IN a discreet yet significant move, Australia expelled four Indian spies in 2021 for attempting to infiltrate and access sensitive information related to the country’s defense, political figures and airport security protocols. This revelation was brought to light by Mike Burgess, Australia’s intelligence chief, who, while exposing the espionage ring, carefully avoided directly naming India. The operatives, who were allegedly posing as diplomats, had specific targets within Australia’s defense technology sector and airport security systems.
Australia’s national broadcaster, ABC, provided an in-depth report on the incident, detailing how these spies had developed relationships with a range of individuals in Australia. Their network included current and former politicians, officers of the state police service and members of the Indian diaspora living in Australia. The discovery of these espionage activities in 2020 was a cause for significant concern among Australian officials, particularly as it occurred during a period when Canberra and New Delhi were publicly emphasizing their strong diplomatic and trade relations.
Mike Burgess, the Director-General of Security at the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO), was the key figure in disclosing the espionage activities. In his 2021 statement, he mentioned that Australia’s intelligence services had confronted these foreign spies and had “quietly and professionally” removed them from the country. “The spies developed targeted relationships with current and former politicians, a foreign embassy and a state police service,” Burgess elaborated during his announcement in March 2021. He further detailed that the spies were not only monitoring their country’s diaspora community but were also actively trying to obtain classified information about Australia’s trade relationships, thus posing a significant threat to national security.
The ABC investigation suggested that the Australian government chose a low-key expulsion to avoid causing public embarrassment to the Narendra Modi government in India. The Modi administration has been keen in projecting India as a major global player, and such an incident could have tarnished that image. Burgess, while revealing the espionage ring, noted that naming the nation behind the spy operation would have been “an unnecessary distraction,” thus indicating the sensitive nature of international diplomatic relations and the potential fallout from a public accusation.
Despite the discreet handling of the situation, there were voices within Australia advocating for a more transparent and assertive approach. Greens Senator David Shoebridge was a prominent critic of the secrecy surrounding the expulsion. He argued that publicly condemning India for its espionage activities would have been beneficial for maintaining an honest and transparent relationship with India. Furthermore, it would have reassured the Indian diaspora in Australia of the government’s commitment to their safety and well-being. “Not only would it’ve been good to have an honest baseline for our relationship with India, but it would’ve also sent a message to the diaspora communities here that we’ve got your back,” Shoebridge said.
The broader implications of this incident are significant. According to the ABC investigation, the scale and nature of the espionage activities could place India in a category alongside nations like Russia and China, which are well-known for their breaches of international protocols. This comparison is particularly noteworthy as it highlights the gravity of the espionage activities conducted by the Indian operatives and the potential impact on Australia’s national security.
In response to these allegations, India’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as quoted by the Washington Post, dismissed them as “unwarranted and unsubstantiated imputations on a serious matter.” This official rebuttal underscores the delicate diplomatic dance that countries often engage in when such sensitive issues arise. For India, admitting to espionage activities could undermine its diplomatic standing and strain its relations with not only Australia but also other international partners.
The expulsion of the spies also raises questions about the effectiveness and ethical considerations of diplomatic cover in intelligence operations. Posing as diplomats, the Indian operatives were able to exploit the privileges and immunities afforded by their official status, which complicates the task of host countries in monitoring and countering such activities. This incident thus calls for a reevaluation of how countries balance diplomatic niceties with national security imperatives.
Furthermore, this episode highlights the complex interplay between national security and international relations. While espionage is a recognized tool of statecraft, its exposure and the subsequent handling can significantly impact bilateral relations. Australia’s decision to quietly expel the spies rather than make a public spectacle of it reflects a strategic choice to manage the incident without causing a diplomatic rift. This approach underscores the importance of maintaining a working relationship with India, which is seen as a key partner in the Indo-Pacific region, especially in the context of countering China’s growing influence.
The incident also serves as a reminder of the ongoing vulnerabilities that nations face from espionage. In an era where technology and information play crucial roles in national security, the need for robust counterintelligence measures is more critical than ever. Countries must continuously adapt and strengthen their intelligence capabilities to protect sensitive information from foreign operatives.
In conclusion, the quiet expulsion of the Indian spies from Australia underscores the delicate balance in international relations where strategic partnerships and national security concerns often collide. It highlights the complexities involved in handling espionage activities, the ethical considerations of diplomatic cover and the ongoing vulnerabilities nations face from foreign intelligence operations. The incident serves as a significant reminder of the importance of maintaining robust counterintelligence measures and the need for careful diplomatic management in such sensitive situations.
—The writer is a British-educated lawyer, specializes in handling human rights cases and provides legal advice to various international organizations.
(umairadvocate@gmail.com)
