Has Canada Bought Into the Reputation Cooked Up for Amit Shah by the Indian Media?

The intelligence establishment in Ottawa can be excused for locating in the Indian home minister’s political DNA an eagerness to move beyond conventional “dos and don’ts”, an appetite for risk and recklessness.

Four days after he was officially “outed” by a Canadian minister as the prime mover in this whole unpleasant business of alleged Indian involvement in the killing of a Canadian citizen on the Canadian soil, the Indian government has rather belatedly spoken up in defence of Union home minister Amit Shah.

The Ministry of External Affairs has expectedly termed the Canadian charge as “absurd and baseless.” Our official view is that the Justin Trudeau regime is indulging in India-bashing because of its domestic political agenda. Perhaps there is substance to the Indian understanding of Canadian domestic politics. Yet, it needs to be asked why a responsible Canadian ministerial official would allow himself to “finger” Shah, that too before a parliamentary committee.  If Indian officials are correctly reading  Trudeau’s political and electoral calculus, then his petty domestic imperatives have already been served by the grand diplomatic hoo-ha between New Delhi and Ottawa. Naming the third most powerful political figure [ as per the latest India Today list] still does not add up. Why this extreme, precipitous step?

Could it be that the Canadian intelligence establishment has been taken in by the reputation cooked up for Amit Shah by the Indian media? Even before he moved to Delhi in 2014, a friendly Gujarati press had hailed him as the mastermind behind Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s signature political moves, within and outside the BJP. His “take-no-prisoner” approach against political rivals and allies got easily shoe-horned into the “law and order” sector.  The whole Sohrabuddin/Kausar Bi caper revealed Amit Shah as an activist, hands-on home minister. Along with chief minister Modi, home minister Amit Shah was serenaded for ridding Gujarat of all those difficult “underworld figures” who had supposedly prospered over the years because of  “appeasement” politics. In the post-9/11 “global war on terrorism”, there was subtle appreciation for all those police and political officials who were prepared to employ unorthodox methods against the presumed “jihadis.”    

All these “facts” probably figured in the profile of Amit Shah that the Canadians had compiled, as a matter of routine, of an up and coming Indian politician.  The profile had to be necessarily updated and nuanced when he moved to Delhi in 2014 to work as Modi’s empowered consigliere. A fawning media ramped up his reputation as a new Chanakaya in the BJP as the ruling party rewrote the rules of political engagement with domestic rivals. “Naya Bharat” was not to be constrained by the old, conventional political morality of the Vajpayee era.

The Canadians must have surely revised Amit Shah’s profile when Prime Minister Modi allotted him the corner office in North Block in 2019. A servile media showered him with encomiums when he “did away” with Article 370. Amit Shah’s reputation as a man who did not care for any norms or conventions or traditions was now cast in stone. Journalists vied with each other to manufacture his image as a man who not only had the complete confidence of his boss but who believes that “power” must be used to consolidate and entrench oneself. Strategy and tactics came naturally to him; he was always in his zone. The media was in thrall of Shah; even our judges and generals and bureaucrats fell for this exaggerated image of a consummate power player. The Canadians, and most probably their big brothers in Washington too, could not be impervious to this concocted portrait.

Perhaps Canadian diplomats stationed in New Delhi also heard from serving and retired Indian police officers praising Amit Shah as the boss who was unafraid of the consequences, however unpleasant, if  a course of action was deemed to be in the “national interest.” Senior police officers came away impressed with his determined eagerness to move beyond conventional “dos and don’ts” of the lawful exercise of authority. He was definitely not a man who would allow himself to be dissuaded from going after an “enemy” by some ‘Western’ notions of accountability and statesmanship. Here was a man of certainties and convictions, a man who knew what he believed and what he was doing. Policemen, bureaucrats, foreign service-wallahs, and generals found him a refreshing contrast to all his predecessors who allowed themselves to be hobbled by bureaucratic rules and by considerations of political fair-play. This admiration must have wafted into the ears of Delhi-based Canadian diplomats.

The Canadian intelligence establishment can be excused for locating in Amit Shah’s political DNA an appetite for risk and recklessness. Does this mean he would be so reckless as to get involved in “encounters” on Canadian soil? Notwithstanding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s campaign-time hyperbole that “ye  naya Bharat dushman ko ghar me ghoos kar marta hai”[ the new India goes after its enemies in their homes], Indian constitutional arrangements stand in the way, as does our collective aversion to any kind of “rogue” exercise of power at home or abroad. All spy agencies across the world know the limits of New Delhi’s coercive power outside of India.

So far, the Canadians have not produced a smoking gun to back their allegations against Amit Shah, which have inadvertently enhanced his reputation as a man not to be easily trifled with. Until and unless they do so, the mystery of why the intelligence and political bosses in Ottawa pointed a finger at him will remain.

Whatever the truth of the matter, this very public diplomatic spat should serve as a reminder to everyone that Deng Xiaoping’s axiom, “Hide your strength, bide your time,” applies to New Delhi too. As an aspiring power, India will need to appreciate that over-reach is not without its consequences.

 

 

‘Deliberate Attack on Temple’: Modi Condemns Violence at Consular Camp in Canada

‘Equally appalling are the cowardly attempts to intimidate our diplomats’, Modi said. Justin Trudeau also condemned the incident, calling it ‘unacceptable’.

New Delhi: A day after a violent incident occurred in the grounds surrounding a Hindu temple in Canada’s Brampton, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on Monday (October 4) that he “strongly condemn[ed] the deliberate attack on a Hindu temple”.

“Equally appalling are the cowardly attempts to intimidate our diplomats. Such acts of violence will never weaken India’s resolve. We expect the Canadian government to ensure justice and uphold the rule of law,” Modi added in a statement on X.

The Indian High Commission in Ottawa claimed in a statement that the violence was perpetrated by “anti-India elements” at the Hindu Sabha Mandir in Brampton near Toronto and said it occurred during a consular camp to help local life certificate beneficiaries.

Although the statement does not identify Khalistanis by name, a CBC report notes that videos circulating on social media appear to show demonstrators holding banners in support of Khalistan.

The videos also show “fist fights and people striking each other with poles,” the CBC report says.

Modi’s statement condemning the violence is his first to directly address a Canada-related issue ever since relations between India and Canada turned frosty last year.

The downturn in ties came after Ottawa alleged an Indian government role behind the murder of pro-Khalistan separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian Sikh, in Canada. Recently, Canada has said that India – including Union home minister Amit Shah – is behind several incidents of violence in Canada. India has denied this.

