India's contrasting responses to the investigations involving Khalistani terrorists Gurpatwant Singh Pannun in the US and Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada highlight the broader geopolitical and evidentiary dynamics at play. While India has fully cooperated with the United States in the Pannun case, it has rejected Canada’s accusations regarding Nijjar, dismissing them as baseless and lacking credible evidence. This divergence is rooted not only in the differing levels of evidence provided by the two countries but also in the way each has handled the respective cases.
In the US, the case involving Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a pro-Khalistan figure and vocal critic of India, has seen a significant level of investigative progress. The US has charged two individuals in connection with a plot to assassinate Pannun, leading to extradition and indictments. The US authorities have worked closely with India, sharing actionable intelligence and progressing the case in a legal, structured manner. This has included the indictment of Vikash Yadav, a former Indian intelligence officer, who is accused of orchestrating the plot, and Nikhil Gupta, his co-conspirator, who was extradited from the Czech Republic to the US. The cooperation between Indian and US authorities was underscored by US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller, who publicly acknowledged India's constructive involvement and expressed satisfaction with the progress of the investigation.
On the other hand, Canada's handling of the Nijjar case, which involves accusations that Indian agents were behind the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a known Khalistani separatist, has been markedly different. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s administration has accused India of direct involvement in Nijjar’s assassination, which took place in Surrey in June last year. However, Canada's accusations have not been supported by substantive evidence, with the claims largely based on intelligence inputs reportedly received from the US. Despite repeated requests from India for evidence, Canada has failed to provide any, leading to a diplomatic stand-off that has resulted in the expulsion of diplomats and a significant cooling of relations between the two nations.
A key factor in India’s cooperative stance with the US and its outright rejection of Canada’s claims lies in the quality and depth of the evidence presented. In the Pannun case, the US provided India with specific, actionable intelligence, including the identification of suspects, recorded communications, and tangible links to the plot. This allowed the case to move forward through the legal system, with suspects being extradited and formally charged. The indictment of Yadav, in particular, has been a crucial element in advancing the case, as it provided direct links between the accused and the plot against Pannun. This methodical approach, based on concrete evidence, has helped maintain a collaborative relationship between India and the US, with both sides working together to uncover the full extent of the plot.
In contrast, Canada’s accusations regarding Nijjar’s murder appear to have been based largely on speculative intelligence, which has not been converted into hard evidence. According to reports, Canada’s intelligence agencies, particularly the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), have struggled to gather concrete proof to support the claims against India. This intelligence-to-evidence gap is not a new issue for Canada, where coordination between intelligence agencies and law enforcement, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), has often been criticized for being inefficient. This lack of evidence, combined with the political nature of Trudeau’s accusations, has led to skepticism from both India and the international community regarding the legitimacy of Canada’s claims.
Moreover, Trudeau’s handling of the case has drawn criticism within Canada as well, with political analysts accusing his administration of using the Nijjar incident to distract from domestic political challenges. Trudeau’s decision to escalate the issue into a full-blown diplomatic crisis has been seen by some as a calculated move to rally support among certain voter bases, particularly those sympathetic to the Khalistani movement, which has a significant presence in Canada. Critics argue that instead of conducting a thorough investigation, Trudeau’s government has resorted to public accusations without sufficient evidence, further straining relations with India and causing broader diplomatic fallout.
In contrast, the US has taken a more measured approach in the Pannun case, avoiding inflammatory public statements and focusing on gathering and presenting evidence through legal channels. This has allowed the case to progress without unnecessary political tension, even as the allegations involve sensitive issues of national security and international espionage. Experts, such as Michael Kugelman, director of the Wilson Center's South Asia Institute, have noted that the US has handled the situation responsibly, with senior officials refraining from making public statements that could exacerbate tensions between India and the US.
Another key difference lies in the level of intelligence coordination between the US and Canada. As part of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, Canada often relies on intelligence inputs from its partners, particularly the US. In the Najjar case, it appears that Canada’s accusations were based on intelligence provided by the US, but without the rigorous follow-up investigation required to substantiate such serious claims. In contrast, the US, while sharing intelligence with Canada, has focused on building a legal case in the Pannun plot, ensuring that its accusations are supported by concrete evidence before making them public.
India’s divergent responses to these two cases reflect its broader diplomatic and strategic considerations. In the Pannun case, India’s cooperation with the US aligns with its commitment to combating terrorism, particularly the threat posed by pro-Khalistan elements operating abroad. By engaging with US authorities and providing assistance in the investigation, India has demonstrated its willingness to address legitimate concerns regarding terrorist plots, provided that the accusations are backed by evidence. On the other hand, India’s dismissal of Canada’s accusations in the Nijjar case is rooted in its insistence on evidence-based diplomacy. Without concrete proof, India has refused to engage with Canada’s claims, viewing them as politically motivated and lacking credibility.
In sum, India’s differing stances on the Pannun and Nijjar cases underscore the importance of evidence in international diplomacy and legal proceedings. While India has shown a readiness to cooperate with the US where evidence exists, it has taken a firm stance against Canada’s unsubstantiated claims, leading to a diplomatic impasse. The contrasting approaches of the US and Canada in handling these cases also highlight the challenges faced by nations in balancing intelligence sharing, legal investigations, and diplomatic relations in the complex realm of international terrorism and espionage.
Â
