases.
If following the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian citizen seeking vivisection of India in June, India has been added to the “dirty” club of Russia and Saudi Arabia by the accusers in the Western countries, the fact remains that the record of the United States and its close ally Israel is indeed dirtier regarding such extrajudicial killings.
The story of assassinations of undesirable individuals, officials, or groups by a country or its regime, which considers them a threat, has a long history.
As a strategy, it has proved its effectiveness. It is said that targeted killings can disrupt a militant group tremendously because it is difficult to fill the void of slain leaders with equally experienced and competent colleagues. This, in turn, can handicap the group in making appropriate operational strategies and, over time, pose less of a danger.
Secondly, it has been seen that the assassination of a leader of such a group is followed by rivalries and confusion among his followers over who should be the successor.
Thirdly, following the assassination, the group often becomes defensive rather than offensive. It now devotes more time on how to avoid becoming targets. As a result, the group leaders minimize communications, change their locations regularly, and disperse their cells. All this adversely affects the building and expansion of their organizations to carry out sophisticated terrorizing attacks.
Thus, Nijjar was a prominent group leader in Canada who wanted to create the so-called “Khalistan” as a homeland by separating territory from India. He was reviving the secessionist movement in India’s Punjab that is more or less dead. He was the principal coordinator of Khalistan supporters all over the world.
Having close links with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, the spying unit, he recruited cadres to indulge in violence in India by luring them with money and drugs. The Indian government had declared him a terrorist and had asked Interpol to capture him. It has also requested the Canadian authorities to checkmate their extremist activities.
However, India vehemently denies that its intelligence agencies had any role in killing Nijjar. Indian foreign minister S. Jaishankar emphatically asserts that targeted killings are not India’s state policy. He reflects the national consensus that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau cannot declare India guilty based on his “credible allegations” of “a potential involvement” without any credible evidence.
Source : https://www.eurasiantimes.com/monopoly-over-targeted-killings-but-criticized-india-for-the-same