Modi last made an X post about Canada in July, saying he “met” his Canadian counterpart Justin Trudeau on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Italy. He had previously acknowledged a congratulatory message from Trudeau after the Lok Sabha election in June.

In his X post addressing Sunday’s violence in Brampton, Trudeau said it was “unacceptable”.

“The acts of violence at the Hindu Sabha Mandir in Brampton today are unacceptable. Every Canadian has the right to practice their faith freely and safely. Thank you to the Peel Regional Police for swiftly responding to protect the community and investigate this incident,” he posted on X.

The MEA has meanwhile condemned what it called were “acts of violence perpetrated by extremists and separatists at the Hindu Sabha Temple in Brampton, Ontario yesterday.”

“We call on the Government of Canada to ensure that all places of worship are protected from such attacks. We also expect that those indulging in violence will be prosecuted. We remain deeply concerned about the safety and security of Indian nationals in Canada. The outreach of our Consular officers to provide services to Indians and Canadian citizens alike will not be deterred by intimidation, harassment and violence,” it said.

It was earlier reported that police in Brampton were probing the violence.

Peel Regional Police chief Nishan Duraiappah posted on X saying that while cops “respect the right to protest in a peaceful and safe manner,” they will “not tolerate violence and criminal acts.”

“Those that do participate in this activity will be pursued, arrested and charged,” Duraiappah said.

In its statement, the Indian high commission also said that Canadian authorities had been asked to provide strong security for its consular camp.

“As in previous years, the High Commission of India in Ottawa and Consulates General of India in Vancouver and Toronto have organized/plan consular camps during this period, for the benefit and ease of local life certificate beneficiaries (Canadian and Indian). On account of the prevailing security situation in Canada, the Canadian authorities had been requested well in advance to provide strong security measures for these events, which constitute routine consular work.”

The statement said that it is “deeply disappointing to see such disruptions being allowed for routine consular work being organized by our Consulates with the fullest cooperation of local co-organizers.”

“We also remain very concerned for the safety of applicants, including Indian nationals, on whose demand such events are organized in the first place,” the Indian high commission said, adding that there were attempts to disrupt similar camps held in Vancouver and Surrey on November 2-3.

Several other Canadian politicians and public representatives have also condemned the violence, including Brampton mayor Patrick Brown, premier of Ontario Doug Ford, Conservative party leader Pierre Poilievre and New Democratic Party leader Jagmeet Singh.

The Indian high commission further noted in a statement that “in light of these incidents, and with the continued threats posed to the Indian diplomats and officials, local venue organizers as well as local attendees, organization of further scheduled consular camps will be contingent on security arrangements made for them by local authorities.”

Note: This report was updated to reflect the MEA’s and Modi’s responses.

MEA: Entities US Accused of Evading Russia Sanctions Don’t Break Indian Law; Working to Sensitise Firms

Washington had earlier this week accused 19 Indian firms and two Indian nationals of ‘enabling Russia’s prosecution of its illegal war’.

New Delhi: After the US government sanctioned 21 Indian entities for allegedly supplying Russia with technologies it needs to support its invasion of Ukraine, India said the entities did not violate domestic laws but that it was working to “sensitise Indian companies on applicable export control provisions”.

The external affairs ministry was also working with relevant Indian government departments and agencies to “inform them [the entities] on new measures being implemented that could impact Indian companies in certain circumstances,” it said.

“We are also in touch with the US authorities to clarify issues,” ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal added on Saturday (November 2).

Jaiswal did not reiterate India’s long-standing position of opposing unilateral sanctions by countries, i.e. those not imposed by the UN.

On Wednesday, the US state and treasury departments sanctioned 19 Indian companies and two Indian nationals among a total of close to 400 entities in countries including China, Malaysia, Thailand, Turkey and the UAE whom they charged with “enabling Russia’s prosecution of its illegal war” against Ukraine.

The action targets those entities that allegedly evaded sanctions against Moscow and provided Russia with “items critical to Russia’s military-industrial base” as well as other dual-use goods, which are those that may be used for civilian or military purposes.

Indian firms named include Ascend Aviation, accused of supplying Russian companies with US-origin aircraft parts; Futrevo, accused of providing electronic components to a Russian drone manufacturer; and Shreya Life Sciences, accused of sending US-trademarked servers designed for AI and machine learning applications to Russia.

Reportedly based across India, they also allegedly worked with proscribed Russian entities to procure export-controlled items and supplied aviation parts, electronic integrated circuits, machines for data processing, roller bearings and other items to Russia.

US deputy treasury secretary Wally Adeyemo said on Wednesday that Washington “and [its] allies will continue to take decisive action across the globe to stop the flow of critical tools and technologies that Russia needs to wage its illegal and immoral war against Ukraine.”

When asked on Saturday about the Indian companies being sanctioned, Jaiswal said India had “a robust legal and regulatory framework on strategic trade and non-proliferation controls” and added that New Delhi was part of three key of the four multilateral export control regimes in the world.

He continued: “Our understanding is that the sanctioned transactions and companies are not in violation of Indian laws. Nevertheless, in keeping with India’s established non-proliferation credentials, we are working with all the relevant Indian departments and agencies to sensitise Indian companies on applicable export control provisions, as also inform them on new measures being implemented that could impact Indian companies in certain circumstances.

“Regular strategic trade/export control outreach events for Indian industries and stakeholders are being carried out by agencies of the government of India.”

India has never explicitly condemned Russia for its 2022 invasion of Ukraine and has consistently abstained from UN resolutions criticising Moscow.

However, it has also called for a peaceful resolution through dialogue and the protection of civilians in conflict.

Speaking to Reuters, a US state department official said that Wednesday’s action was intended to send a message to India that Washington would take action against Indian entities if ‘progress is not made through communication’.

“With India, we have been very direct and blunt with them about the concerns we have about what we see as sort of emerging trends in that country that we want to stop before they get too far down the road,” the unnamed official said.

The sanctions were imposed under a 2021 executive order that allow the US government to impose asset freezes and visa restrictions against targeted entities.

India Calls References to Amit Shah’s ‘Involvement’ in Plot to Attack Khalistanis ‘Absurd, Baseless’

India also formally protested after some consular officials in Canada were informed that they were under audio and video surveillance.

