Indictment on murder-for-hire charges to test India-US ties

Luv Puri

Journalist and author

THE US Department of Justice’s recent announcement regarding an indictment in the case of a foiled plot to assassinate New York-based Gurpatwant Singh Pannun — who is wanted in India on terror charges — was followed by India’s statement that a high-level inquiry committee was investigating the allegations about the involvement of an Indian government official. India’s response indicated willingness to address US concerns. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken welcomed the investigation initiated by India, calling it a ‘good and appropriate’ decision.

In the context of national security and counter-terrorism, the India-US engagement has progressively expanded over the years, particularly after the 9/11 terror attacks in New York and the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai. Apart from sharing real-time intelligence at the apex level, the two countries have shared counter-terrorism experiences and best practices even at the city level. This is exemplified by the institutional exchange between the New York City Police Department and the Mumbai police.

The present indictment can impact bilateral ties. According to the US Department of Justice’s press release, “an Indian government employee directed a plot from India to murder the US-based leader of the Sikh separatist movement.” If the charges are proven, it can lead to complications on the diplomatic front. It may also put India on the defensive in the ongoing probe into the murder of designated terrorist and Canadian citizen Hardeep Singh Nijjar, even as Canada has been reluctant to share credible evidence.

Without going into the veracity of the claims made by the US department, the charges are an opportunity for introspection by the Indian government on issues related to national security. The divergence on these issues between India and countries like the US or Canada is on account of some constitutional complexities. For instance, the First Amendment to the US Constitution says that the US Congress cannot make any law that can impede the freedom of speech, among other rights. One of the finest works to understand this point is Anthony Lewis’ book Make No Law, which describes how the First Amendment is integral to the political DNA of the US. In a nutshell, the book, through The New York Times libel case, details a liberal interpretation of freedom of speech and limitations imposed on the state. The expectations from the Indian side can be unreasonable when groups or individuals advocate views that may be against the Indian law. There is no provision in the US Constitution that is close to Article 19(2), which puts restrictions on the freedom of speech for Indian citizens. Such differences could potentially impact friendly relations between the two countries.

In fact, a US citizen can even lobby for a foreign country by registering himself or herself under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Some statements made by certain groups or individuals, who are seen as secessionists or promoters of violent extremism in India, are cleverly worded to ensure that the US law is not violated.

The best way to counter criticism by some West-based actors or organisations about Jammu and Kashmir or Punjab is to respond in a calibrated manner by adhering to international norms and practices. In this context, a smart strategy is to delve into the institutional lessons and craft a response with greater transparency. In March 1994, for instance, the People’s Republic of China, along with the Islamic Republic of Iran, bailed India out when Pakistan moved a resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva for sending a fact-finding mission to Jammu and Kashmir. With a much weaker political and economic heft, then Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao fielded a team featuring Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh, former J&K Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah and India’s permanent representative to the United Nations Hamid Ansari. It was a credible offensive, without any high-decibel narrative, by the Indian team, which was aware of every aspect of the issue and was able to articulate the historical and contemporary nuances of the Kashmir issue. This allowed the international community to shun the binary narrative and appreciate the Indian position.

In dealing with India, diplomats in the US and other Western countries need to take into account Indian sensitivities. Ultimately, the realpolitik supersedes ‘moralpolitik’ even in the case of the US. In October 2009, then US President Barack Obama decided not to meet Tibetan leader the Dalai Lama as it was believed that it would impact the US President’s upcoming China trip. The US is a melting pot where identities dissolve to create a homogenous identity with more or less a single spoken language. Indian reality is quite different and varied. Apart from linguistic diversity, the legacy of the Partition has created an inter-generational societal trauma. India is no stranger to the post-colonial experience. There are evident challenges to national security as perceived faultlines in India have been exploited in the past. For example, the 1993 Mumbai bombings were followed by communal riots.

Western countries, including the US, have to factor in the ramifications of the anti-India narrative of hate speech and violent secessionism on their turf as it is linked to India’s social stability and harmony.

The indictment on murder-for-hire charges will test the strength of the India-US ties. It will need deft diplomacy on both sides to keep the situation under control. 

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.

#New York