India’s responses to accusations from the United States and Canada regarding alleged assassination plots against Sikh activists have been vastly different, revealing a double standard in its approach to these sensitive matters. While India has taken concrete steps to address the US allegations, including forming an investigation committee and taking action against the implicated official, it has vehemently rejected Canada’s claims and accused the Trudeau government of pursuing a political agenda. This stark contrast in India’s approach reveals a complex interplay of political motivations, diplomatic norms, and the strategic importance of bilateral relations.
Last year, Canada accused India of being involved in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a prominent Sikh activist, while the United States accused an Indian official of directing a plot to assassinate Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, another Sikh activist based in the US. While India categorically rejected Canada’s allegations regarding Nijjar’s case, it responded to the US case related to Pannun in a much more measured manner, forming an investigation committee and taking action against the concerned official, identified as Vikram Yadav of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) by the Washington Post.
Several factors contribute to this disparity in India’s approach. The United States and Canada approached India very differently. The Biden administration engaged with India privately before publicly disclosing the details of the Pannun case and did not make it a central issue in their bilateral relationship. However, Trudeau went public with the allegations against India, violating diplomatic norms from the outset by outing an Indian official as an intelligence agency operative and using the case for domestic political gains. While the United States pursued the case through proper channels, Canada resorted to mudslinging throughout the process.
Furthermore, unlike the United States, Canada’s Trudeau government has a history of supporting anti-India separatism and terrorism. The government has actively patronized Khalistani terrorists who frequently issue threats against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Indian envoy to Canada, and other diplomats. Trudeau has turned Canada into a safe haven for Khalistani elements and anti-India organized crime syndicates, pandering to the influential Punjabi community for electoral gains and securing the support of NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, another pro-Khalistan leader. This contrasts starkly with the United States, which, despite friction over the activities of Khalistani elements, has not provided the same level of political patronage as Canada.
Another key difference lies in the strategic significance of the bilateral relationships. The India-US relationship is far more critical for both countries, particularly regarding China and the Indo-Pacific. The two countries have deep security and intelligence cooperation, evident in India’s procurement of weapons and supplies from the United States during the Ladakh standoff with China. The India-Canada relationship, while important, does not hold the same level of strategic weight.
The India-Canada tussle has also placed the United States in a difficult position. While the US values its relationship with India, it also considers Canada a close ally and partner. The US has called upon India to be more responsive to Canada’s allegations, but it has also pursued the Pannun case in a more measured manner, prioritizing dialogue and cooperation. This balancing act underscores the complexities of navigating competing interests in international relations.
In conclusion, India’s contrasting responses to the US and Canada’s allegations highlight the complex interplay of political motivations, diplomatic norms, and strategic considerations. While the US case has been handled through established channels and with an emphasis on cooperation, the Canadian case has been characterized by political opportunism and a disregard for diplomatic norms. This disparity reflects the differing levels of strategic importance assigned to each bilateral relationship and the potential for foreign policy to be influenced by domestic political agendas.