New Delhi: India has lodged strong protest against Canada and warned of serious consequences for bilateral ties after Canadian deputy foreign affairs minister David Morrison said earlier this week that he had confirmed to a US newspaper that Indian home minister Amit Shah was “involved” in a plot to kill Canadian nationals.

The external affairs ministry summoned Canada’s acting deputy high commissioner Geoffrey Dean on Friday (November 1) and handed him a diplomatic note protesting Morrison’s statements as “absurd” and “baseless”.

“We had summoned the representative of the Canadian high commission yesterday. A diplomatic note was handed over in reference to the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in Ottawa on October 29, 2024. It was conveyed in the note that the government of India protests in the strongest terms to the absurd and baseless references made to the Union home minister of India before the committee by deputy minister David Morrison,” external affairs ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said at a press briefing on Saturday.

“In fact, the revelation that high Canadian officials deliberately leak unfounded insinuations to the international media as part of a conscious strategy to discredit India and influence other nations only confirms the view [the] government of India has long held about [the] current Canadian government’s political agenda and behavioural pattern. Such irresponsible actions will have serious consequences for bilateral ties.”

Morrison on Tuesday made the disclosure at a hearing by the Canadian parliamentary committee on public safety and national security. It came amid a widening diplomatic row between the two countries and a year after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau alleged that agents of the Indian government were involved in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a pro-Khalistan Canadian national proscribed as a terrorist by India.

The Washington Post on October 14 had cited unnamed Canadian officials as saying they had told the Indian government that “conversations and texts among Indian diplomats” ordered out of the country that day “include references” to Shah and a senior official in the Research and Analysis Wing “who have authorised … intelligence-gathering missions and attacks on Sikh separatists” in Canada.

Jaiswal said that India also formally protested after some consular officials in Canada were informed by the Canadian government that they were under audio and video surveillance.

“Some of our consular officials were recently informed by the Canadian government that they have been and continue to be under audio and video surveillance. Their communications have also been intercepted. We have formally protested to the Canadian government as we deem these actions to be a flagrant violation of relevant diplomatic and consular conventions,” he said.

“By citing technicalities, the Canadian government cannot justify the fact that it is indulging in harassment and intimidation. Our diplomatic and consular personnel are already functioning in an environment of extremism and violence. This action of the Canadian government aggravates the situation and is incompatible with established diplomatic norms and practices.”

In response to a Canadian cyber security report from earlier this week, the external affairs ministry said that it “appears to be another example of a Canadian strategy to attack India”.

“As I mentioned earlier, their senior officials have openly confessed that they are seeking to manipulate global opinion against India. As on other occasions, imputations are made without any evidence,” Jaiswal said.

Canada’s cybersecurity report said: “We assess that Indian state-sponsored cyber threat actors likely conduct cyber threat activity against government of Canada networks for the purpose of espionage. We judge that official bilateral relations between Canada and India will very likely drive Indian state-sponsored cyber threat activity against Canada.”

Jaiswal said that the atmosphere in Canada has “reached high levels of intolerance and extremism” after reports of the cancellation of Diwali celebrations at the Parliament House in Ottawa.

“We have seen some reports in this regard. It is unfortunate that the prevailing atmosphere in Canada has reached high levels of intolerance and extremism,” he said.

In recent weeks, the diplomatic row between India and Canada widened after the two countries expelled six diplomats each, including their top envoys.

India on October 14 announced that Canada had informed it that six of its diplomats, including high commissioner Sanjay Kumar Verma, were “persons of interests” in a criminal investigation.

The Indian external affairs ministry summoned the Canadian charge d’affaires to announce that New Delhi was withdrawing the six diplomats and declaring six Canadian diplomats personae non gratae.

At that same time, Canada also stated that expulsion notices had been given to the six Indian diplomats in Ottawa.

On the same day, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police held a press briefing to say that its investigations went beyond the Nijjar killing and involved evidence of Indian diplomats allegedly using members of jailed gangster Lawrence Bishnoi’s gang in criminally intimidating Canadian nationals of Indian origin.

‘Allegations Against Amit Shah Concerning, Will Consult Canadian Government’: US

The statement comes a day after Canadian deputy foreign affairs minister David Morrison told a Canadian parliamentary committee that he confirmed Shah’s involvement to a US newspaper.

New Delhi: The United States State Department on Wednesday (October 30) said that the allegations against Union home minister Amit Shah are “concerning” and the US would continue to consult the Canadian government on the issue.

The statement comes a day after Canadian deputy foreign affairs minister David Morrison told a Canadian parliamentary committee that he confirmed Shah’s involvement in a plot to kill Canadian nationals to the Washington Post.

“The allegations made by the government of Canada are concerning, and we will continue to consult with the Canadian government about those allegations,” US state department spokesperson Matthew Miller told reporters.

Canada’s national security and intelligence advisor Nathalie Drouin and Morrison on Tuesday confirmed that they spoke to the Post on “background” as part of a media strategy to counter “disinformation” from the Indian government.

Also read: Canadian Deputy FM Says He ‘Confirmed’ Amit Shah’s ‘Involvement’ in Plot to Attack Khalistanis

The Washington Post had on October 14 cited unnamed Canadian officials as saying they had told the Indian government that “conversations and texts among Indian diplomats” ordered out of the country that day “include references” to Shah and a senior official in the Research and Analysis Wing “who have authorised … intelligence-gathering missions and attacks on Sikh separatists” in Canada.

In response to a question, Drouin said that she did not volunteer this information. “The journalist called me and asked me if it was that person. I confirmed it was that person.” 

Morrison, adding to this, said, “So, this is a journalist who’s written extensively on this topic… journalist that has various sources. He asked me if that was one of the people and I confirmed that it was”.

The Canadian NSIA while speaking at the hearing also detailed the various options presented to the Indian government before the two countries expelled each other’s diplomats.

India and China Cannot Bring Peace to Ukraine

The EU and America should stop entertaining illusions that self-styled Chinese and Indian peace brokers, upholding their own national interests, can cajole an aggressive Russia into making peace.

With President Vladimir Putin decreeing that Russia’s army will boost its numbers to 1.5 million and become the world second largest army – after China’s – by the end of this year, America and the European Union (EU) should shed their illusions about India and China prevailing upon Moscow to make peace with Ukraine ‘quickly’ as Prime Minister Narendra Modi counselled President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the latest BRICS summit in Kazan, They can’t and won’t.

