© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Ministry of Home Affairs’ statement on the committee recommending “legal action against an individual” comes just days before Donald Trump is sworn in as the US President on January 20.
The government has not taken any names, but the US had earlier alleged the involvement of Vikash Yadav, a former Indian official, in a foiled plot to kill Khalistan separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun in New York in 2023.
While it is now up to the government to accept the committee’s recommendations, the decision to announce the report at this point is guided by at least seven factors that make it important in terms of its timing and what it means.
First, the timing of the report suggests that India wants to approach the new Trump administration with a clean slate -- so that the baggage of the previous administration doesn’t cast a shadow on future bilateral ties. The fact that the government hosted outgoing National Security Advisor (NSA) Jake Sullivan in Delhi in early January and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar met the incoming NSA-designate Mike Waltz in December last week signals that India doesn’t want the Pannun assassination plot to cast a shadow on future engagements. Also, it wants to insulate the process from being weaponised by the incoming Trump administration.
India has responded to the calls by the US government under outgoing President Joe Biden, and the two indictments filed by US federal prosecutors. The report is an admission of the involvement of an Indian national in the alleged plot to kill Pannun, a US-Canadian national, on US soil.
It seeks to portray that “due process” was followed before taking any action. The fact that the panel took over 14 months to come out with its findings and recommendations signals that it followed some process. The MHA statement calls it a “long enquiry”, reflecting the process. It says the committee “conducted its own investigations” and also “pursued leads provided by the US side”. It received “full cooperation” from US authorities and the two sides also “exchanged visits”.
The committee “further examined a number of officials from different agencies” and also “scrutinised relevant documents” in this connection. All this portrays that due process was followed.
India has distanced the government from the “individual”. It has said the committee recommended legal action against an individual, whose “earlier criminal links and antecedents also came to notice during the enquiry”. This signals that Delhi wants to portray Yadav as a 'rogue' element in the establishment, a 'lone wolf' who did not have patronage or support of any senior officials.
The committee, by recommending that “legal action must be completed expeditiously”, has sought to put a lid on the question of Yadav being extradited and tried by the US courts. The judicial process in India will take precedence over any attempt to bring him to justice in the US.
The US has consistently asked for “accountability”. Signalling that checks and balances will be put in place to avoid a similar situation in the future, the MHA statement says the committee has “further recommended functional improvements in systems and procedures as also initiation of steps that could strengthen India’s response capability, ensure systematic controls and coordinated action in dealing with matters like this”.
The seriousness with which India has approached the indictments filed by the US and the attitude towards Canada's allegations — that Indian government agents were involved in the killing of Khalistan separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar — shows the asymmetry in power dynamics between the two countries. But, more importantly, the recommendation of “legal action” gives a window of opportunity to the next Canadian leader — after Justin Trudeau — to try to mend the bilateral relationship that has soured in the last year-and-a-half.
