In a recent statement, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar expressed concern over Canada’s approach to organized crime and extremism, criticizing the government for granting visas to individuals linked to criminal and extremist activities in Punjab despite clear warnings from New Delhi. Addressing an audience on his book Why Bharat Matters, Jaishankar highlighted that certain pro-Khalistan and pro-Pakistan elements in Canada have organized politically, forming a strong lobby that has managed to gain legitimacy under the guise of free speech. This, he argued, creates a pathway for extremist groups to influence Canadian politics, securing a form of protection while engaging in activities that are considered destabilizing in India.
The issue became particularly concerning with the rise of pro-Khalistan activities in Canada and the recent arrest of three Indian nationals allegedly connected to the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a designated terrorist by Indian authorities. Nijjar’s killing, reported to be a targeted “contract killing,” has raised further questions about how organized crime groups are operating with financial backing that often remains undetected. These groups thrive on cash transactions, allowing them to conduct operations without traceable records. In light of this, Jaishankar’s remarks prompt a re-evaluation of whether cash-based transactions abroad may be enabling such activities—and if eliminating physical currency could be a step toward curbing organized crime internationally.
The Role of Cash in Sustaining Extremism and Organized Crime
Cash transactions play a pivotal role in enabling organized crime and extremist groups, providing them with the anonymity and financial flexibility necessary to support their operations. In cases like Nijjar’s, where contract killings and political lobbying are suspected, cash is often the preferred mode of transaction, as it is difficult to track across borders. Here’s how cash might be fueling such operations in Canada and beyond:
- Funding of Criminal and Extremist Activities: Cash transactions allow groups with extremist leanings to move funds with minimal oversight, aiding in recruitment, political influence, and operations like targeted killings. In this context, pro-Khalistan groups abroad might use cash to facilitate transfers, making it easier to support affiliates in their homeland without creating a digital trail.
- Supporting Political Influence through Untraceable Donations: As Jaishankar pointed out, certain extremist groups have established political lobbies in Canada, influencing policies by gaining support from political leaders. Cash donations allow these groups to build influence discreetly, without creating records that could link them to illegal activities, thus securing support from political figures who may not even be aware of the full extent of their involvement.
- Enabling Contract Killings and Anonymous Operations: Nijjar’s murder, suspected to be a contract killing, underscores how cash can be a powerful enabler of violent acts. Contract killings require untraceable funds, often facilitated through cash, to ensure minimal exposure. A cashless society could make these anonymous financial transactions considerably more challenging, thereby reducing the ability of criminal groups to engage in such activities.
- Financing Criminal Networks Across Borders: Cash makes it easy for international criminal networks to transfer funds discreetly, financing various activities like arms procurement, recruitment, and even propaganda. Pro-Khalistan elements and other extremist groups are known to operate across borders, receiving funds from foreign sympathizers. By abolishing cash, authorities could monitor financial transactions more closely, impeding the transfer of funds for criminal and extremist activities.
How a Cashless System Could Reduce International Organized Crime
Jaishankar’s remarks highlight the extent to which financial transactions contribute to organized crime and extremism in democratic nations. Moving toward a cashless system could help curtail these issues by enhancing transparency and reducing the anonymity that physical currency offers. Here’s how a cashless system could be instrumental in addressing the concerns raised:
- Increased Transparency and Accountability: Digital transactions offer a record of all financial activities, making it difficult for extremist and criminal groups to operate anonymously. In cases like Nijjar’s, where contract killing is suspected, a lack of cash would compel criminal groups to use digital methods, which could leave a trail for law enforcement to follow.
- Reduced Political Influence by Extremist Lobbies: Cash donations and funding to political campaigns can allow extremist groups to gain influence without drawing attention. A cashless system would force these transactions into traceable formats, making it easier to detect unusual contributions and potentially preventing extremist groups from securing political support.
- Enhanced International Cooperation Against Crime: A cashless world would facilitate better cross-border cooperation, as digital transactions can be tracked across jurisdictions. Criminal networks and extremist groups like the pro-Khalistan elements operating in Canada could find it much harder to move funds internationally without detection, making it easier for countries like India to work with foreign governments to prevent organized crime.
- Minimizing the Financial Backbone of Extremist Groups: Cash remains the backbone of organized crime, financing everything from drug trafficking to contract killings. Without cash, organized crime groups would face major logistical hurdles, especially when attempting to carry out international operations. This would ultimately restrict the scope of their influence and reduce their operational effectiveness.
Conclusion: A Cashless Solution to Combat Extremism and Organized Crime
The concerns raised by S. Jaishankar point to the broader problem of how cash enables extremism and organized crime in foreign democracies, particularly Canada. While eliminating cash may not fully eradicate these issues, it could significantly weaken the financial foundations of criminal networks, making it harder for them to operate anonymously and finance illicit activities. In a cashless world, authorities would have stronger tools to trace funds, monitor unusual transactions, and build cases against organized crime, ultimately fostering a safer and more transparent international environment.