For one, Putin told Modi that it was difficult to set a timeline to end the war. Additionally, in September, Moscow’s decision to  spend 6.3% of GDP on national defence – which would make defence expenditure  a third of all spending, Russia’s highest level since the end of the Cold War – underlines that he is not dreaming of peace but of conquering  Ukraine. And the reported presence at least 3, 000 troops from North Korea on the Russia-Ukraine border augurs a deliberate escalation of Moscow’s war in Ukraine – which Putin defends as “Russia’s business”.

China makes common cause with Russia against America’s global primacy and is the stronger partner in their Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. Like China, India – which is a member of the US-led Quad – has been one of Russia’s largest oil buyers since it invaded Ukraine in February 2022. And although New Delhi once equipped more than 70 per cent of its military with Russian arms, it has little influence over Moscow. This is unsurprising. Europeans should recall that huge purchases of Russian energy by EU countries after Russia severed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 did not dissuade Putin from invading Ukraine eight years later. Confronted with this fact in 2022, the former German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, lamented that she had no influence over Putin. If oil purchases and sales decide “influence”, Putin must have had considerable influence over her. He can now influence India because of its military and economic reliance on Moscow. That could explain India’s concession to Russia when Modi visited Moscow in July: their joint statement referred to the conflict “around Ukraine” rather than in Ukraine

At another level, Modi’s visits to Russia and Ukraine in July and August respectively, and New Delhi’s claim that it delivered missives from President Volodymr Zelenskyy to Putin were of no avail: Moscow denied receiving such messages or a peace plan from New Delhi, thereby tarnishing India’s claim to be a peace facilitator.

Since mounting his long-planned assault on Ukraine, Putin has continually threatened to expand the war and carry out nuclear strikes against any country that helps Ukraine. Ukraine’s ongoing incursion into Kursk may have been aimed at giving it a tactical advantage on the battlefield – rather than at annexing Russian territory – but it has provided Russia with a pretext to continue wielding its sword, possibly with North Korean troops.

As America and Britain debate giving Ukraine missiles which would empower it to strike deep into Russian territory, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergey Ryabkov, has warned of a “brutal” response. Apparently Moscow does not deem its unfinished war against Ukraine to be savage enough.

China has at least presented a peace plan: India hasn’t even done that, though New Delhi has repeatedly claimed to be on the side of pace.

China proposed a peace plan in 2023 and another one with Brazil last May. India, which retreated to the periphery in 2022 by stating that Ukraine was Europe’s problem, is now playing the global peace envoy and insisting that Russia and Ukraine “will have to negotiate”. However, it cannot persuade them to do that. That is because India is a weak influence on Russia. Whether on arms or oil it has been Russia’s client. Since the war started, Russia has stopped most arms deliveries to India and other customers. Diversifying its arms retailers, India has increased military purchases from France, Israel and America – but at least 60 per cent of its military platforms remain dependent on Russia. As a nascent arms manufacturer, it will not achieve self-sufficiency for at least two decades. India hopes to produce matériel with Russia because other friends offer it less than Moscow.

China’s astonishing economic and military rise and its hostility to America give it more influence over Russia than India. It can advance Russia’s global interests more than a laggardly India. China’s GDP per capita is $12,614;  its defence spending is $231 billion. India’s GDP per capita is $2,484.8, its military expenditure $74 billion.

Pacific China’s strong ties with Eurasian Russia preceded its oil buys from Russia. They have cultivated each other for more than two decades. Air and naval drills were held in the Seas of Japan and Okhotsk in September – like joint exercises in the Indian Ocean in 2019 – aimed at strengthening their ability to jointly deal with security threats against their common foe, America. Russia’s war in Ukraine has made Moscow heavily dependent on Beijing economically as an investor and energy buyer. Consequently, India cannot turn Russia against China by buying unprecedentedly large quantities of Russian oil.

Peacemakers are supposed to be impartial, but the abstention of India and China  from UN resolutions condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – and their claims that  they are on the side of peace – actually mask their refusal to condemn Moscow’s aggression while expecting  Kyiv to cave in. Zelenskyy’s condemnation of Modi’s embrace of an invader after Russia bombed a children’s hospital in Kyiv was haughtily dismissed by New Delhi, which summoned Ukraine’s ambassador to voice its displeasure with the president.

Putin’s applause for India, China and Brazil as trusted partners will not burnish their image as impartial peace brokers. In their different ways China and India are helping Russia. In June, both rejected Zelenskyy’s peace proposals, which called for the preservation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Modi followed that up during his  July visit to Moscow by declaring that   Russia was India’s “all weather friend and a “trusted ally”

Like the Chinese plan of 2023 the China-Brazil  plan opposed  the use of nuclear weapons without saying that Russia has threatened to use them several times.

Meanwhile, dual technology exports by China and India to Russia have angered the US, EU and Japan. America and the EU have warned Indian companies of sanctions if they give any goods and technology which might help Russia to sustain its war machine.

All told, the EU and America should stop entertaining illusions that self-styled Chinese and Indian peace brokers, upholding their own national interests, can cajole an aggressive Russia into making peace. Instead they should give a war-ravaged but undefeated  Ukraine the help it needs to win against a destructive, aggrandising Russia.

Anita Inder Singh is a founding professor of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution in New Delhi. She has been a Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington DC and has taught international relations at the graduate level at Oxford and the LSE.

This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.

Canadian Deputy FM Says He ‘Confirmed’ Amit Shah’s ‘Involvement’ in Plot to Attack Khalistanis

He said this when asked at a Canadian parliamentary committee hearing about a ‘Washington Post’ report naming India’s home minister.

New Delhi: In a statement that is bound to further roil relations with India, Canadian deputy foreign affairs minister David Morrison said on Tuesday (October 29) that he had confirmed to a US newspaper that Indian home minister Amit Shah was “involved” in the plot to kill Canadian nationals.

He made the disclosure at a hearing by the Canadian parliamentary committee on public safety and national security.

The Washington Post had on October 14 cited unnamed Canadian officials as saying they had told the Indian government that “conversations and texts among Indian diplomats” ordered out of the country that day “include references” to Shah and a senior official in the Research and Analysis Wing “who have authorised … intelligence-gathering missions and attacks on Sikh separatists” in Canada.

The article in the US newspaper followed a widening diplomatic row, a year after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau alleged that agents of the Indian government were involved in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a pro-Khalistan Canadian national proscribed as a terrorist by India.

