US doublespeak on Pannun hate speech, Khalistani separatism
When a country that invaded a couple of nations in its war against terror sees nothing actionable in a person who threatens mass murder from its soil, its selective policy amnesia does appear curious. Earlier this month, Khalistani radical Gurpatwant Singh Pannun put out a viral video warning his Sikh community against taking any Air India flight on November 19, the birth anniversary day of late prime minister Indira Gandhi. Implicit in the warning was a plot to blow up a flight. Pannun holds dual citizenship of the US and Canada. India has already begun criminal proceedings against him and banned his Sikhs for Justice outfit, but he keeps strutting around in New York and elsewhere with a handful of musclemen in tow. The hate merchant may not be a candidate for Guantanamo Bay just yet but cannot be allowed to openly radicalise and incite violence against India either. More so because India is a close strategic partner of the US. Radicals like Pannun ought to be restrained before they become Frankenstein monsters. When Indian officials took up the matter with their American counterparts at the highest level, the latter paid lip service to concerns over Khalistani separatism but did little else. It gives credence to the allegations that Pannun is a CIA asset.
Whether or not it was strategically leaked, a recent report in the British media claimed the US had warned India of a plot to eliminate Pannun around the time another Khalistani separatist, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, was gunned down by unknown assailants outside a gurdwara in Canada. The tone and tenor of the report indicated India was being accused of attempting to bump him off. While India scoffed at Canada accusing it of killing Nijjar, it was more circumspect in its reaction to the Pannun story. Indirectly confirming the report, the foreign office put out a bland statement saying the US shared some inputs pertaining to the nexus between organised criminals, gun runners, terrorists and others, adding both countries decided to take necessary follow up action.
As against Canada’s opaque allegations, US federal prosecutors have already sealed indictments against the accused in the Pannun case in a New York district court. Whenever the charges are unsealed, the identities of the accused would tell their own stories. How watertight is the proof and whether Canada would tie them to the Nijjar case would be interesting to watch.