From Nijjar to Pannun: Indian diplomacy will have to be nimble. Smart one-liners will serve little purpose

The spokesperson underlined that India took the “inputs” seriously because they impacted its security and “relevant departments” are already examining them. The spokesperson also said that both countries have decided to take “necessary follow-up action”.

The official spokesperson’s formulation mixed up specific categories — “organised criminals, gun runners and terrorists”—with a general one – “others”. In such statements, normally, a catch-all word after mentioning specific categories is avoided. Is this curious formulation, therefore, indicative of India’s willingness to investigate, without directly admitting so, to look into US concerns on Pannun? This inference is not invalid because it was open to India to outrightly dismiss the FT report and the White House’s comments but it did not do so.

The FT report states, inter alia, that the New York judicial authorities have secured a “sealed indictment” in the Pannun case. That seems to imply that they have “evidence”, as distinct from “intelligence”. There is a basic difference between the two. The former can be made public while the latter cannot without compromising sources and methods of intelligence gathering. Besides, only “evidence” is admissible in a court of law. Naturally, if the US claims of possessing evidence are correct, its charge is more serious and potentially embarrassing than the Canadian allegations based only on intelligence. Is it this that has led to a defensive approach on the US charge? The absence of the swagger contained in External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar’s 2019 comment that India’s reputation is not made by a newspaper in New York is evident.

Nijjar promoted Khalistan and was declared a terrorist by Indian agencies. Pannun is also a great activist for Khalistan and is a proclaimed terrorist by India. Nijjar had acquired Canadian citizenship and Pannun holds US and Canadian citizenship. Naturally, India cannot accept anyone, foreigner or Indian, to promote separatism and violence. Nijjar was doing so and Pannun is engaged in it too. The charges of terrorism against them are, therefore, tenable. India’s grievance that Canada, the US and indeed European countries have not taken Khalistani separatism with sufficient seriousness is justified. Nijjar was and Pannun continues to be a member of the Khalistani group — Sikhs for Justice. India has declared it to be a terrorist organisation.

It is unacceptable that any country should seek to cover Khalistani separatism under the rubric of freedom of expression or not cooperate to have terrorists face the law. The problem is that despite all their rhetoric, the focus of Western countries is only on those who indulge in violence against their interests. That they practice double standards is obvious. But then the world is full of double standards. This is so despite all sanctimonious talk of principles and justice. The purpose of diplomacy is to navigate this difficult duplicitous and amoral terrain to pursue national interests.

It is incumbent on India’s security agencies and diplomatic establishment to monitor the activities of Khalistani support groups abroad. Two specific areas of these groups need special attention. The first relates to any matter connected with their intervention or interference with India’s domestic process. This would naturally include the promotion of separatist sentiment in Punjab. The second concerns their intimidation of members of the Indian diaspora, especially Sikh communities abroad, to become committed to the Khalistani cause. It would be legitimate for India to bring its concerns relating to the activities of Khalistani groups to the attention of the local authorities and expect their intervention when these Indian redlines are crossed.

The fact is that Khalistani groups have crossed redlines and have even sought to intimidate Indian diplomats.
However, Western countries have not taken Indian warnings seriously. In some countries, especially Canada, domestic political considerations have been given primacy over Indian concerns. India should respond through calibrated diplomatic steps to make Western countries aware that their laissez-faire attitude to Khalistani separatists and their activities is not acceptable. The decision to ask Canada to reduce its diplomatic staff in India is within the ambit of such diplomatic action.

India has to be aware that bald ministerial statements that it is not its policy to violently target individuals abroad will not carry credibility, especially after the FT report and the White House spokesperson’s comments. At the same time, it is insufficient for a foreign country to seek cooperation, like Canada has, without sharing effective evidence. Surely, the principle of avoiding self-incrimination applies to nations as it does to individuals. All Western countries have pursued this principle themselves.

Indian diplomacy will have to be nimble. Nationalistic shrillness or smart one-liners will serve little purpose.

The writer is a former diplomat