On October 14, India announced that Canada had informed it that six of its diplomats, including high commissioner Sanjay Kumar Verma, were “persons of interests” in a criminal investigation.

The Indian external affairs ministry summoned the Canadian charge d’affaires to announce that New Delhi was withdrawing the six diplomats and declaring six Canadian diplomats as personae non gratae.

At that same time, Canada also stated that expulsion notices had been given to the six Indian diplomats in Ottawa.

That day, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) held a press briefing to say that its investigations were beyond the Nijjar killing and involved evidence of Indian diplomats allegedly using members of jailed gangster Lawrence Bishnoi’s gang in criminally intimidating Canadian nationals of Indian origin.

This information was reportedly shared during a previously unreported meeting in Singapore on October 12 between senior Canadian security and foreign ministry officials and Indian national security adviser (NSA) Ajit Doval.

In an earlier version of the Washington Post article, Shah was not named, and it only referenced the involvement of a “senior official in India”. However, in a later update several hours after initial publication, the newspaper identified the Union home minister as the official in question, drawing on more detailed information from its sources.

Nathalie Drouin, national security and intelligence advisor (NSIA) to the prime minister, explained in her opening remarks to the parliamentary committee that speaking to the Post on “background” was part of a media strategy to counter “disinformation” from the Indian government.

During the televised hearing, Conservative Party MP Raquel Dancho questioned Canada’s decision to share information with the Washington Post.

“You can confirm then that the information about, for example, the Indian home affairs minister and his alleged involvement in these crimes in Canada, that was not released in Canada, however [to the media]? That was only released in the Washington Post …?” she asked.

Drouin responded that they did not volunteer this information to the newspaper on their own. “So this is not information we provided to the journalist,” she said.

When Dancho asked Morrison, the Canadian deputy foreign minister, the same question, he said, “The journalist called me and asked me if it was that person. I confirmed it was that person.”

When the MP followed up with, “Oh, you confirmed,” Morrison elaborated, “So, this is a journalist who’s written extensively on this topic… journalist that has various sources. He asked me if that was one of the people and I confirmed that it was”.

The two Canadian senior officials were joined by other officials, including the RCMP commissioner, at the hearing, where they fielded questions related to “Electoral Interference and Criminal Activities in Canada by Agents of the Government of India”.

The Indian government described the allegations as “preposterous”, asserting that they were part of Trudeau’s personal political agenda to secure the “vote banks” of the Sikh community.

In her written remarks, Drouin listed out meetings between her predecessor and herself with Doval since August 2023.

“Specifically, we have had engagement between Canada’s NSIA, my predecessor, myself or other Canadian senior officials from the GAC [Global Affairs Canada], CSIS [Canadian Security Intelligence Service] or PCO [Privy Council Office] and India’s national security adviser on six occasions, namely August and September 2023 in New Delhi, November 2023 in Dubai, December 2023 in Saudi Arabia, January 2024 in London and March 2024 in Dubai and in May 2024 when the RCMP made an arrest in the case,” she said.

She stated that in late August this year, the RCMP approached the foreign ministry.

RCMP commissioner Michael Duheme (front, first from left), Tricia Geddes (associate deputy minister of public safety), Drouin (third) and Morrison (fourth) at the hearing. Photo: Screenshot from video of hearing.

The “evidence”, she said, showed the collection of information using “coercion and threats” on Canadian nationals by Indian diplomats and consular officials.

“This information is then shared with senior levels of the government of India who then direct the commission of serious criminal activities against Indo-Canadians to the kinetic views of the Lawrence Bishnoi organised crime network,” she said.

The Canadian NSIA alleged that the “serious crimes committed in Canada include homicides, assassination plots, perpetrated extortions and other extreme violence.”

She claimed that India had first “used an administrative technicality” to block RCMP officials from travelling to meet their Indian counterparts in order to present the “evidence” for the allegations. India had pointed out that Canada had applied for a visa for the officials at an extremely short notice.

“Second, the RCMP travelled to Washington on October 10, [and] while the Indian officer confirmed the meeting, they never showed up to signal the seriousness of the matter.”

At the October 12 meeting with Doval in Singapore, she said that the RCMP deputy commissioner “spoke to and demonstrated a body of evidence that established clear links between agents of the government of India and violent criminal activities taking place in Canada.”

The Indian side denied all the allegations, but, she claimed, it was decided that another meeting would take place on October 14 after agreeing that their October 12 meeting would be kept confidential on Doval’s request.

“Instead, the government of India chose to not respect our agreement and go public the next day, Sunday (October 13) and use again their false narrative that Canada has not shown any evidence by going public. The government of India clearly signalled that they were not going to be accountable or take the necessary actions we needed to ensure public safety,” she said, alleging that this was the trigger to expel the Indian diplomats.

‘India denied everything we presented’

The Canadian NSIA also stated that at the Singapore meeting, India had been provided with “options” on taking actions.

“We provided three options to the India national security adviser that would allow us to address public safety and accountability,” said Drouin.

The first was to waive the immunity of the diplomat and consular officials to allow Canadian police to question them, she told the Canadian parliamentary panel.

Another option was for India to “first stopping the illegal activities in Canada, including directing Bishnoi to cease and desist”. It was also proposed that India could issue a public statement to “adopt a mechanism to look into the modest operandi within India as they have done with the USA case”.

India set up that committee to investigate US allegations of New Delhi’s involvement in a murder-for-hire plot against prominent US-Canadian Khalistani seperatist Gurpatwant Pannun in New York last year

Dourin added that India was also asked to recall its specific diplomats and announce a new India Canada high level dialogue on countering extremism.

The senior Canadian government official stated that that it had been decided that if India did not agree to the “accountability” options, then the Indian diplomats would be declared persona non grata.

“While during the meeting, our counterpart did not refuse to look into the accountability option, he refused to acknowledge any links and deny everything we presented,” she reiterated.

After India did not cooperate and went public, Dourin stated that Canada provided “non-classified information” to the Post

“The government of India has from the beginning accused Canada of engaging in a politically motivated investigation and using the Canadian media to further this, this is clearly not the case. However, we were prepared for this accusation to resurface. Therefore, we made a strategic decision to engage a respected international news outlet that had already published on the subject to ensure the record was straight and that our side of the story would be widely heard in the interest of public safety and disrupting a network, fuelling violence in Canadian communities,” she said.

Despite queries from The Wire and other media, Doval’s office has so far not responded to the Canadian account of what transpired in Singapore.

