In this episode of Worldview, we look at the legal wrongs and rights of transnational killings and whether India is the victim of a double standard This week, we are looking at the legal wrongs and rights of transnational killings- and the sometimes confusing stand of the government. To recap the developments this week: British Newspaper Guardian reported this week that Indian intelligence agents are believed to have orchaestrated up to 20 killings of alleged Khalistani separatist and Jihadist terrorists in Pakistan. In the article the MEA denied the charge, and cited External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s previous statement that “targeted killings is not India’s policy” However, in campaign statements and an interview by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, the government appeared to be accepting the charges PM Modi also repeated his 2019 slogan of “Ghar mein ghus ke marenge” for terrorists- or “We will kill them in their homes” Diplomatic Fallout: The immediate diplomatic fallout of the remarks came from Pakistan, where the MFA has already accused India of the killing of 2 men in Pakistan earlier this year, and said “India’s assertion of its preparedness to extra-judicially execute more civilians, arbitrarily pronounced as ‘terrorists’, inside Pakistan constitutes a clear admission of culpability.” However, given the poor state of relations with Pakistan, this is unlikely to be an issue for New Delhi The US State department declined to comment on the story, but the larger question is, will the assertions by the government be used by the US Justice department, who is expected to begin the trial this summer of Nikhil Gupta, a man the FBI claims hired hitmen against Khalistani separatist Pannun in New York last year at the behest of senior Indian intelligence officials And Canada, that is yet to provide evidence of its claims, continues to say it is pursuing the involvement of Indian government agents in the killing of Khalistani Separatist Nijjar outside Toronto last year. PM Trudeau doubled down on the claims in a public hearing this week So what is the international law that operates here? In fact there are three laws: 1. International Human Rights Law – that derives from the Universal declaration on Human Rights- guaranteeing every citizen’s right to life and liberty 2. International Humanitarian Law- which sets down principles of protecting non-combatants during armed conflict- saying they must be protected, and that states have certain obligations even during war or self-defence operations 3. United Nations Charter or Chapter VII on Action with respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression- Article 51, Which says nothing impairs the right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations WV Take: There is no question that global powers set different standards for themselves and for other countries like India. India’s rise in the world thus far has come on the backs of a moral principle and when it comes to transnational operations, maintaining distance and deniability. If the government wants to go public with its assertions- it must ensure India has the diplomatic heft to deal with the consequences, which could escalate. WV Reading Recommendations: 1. Enemies Known and Unknown: Targeted Killings in America’s Transnational War by Jack McDonald 2. No Easy Day: The First hand Account of the Mission That Killed Osama Bin Laden by Mark Owen 3. Blood For Blood Hardcover 50 years of the Global Khalistan Project by Terry Milewski 4. The Killing in the Consulate by Jonathan Rugman 5. Sudden Justice: America’s Secret Drone Wars by Chris Woods 6. Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World by Claire Finkelstein 7. Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations by Ronen Bergman