India’s Divergent Response: Pannun vs. Nijjar Cases

Aakhir Tak – In Shorts

• India cooperates with the US in the Gurpatwant Singh Pannun case while rejecting Canada’s claims regarding Hardeep Singh Nijjar.
• The differing reactions stem from the level of evidence and diplomatic approaches involved in both investigations.
• As the US praises India’s cooperation, Canada faces criticism for lacking actionable evidence.

Aakhir Tak – In Depth

India’s cooperation with the United States regarding the Gurpatwant Singh Pannun case contrasts sharply with its rejection of Canada’s claims in the Hardeep Singh Nijjar case. Both cases involve Khalistani terrorists, but the divergent reactions reflect differing levels of evidence and diplomatic strategies employed by each nation.

The Pannun case, which centers around an alleged plot to assassinate Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, has progressed significantly in US courts. Two individuals have been indicted, and the extradition of a key accused, Nikhil Gupta, has been completed. In this context, the US has provided actionable evidence, leading to effective collaboration. On October 17, US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller expressed appreciation for India’s cooperation, noting that both countries have been updating each other on their respective investigations.

Conversely, Canada’s allegations regarding the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar have been met with skepticism by India. Nijjar, a prominent Khalistani terrorist, was shot dead in Surrey in June last year. Despite the gravity of the situation, Canada has not provided any concrete evidence to support its claims that Indian officials were involved in Nijjar’s assassination. Instead, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s administration has engaged in a blame game, leading to the expulsion of Indian diplomats from Canada.

Experts suggest that while the US and Canada are attempting to coordinate their investigations into the Pannun and Nijjar cases, the difference lies in the methods and public rhetoric each country has adopted. The US has maintained a more measured approach, refraining from making public allegations against India. In contrast, Canada has escalated the issue into a diplomatic crisis, which has drawn criticism from various quarters, suggesting that Trudeau’s administration is politically motivated.

The core of India’s reluctance to engage with Canada stems from the absence of credible evidence in the Nijjar case. Trudeau himself has acknowledged the challenges faced by Canada in providing substantial proof, as indicated during his testimony before the commission investigating foreign interference in Canadian politics.

In the US, the allegations have been more substantiated, with a former Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) official, Vikash Yadav, indicted for his role in orchestrating the plot against Pannun. The indictment includes claims that Yadav communicated with Gupta using an alias and shared real-time information regarding Nijjar’s killing. This level of detailed evidence has fostered a cooperative relationship between India and the US.

In summary, the contrasting responses of India towards the US and Canada can be attributed to the availability of actionable evidence in the Pannun case and the lack thereof in the Nijjar case. The diplomatic handling by both nations plays a crucial role in shaping India’s stance, emphasizing the importance of credible evidence in international relations.

Aakhir Tak Editor-in-Chief

See Full Bio