India’s Innovation Deficit and How It Has Fuelled Dependence on China

India should realise that there is no shortcut to industrial sovereignty: investments by India’s corporate sector are needed, especially in research and development.

In 2019, the World Economic Forum ranked India mid-table – 68th out of 141 – in terms of competitiveness, based on its Global Competitiveness Index. This ranking was partly due to a major innovation deficit. Although from an innovation point of view, India ranks 35th, this is largely due to the performance of the services sector. 

In its 2022 report on India’s manufacturing sector, Mumbai’s National Institute of Industrial Engineering attributed Indian industry’s difficulties to five main factors, all having to do with the limits of innovation: “lack of research and development (R&D)”, “low productivity”, “less digitalisation” as well as “technology adoption” and “poor quality products”. 

Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.

The lack of competitiveness of the Indian industry can be partly explained by the weakness of its R&D efforts. Not only do the country’s companies fail to innovate sufficiently, but they also neglect entire sectors of the economy that Chinese firms have been able to penetrate.

The Indian business world has been suffering from serious weaknesses in terms of innovation for many years because, primarily, of the protectionism under which it has long operated: until the liberalisation of the 1990s, Indian companies had a captive national market due to the customs barriers the country had built up (average customs rates were 80% at the time). In addition to this legacy, the Indian capitalist milieu was often quicker to seek rents than to innovate, partly because it was largely drawn from merchant castes who did not necessarily have an industrial culture, nor the taste for risk that was supposed to go with it. These historical and sociological characteristics often led Indian industrialists to buy the technologies they needed rather than inventing them themselves. Today, the culture of rent-seeking is perpetuated – despite the relative openness to the world inherited from the reforms of the 1990s – by the influence of industrialists close to the government, known as oligarchs or “cronies”, who succeed in obtaining or having the governments they finance raise customs barriers (often non-tariff barriers) that hinder the entry of foreign competitors into the Indian market. 

Indian R&D figures reflect this culture and these processes. Spending in this area has fallen from an already modest 0.83% of GDP in 2009-10 to 0.64% in 2020-21, following a linear erosion trend, according to 2022-23 research and development statistics figures of the Ministry of Science and Technology. Among emerging countries, only Mexico is doing worse by a small margin, with South Africa slightly ahead. Unsurprisingly, India’s R&D expenditure per capita (calculated in purchasing power parity) paints an even bleaker picture: it stood at $47.2 in 2017 (compared with $351.2 for China, $287.7 for Russia, $197.9 for Brazil, $108.5 for South Africa and $91.3 for Mexico). 

These figures explain why India accounted for no more than 2.9% of the world’s R&D expenditure (the same as France), while China accounted for 22.8% (just behind the number one, the USA, which accounted for 24.8% of the total). India’s limited R&D effort must also be put into perspective by the role of foreigners: in 2021-22, 66% of patents filed were by non-residents (mainly Americans, 32.7%), Japanese (13.1%) and Chinese (10.5%). This fact partly explains that the increase in the number of patents filed in India – most of which are of foreign origin – remains remarkable, as the country ranked 7th worldwide in 2018, ahead of Russia and Canada. Seven Indian states accounted for 75% of patents filed in 2017-18: Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Delhi, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat.

The shortage described above is linked to the meagre efforts of the private sector in this area: in 2020-21, the private sector accounted for only 36.4% of the country’s R&D expenditure, compared with 43.7% from the central government, 6.7% from the states of the Indian Union and 4.4% from state-owned companies (the balance of 100 being provided by higher education, which is largely public). The share of the private sector has declined from 45.2% in 2012-13 to 40.8% in 2020-21, while that of the state has increased from 54.8% to 59.2%. 

Also read: What Make in India Has Brought to India

India is the only emerging country where the public sector accounts for more than 50% of R&D. The next highest ranking country is none other than Russia, where public R&D accounts for (only) a third of the total. Among the public agencies reporting to the New Delhi government, the Defence Research & Development Organisation, with 30.7% of the total, comes well ahead of the Department of Space (18.4%), the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (12.4%) and the Department of Atomic Energy (11.4%).  

Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty

Excluding defence and space, industry and services accounted for 41.4% of total R&D spending in 2017-18. The private sector accounted for 36.8% of this total, while the public sector accounted for just 4.6%. But if the private sector seems to be playing the innovation game here, we need to relate this 41.4% to GDP to measure the reality of this effort. In fact, R&D spending in industry and services (where the private sector plays a dominant role) represented just 0.28% of GDP. Another revealing figure: R&D spending accounted for less than 1% (0.98%) of sales turnover in industry and services, i.e. less than twice as much as advertising expenditure. 

The sectors in which private companies make a significant R&D effort are, in order, pharmaceuticals (24.34% of R&D expenditure in industry and services), transport (16.41%), information technology (8.68%) and mechanical engineering industries (7.48%).

 The lack of significant investment in R&D partly explains the mediocre competitiveness of Indian industry, which has resulted in low export capacity, two phenomena particularly significant vis-à-vis China. 

In 2024, with $118 billion in merchandise trade, China once again became India’s leading trading partner, supplanting the USA, which had overtaken it for two fiscal years. At the same time, India’s trade deficit with China widened from $46 billion in 2019-20 to $85 billion in 2023-24. India’s exports – worth just under $17 billion, less than in 2018-19 – consist mainly of raw materials (including iron ore) and refined oil, while China’s exports to India, worth over $101 billion (up from $70.3 in 2019), consist mainly of manufactured goods, including machine tools, computers, organic chemicals, integrated circuits and plastics.

While Indian imports from China grew 2.3 times faster than Indian imports in general between 2005-06 (when India still had a trade surplus with China) and 2023-24, the share of industrial goods imported by India from China rose from 21% to 30% of total industrial goods imported by India over the period . This proportion is even higher in certain sectors such as textiles – 42% –, machine tools – 40% – and electronic or electrical products – 38.4% – and barely below average in such important sectors as chemicals and pharmaceuticals – 29.2% –, plastics – 25.8% – and automotive parts – 23.3%, while Indian exports remained at around $16 billion, representing a structural deficit amounting to $387 billion cumulatively over the last six years.     

