The covert alliance that shaped the modern intelligence world now finds itself at odds with an India unwilling to play by old rules.
During the Second World War, the United States and the United Kingdom built an extensive intelligence-sharing network to counter the Axis powers. This network, formalized post-war under the UKUSA Agreement, gradually expanded to include Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, forming what is now known—sometimes with admiration, sometimes with apprehension—as the Five Eyes Alliance. What was once a pragmatic wartime necessity has since become an opaque, self-serving consortium, an instrument of geopolitical manipulation whose unchecked power has drawn rebuke, lawsuits, and diplomatic tensions.
India, despite its complex and evolving strategic relationships with three of the Five Eyes members - the U.S., U.K., and Australia - has frequently found itself at the receiving end of the alliance’s covert machinations. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the recent row between India and Canada over the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Khalistani separatist. Canada’s insistence, backed by Five Eyes intelligence, that India was behind Nijjar’s killing has frayed diplomatic ties, especially given its failure to produce concrete evidence. For New Delhi, this was less an isolated incident and more an ominous echo of a broader pattern of Western intelligence interference aimed at undermining India’s geopolitical standing.
At the heart of this friction is the United States, the dominant partner in Five Eyes and a country that has seldom missed an opportunity to lecture India on democracy and human rights. Washington routinely chastises New Delhi over its handling of minority rights, media freedoms, and civil society restrictions—all while cozying up to regimes with far worse records. This moral posturing, however, often masks a deeper unease with India’s independent foreign policy. America’s irritation stems from India’s close ties with Russia, its insistence on a multipolar world order, and its unwillingness to be strong-armed into a junior partnership. Unable to dictate terms, Washington has turned to alternative means: misinformation, covert influence operations, and the intelligence apparatus of Five Eyes.
Take, for instance, the recent accusations against India’s national security establishment. Western media outlets, often fed by selective intelligence leaks, have named National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and former RAW chief Samant Goel in connection with an alleged assassination plot against Sikh separatist leader Gurpatwant Singh Pannun. Such allegations, vehemently denied by India, are not just politically motivated but also reek of double standards. Western intelligence circles, quick to indict Indian agencies, remain conspicuously silent about the CIA’s own clandestine operations within India, be it Cold War-era meddling or more recent surveillance efforts.
But Five Eyes’ ambitions go beyond discrediting India’s security apparatus. The alliance, in concert with the Western media ecosystem, has been accused of meddling in India’s domestic affairs, particularly through strategic leaks to left-leaning media outlets, funding of civil society groups, and amplifying narratives that sow political and financial instability. The 2024 Indian general election, where Five Eyes allegedly sought to undermine Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s prospects, were a case in point. Despite efforts to stir discontent, Indian voters reaffirmed Modi’s leadership, dealing a blow to Western hopes of a regime change.
That loss, however, did not mean the end of hostilities. Soon after, Hindenburg Research, a U.S.-based firm, launched an explosive report against the Adani Group, triggering a financial upheaval in India’s markets. Indian officials have since pointed to intelligence linkages, suspecting that the report was weaponized to create economic instability. The message was clear: if direct political intervention fails, economic subterfuge is the next best option.
Five Eyes’ designs also extend to supporting separatist movements within India. Whether it’s Khalistani radicals in Canada and the U.K., Kashmiri activists in the U.S., or politically motivated protests like the Punjab farmers’ movement, New Delhi sees a common thread—the tacit backing of Western intelligence. More concerning is the role of certain Indian elites: bureaucrats, academics, and activists, cultivated over decades by Western agencies, who act as enablers of these narratives.
And yet, despite the relentless subversion, India has held its ground. The Modi government, aware of these manoeuvres, has tightened its counter-intelligence protocols and reduced its dependency on Five Eyes intelligence-sharing mechanisms. The larger question, however, remains: can the West afford to continue antagonizing India? The answer, in the long run, is no.
But what next? If the Five Eyes alliance continues its strategy of containment and destabilization, it risks alienating a country that could be a valuable partner in countering China’s aggression in the Indo-Pacific. A more pragmatic approach - one informed by Kautilya’s doctrine of Samashraya (seeking alliances with those who share common interests) - would dictate that the West nurture, rather than antagonize, its relationship with India. This means moving beyond intelligence warfare and into genuine strategic cooperation, whether through the Quad or other regional partnerships.
If the West truly believes in the democratic values it never tires of harping upon, it would do well to practice them in its dealings with India. The question, then, is whether Five Eyes is willing to evolve or whether it chooses to remain shackled to an old playbook - one that no longer works in a world where India refuses to be a pawn.
(The author is a retired naval aviation officer and geo-political analyst.
Views personal)
Comments