What the Pannun murder plot means for India’s global image, its ties with the US

According to the indictment, in or about May 2023, the Indian official recruited one Nikhil Gupta to kill Pannun. This was the month when Prime Minister Narendra Modi had travelled to Hiroshima to attend the G7 and Quad leaders’ summit along with US President Joe Biden. In the same month, the India-US Defence Industrial Cooperation Roadmap was concluded, which seeks to fast-track technology cooperation and co-production in areas of mutual interest.

The indictment said the official has described himself as a “Senior Field Officer” with responsibilities in “Security Management” and “Intelligence.” He has also been referred to as previously serving in the Central Reserve Police Force and receiving “officer training” in “battle craft” and “weapons.”

This is one of the most direct charges made against an Indian government official, and has the potential to cast a shadow on the Indo-US ties — if not managed in a mature manner.

Run-up to indictment

The Indian government, obviously anticipating the indictment, released a statement suo moto hours earlier, saying it had constituted a high-level inquiry committee on November 18 to probe “all the relevant aspects of the matter”. This came days after Delhi said it was examining inputs provided by the US on the alleged plot to kill Pannun.

The constitution of the committee has not been made public, but it is likely to be high-powered and packed with Indian officials from intelligence, investigative and law-enforcement agencies, apart from a nominee of the Indian ministry of external affairs.

The US indictment comes after months of diplomatic and intelligence-level conversations between Washington and New Delhi.

While the US administration came to know of the plot in July, US NSA Jake Sullivan met NSA Ajit Doval in Jeddah on the sidelines of a meeting on Ukraine in early August. Within a week, CIA Director William Burns came to India and met the top intelligence apparatus.

Considering it was a sensitive time, in the run-up to the G20, the conversations about the assassination were kept separate from the G20 joint communique negotiations in which Delhi and Washington collaborated closely.

After the meeting between Modi and Biden on September 8, a day before the G20 summit, a joint statement said, “The leaders re-emphasised that the shared values of freedom, democracy, human rights, inclusion, pluralism, and equal opportunities for all citizens are critical to the success our countries enjoy and that these values strengthen our relationship.”

India’s reaction

India’s approach towards the US inputs is telling, considering the manner in which it has so far rejected similar Canadian allegations.

Canada’s PM, Justin Trudeau, had alleged the hand of Indian government agencies in the killing of another Khalistan separatist, Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Delhi did not take this kindly, and even called Canada a “safe haven” for “terrorists, extremists and organised crime” — its sharpest choice of words for a Western country in recent years, a language usually reserved for Pakistan and Afghanistan.

But with the US, once the allegations became public, the approach has been much more cooperative. In fact, the Indian envoy to Canada gave an indication of the indictment days before it became public, where he called the US inputs “legally presentable”.

While the cases are completely different, the last time an Indian official found herself in the crosshairs of the US law enforcement agencies was former deputy consul general in New York Devyani Khobragade.

Her arrest in the US in a visa fraud case had led to a diplomatic standoff in December 2013, with the Indian establishment withdrawing some privileges for American diplomats in the country in a tit-for-tat response. Security barriers outside the US embassy were withdrawn and ties were frosty for about six months, till Modi came to power in May 2014.

This time, the Indian government has exercised restraint considering the gravity of the charge. The depth and importance of the ties with the US has been given priority over the allegations against an Indian official.

This shows that the government wants to contain the damage and not let it become a full-fledged diplomatic crisis. The MEA spokesperson’s response to the indictment that it is a “matter of concern” and “is contrary to Indian government’s policy” is an indicator of this approach.

After all, the Indian government is also keen to have Biden here for the Republic Day celebrations in January next year, along with other Quad leaders.

US-India ties

Delhi’s depth of strategic ties with Washington gives it some manoeuvring space to navigate the turmoil the indictment has unleashed.

And this is where one of the key debates of India-US ties has re-emerged — is it a values-based relationship or an interests-based one? And, when the stakes are high, do interests trump values?

In the US, this question is especially difficult for a Democratic administration, which places a premium on values, unlike predecessor Donald Trump.

The US-India ties have truly been forged in crisis over the last 75 years. As Rudra Chaudhuri, Carnegie India’s head, in his book, Forged in Crisis: India and the US since 1947, says, “The India’s relationship with the US has been the most comprehensive association the country has had since independence…this is truly a relationship forged in crisis”.

The relationship has gone through years of ups and downs, from the 1971 war when the US under Nixon-Kissinger took a hostile stance, the two nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998 which saw sanctions imposed, and then the thaw, culminating in the Indo-US nuclear deal. Despite challenges like the diplomatic differences over Khobragade’s arrest and the recent divergences over the Russia-Ukraine war, the ties have held steady.

With the US being India’s largest trading partner with a bilateral trade in goods and services crossing US$ 191 billion in 2022, and both countries acting in coordination to confront Chinese belligerence in the Indo-Pacific region, the points of convergences are far too many — sea to stars — and stakes very high.

So it is in New Delhi’s interest to be transparent with Washington, and take “necessary follow-up action based on the findings of the high-level probe committee” to avoid any reputational cost. Or else, India and the US will have a Pannun-sized problem.