Interestingly, this deficit is not mainly due to the consumers goods – which account for just 6.8% of total industrial imports – but to intermediate and production goods, which account for 70.9% and 22.3% respectively of total industrial imports from China in 2023-24, compared with 64.8% and 24.3% respectively in 2020-2. Indian industry needs these Chinese goods to ensure its own production, whether it be electronic, electrical or automotive spare parts, active ingredients for drug and vaccine manufacturers, or computers (which are classified as production goods when used for professional purposes). These figures reflect the way in which India fits into the international division of labour as a country where goods are assembled, but where the components thus assembled come largely from abroad – and mainly from China. This situation explains why the more India exports, the more it also imports to obtain the components it needs to assemble the smartphones, cars and medicines it sells to the rest of the world – mainly the West. This configuration points to another reality: India’s main advantage in terms of industrial production lies in the low labour costs it continues to apply.

Also read: Time to Course-correct and Use Budget to Make India More Sustainable, Equitable: Policy Body

To escape its industrial dependence on China, India has sought to protect companies likely to produce some of the components it imports from the Middle Kingdom, by increasing certain tariffs from an average of 15 to 18.3%. This upsurge in protectionism was intended both to make Indian companies more competitive and to attract investors wishing to circumvent these customs barriers by producing locally. Paradoxically, far from emancipating India from its dependence on China, this approach may actually be accentuating it. Indeed, the number of foreign investors willing to set up in India for the purpose of industrial production remains limited, and this is leading India to review the strategy it implemented vis-à-vis China at the beginning of the decade. In 2020, following the Galwan valley crisis that resulted in the death of 20 Indian soldiers in the Himalayas, India made all Chinese investment subject to authorisation procedures that made it virtually impossible.

Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.

Today, there are two schools of thought within India’s ruling class in that regard and in July 2024, the annual delivery of the Economic survey was the occasion for a very intense debate between these two schools. This survey argues that FDI inflows “from China can help in increasing India’s global supply chain participation along with a push to exports”. Second, it says that relying on Chinese FDI “seems more promising for boosting India’s exports to the US, similar to how East Asian economies did in the past”. Finally, the Survey opines that “as the US and Europe shift their immediate sourcing away from China, it is more effective to have Chinese companies invest in India and then export the products to these markets, rather than importing from China, adding minimal value, and then re-exporting them”. While the Modi government’s chief economist advisor, V. Anantha Nageswaran, was behind this turnaround, he recommended it with the finance minister’s agreement. This approach was based on an observation relayed by Alicia Garcia-Herrero, chief Asia Pacific economist at Natixis: “US and Europe are a little bit hesitant to invest in India’s manufacturing sector, most of the foreign investments have gone to the ICT [Information and Communication Technologies] sector, such as digital services”.

Harsh V. Pant, vice president for studies and foreign policy at New Delhi’s Observer Research Foundation, shared a similar stance, saying that India needs to be “plugged into Chinese supply chains” if it wants to meet its aspirations to become Asia’s manufacturing hub. For the time being, Union commerce minister Piyush Goyal has vetoed such an opening, but other officials in the Modi government are less categorical. The Minister of State for Information and IT, Rajeev Chandrashekhar, was open to Chinese investors as early as July 2023.

The Economic Survey of 2024 opened up a dual perspective that could circumvent the reservations of Goyal and BJP leaders who are nervous about an influx of Chinese investment: “To boost Indian manufacturing and plug India into the global supply chain, it is inevitable that India plugs itself into China’s supply chain. Whether we do so by relying solely on imports or partially through Chinese investments is a choice that India has to make“. The preferred route today seems to be through trade: by reducing customs duties on imports of lithium, nickel, cobalt and vanadium to zero, India seems to be inviting Chinese battery manufacturers – one of the areas in which India lags far behind – to forge links with Indian partners to produce them in the country. The reduction of customs duties on cell phone components from 20% to 15% has been interpreted in the same way.    

In parallel, Chinese diplomats have changed their tone. China’s ambassador to India has been multiplying signs of openness since the summer of 2024. He has said he is in favour of increasing Indian investment in China and boosting scientific and technological cooperation between the two countries – while hoping that “the Indian side will be able to offer a healthy business environment for Chinese companies in India”. Lately, negotiations between the two armies about the border disputes in the Himalayas have been declared fruitful.

Last but not least, India’s dependence on China is greater than the statistics reveal, as Chinese companies have relocated part of their production to neighbouring countries such as Vietnam and Malaysia, to avoid the protectionist measures put in place by New Delhi (or Washington), from where exports of Chinese products now flow. Solar panels are a case in point. While India produces almost half of its electricity from coal, the country is relying heavily on solar energy to achieve its energy transition – but is far from producing enough panels to meet its needs. As a result, two-thirds of photovoltaic cells and 100% of wafers (essential components for these cells) are imported. Overall, China supplies India with between 57 and 100% of the components it needs for its solar panels. In the first half of fiscal year 2024, Indian imports of Chinese solar panels amounted to over $500 million, to which must be added $121 million in imports from Hong Kong and $455 million in imports from Vietnam, which are transit countries between China and India rather than original sources of supply. At the same time, China sold India 500 million photovoltaic cells for assembly – while Malaysia sold India 264 million and Thailand 138 million, two other countries that Chinese firms use to circumvent protectionist measures against them. Indian imports of solar panels (and the components to make them) from China have thus fallen artificially below the 80% mark, the red line for Indian surveillance measures. Although Indian companies are entering the market, they are not developing their own technology, but rather importing 70% of their equipment from China. The country is increasingly resorting to non-tariff barriers to limit Chinese exports, but these are likely to be in vain if Indian manufacturers do not acquire the appropriate technologies.

Indeed, there is no shortcut to industrial sovereignty: investments by India’s corporate sector are needed, in particular in R&D, especially after the Make in India scheme brought so little to India as I showed in my previous column.

Christophe Jaffrelot is research director at CERI-Sciences Po/CNRS, Professor of Politics and Sociology at King’s College London and Non Resident Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His publications include Modi’s India: Hindu Nationalism and the Rise of Ethnic Democracy, Princeton University Press, 2021, and Gujarat under Modi: Laboratory of today’s India, Hurst, 2024, both of which are published in India by Westland.

Modi, Spanish PM Pedro Sanchez Inaugurate India’s First Military Aircraft Plant in Gujarat

The plant is part of a $2.5 billion agreement signed between India and Airbus Defense and Space in 2021.

New Delhi: Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez and Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday (October 28) inaugurated the country’s first private military aircraft plant in Gujarat’s Vadodara. Both countries also expressed deep concern and called for quick resolution of conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza In a joint statement released later.

The Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL) facility, inaugurated by Sanchez on his maiden visit to India, will manufacture the Airbus C295 military aircraft.

The plant is part of a $2.5 billion agreement signed between India and Airbus Defense and Space in 2021 for 56 cargo and troop-carrying C295 aircrafts. Of these, 16 will be assembled in Spain’s Seville, with the first set of deliveries completed last year, while the remaining 40 will be produced in India.

The first indigenously manufactured Airbus C295 will be delivered in 2026, TATA Sons chairman N. Chandrasekaran said. A group of 200 engineers are undergoing training in Spain, he added. 

Prime Minister Modi with Spanish PM Pedro Sanchez. Photo: @NarendraModi

Sanchez said the project was a triumph of Modi’s vision “to turn India into an industrial powerhouse and a magnet for investment and business-to-business collaboration.”

“This partnership between Airbus and TATA will contribute to the progress of the Indian aerospace industry and will open new doors for the arrival of other European companies,” he added.

“This factory will not only strengthen India-Spain relations but also the ‘Make in India and Made for the World’ mission,” Modi said at the inauguration.

Apart from the TATA group, defence public sector units such as Bharat Electronics and Bharat Dynamics, as well as private micro, small and medium enterprises, will contribute to this programme, news agency PTI reported.

It will involve the full development of a complete ecosystem, from manufacture to assembly, test and qualification, to delivery and maintenance of the complete life cycle of the aircraft, the report said.

On violence in Gaza and Ukraine

On the political front, the joint statement gave a framework of shared concerns over the global hotspots of violence in Gaza and Ukraine.

“The leaders expressed their deepest concern over the war in Ukraine and reiterated the need for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in line with international law, and consistent with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, including respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity,” said the bilateral document.

Among European nations, Spain has been a prominent critic of Israel over the Gaza war, officially recognizing Palestine and joining South Africa’s genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice. In contrast, India has been notably restrained, with a mixed record on UN votes regarding the Gaza war, despite its reiterated support for Palestine.

Earlier this year, Spain had refused docking permission for a Denmark-flagged cargo ship carrying 26.8 tonnes of explosives from India for Israel.

The joint statement called for “ the immediate release of all hostages, immediate ceasefire and safe, sustained entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza”.

While not mentioning Israel by name, the two countries highlighted the “urgent need to protect the lives of civilians and urged all parties to comply with international law”. 

“They reiterated their commitment to the implementation of the two-state solution, leading to the establishment of a sovereign, viable and independent state of Palestine, living within secure and mutually recognized borders, side by side in peace and security with Israel as well as their support for Palestine membership at the United Nations,” the joint statement said.

Sanchez’s maiden visit

Sanchez arrived at the Vadodara airport at around 1.30 am on Monday as he began his first official visit to India. 

Before the TASL inauguration, the Spanish prime minister along with Modi held a roadshow in the city, travelling in an open jeep, with cultural performances set up along the 2.5 km stretch. 

The leaders then headed to the Laxmi Vilas Palace to hold a bilateral meeting organised by the Union external affairs ministry. Overall, the ministry listed eight outcomes from the visit, which included the inauguration of the C295 plant and announcement of the Year 2026 as India-Spain Year of Culture, Tourism and AI.

Sanchez is scheduled to visit Mumbai on Tuesday (October 29) before returning to Spain on Wednesday (October 30).

Russia Welcomes Resolution of India-China Border Dispute, Modi-Xi Meeting

“It is a positive development in India-China bilateral ties,” Russia’s ambassador to India, Denis Alipov told reporters.

New Delhi: Russia welcomed the recent rapprochement between India and China over their border stand-off following last week’s meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping, while urging that New Delhi should not feel pressured to maintain normal economic relations solely with Western bloc nations.

“It is a positive development in India-China bilateral ties,” Russia’s Ambassador to India, Denis Alipov, told reporters. He also stated that Russia did not play a role in arranging the meeting, but we are happy that it took place in Kazan”. “We wholeheartedly welcome the meeting,” he added.

On October 23, Modi and Xi held a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Kazan, marking their first formal discussion in five years. After the meeting, both sides issued separate press statements indicating they had reached an understanding on the last two unresolved friction points in eastern Ladakh from the stand-off that began in April-May 2020.

A day later, US ambassador to India, Eric Garcetti had welcomed the Sino-India deal, stating that “it’s a good day in the Indo-Pacific when any resolution of conflict is reached as in this breakthrough”. However, he also emphasised that the issue of territorial integrity, which India reportedly upheld at the LAC with China, should apply “not just for one part of the world but all parts of the world,” referencing the Ukraine war.

While Russia and India have traditionally maintained close relations, Moscow’s ties with Beijing have grown steadily stronger following its estrangement from the West.

Since the beginning of the stand-off, Moscow has insisted on taking a neutral position and not commented on it. “We have been very consistent that we see this is a bilateral matter between India and China. We do not want to get involved in the resolution of bilateral disputes between the two countries,” Alipov had said in September 2022.

Alipov envoy highlighted Russia’s approach by contrasting it with unnamed countries that “only encourage the suspicions of India towards China and of China towards India on territorial disputes.”

In February 2023, the Russian envoy had said that “sooner there is a normalisation between the two countries, the better for the whole world”.

“We understand there are serious impediments to that, a very serious border problem between the two countries,” he said. Drawing on Russia’s own land border conflict with China, which took 40 years to resolve, he noted that “to compromise” is the only way forward.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Alipov emphasised the need for Indian entities to be bolder in engaging with Russia despite the potential threat of US unilateral sanctions.

“Both are considering a Ruble-rupee trade mechanism,” he stated. “I’m not a financial expert, but currently, there is no direct exchange of rupees and rubles. The issue isn’t the exchange rate; the primary challenge is the excessive caution of Indian banks regarding transactions with Russia.”

He attributed this hesitation to pressure from the United States. Alipov highlighted that “the US has been meticulous in tracking transactions between India and Russia, even threatening sanctions.”

Alipov further questioned why India should restrict its partnerships to only US-aligned countries. “Today it is necessary for India to settle its relationship with Russia; tomorrow the US might ask India to curb its relationship with Bangladesh, for example. There could be an endless list of countries the US decides upon,” he asserted.

He hoped that the “understanding among various banking communities in India would grow, recognising it is safe and correct to work with various countries without fearing coercive measures from the US.”

“India does not support those sanctions,” Alipov said, adding that this position should be maintained.