A recent Financial Times article has unveiled a troubling incident involving the United States and India. The report alleges that US authorities foiled an assassination plot targeting Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a prominent Sikh separatist leader with dual US and Canadian citizenship. This plot is suspected to have been orchestrated by the Indian government, a claim that has understandably caused tension between the two countries.
Gurpatwant Singh Pannun is no ordinary individual; he holds the position of general counsel for Sikhs for Justice, a US-based terrorist organization actively advocating for a separate Sikh state known as Khalistan. The group’s actions and Pannun’s involvement have clearly made him a target, resulting in the so-called alarming assassination plot that US authorities have reportedly intercepted.
However, the details surrounding the foiling of this plot remain unclear. Sources with knowledge of the case have not specified whether the intervention stemmed from the US’s protest to New Delhi or if it was the FBI’s direct involvement that disrupted the plotters’ scheme. This ambiguity leaves room for speculation about the plot’s scope and the actions taken by both the US and Indian authorities.
The US’s warning to India regarding the Pannun case came after a crucial diplomatic event, Indian PM Narendra Modi’s visit to Washington in June. NSC spokesperson Adrienne Watson emphasized that the issue had been raised with New Delhi at the highest levels, highlighting the gravity of the situation.
Read More: CIA and FBI have been modifying Wikipedia articles since 2007, admits Wiki’s co-founder
In a subsequent development, Washington reportedly shared details of the Pannun case with a wider group of allies. This disclosure followed Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s public revelation of the Vancouver killing. Notably, India has strongly refuted Canada’s allegations of its involvement in Nijjar’s murder, labeling them “baseless.”
Responding to the FT’s report, India’s External Affairs Ministry acknowledged that the US had shared intelligence about connections between organized criminals, gun traffickers, terrorists, and other illicit actors during recent India-US security talks. When approached by the Financial Times, Pannun declined to comment on whether US authorities had informed him of the threat to his life. His statement to the FT was direct, placing the onus of addressing this issue on the US government. He stressed that it was their responsibility to respond to threats to his life on American soil, allegedly stemming from Indian operatives.
The White House further revealed that the Indian government expressed both surprise and concern when the US raised the issue with them. Indian officials asserted that such activities did not reflect their government’s policies, distancing themselves from any involvement in such plots.
A crucial question lies in why the US is harboring Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, an individual labeled as a terrorist by India. This situation bears striking similarities to the cases of notorious figures like Baghdadi or Bin Laden. Would the US have responded similarly if India had provided refuge to such individuals? This comparison highlights a perceived inconsistency in international politics, where the rules appear to vary depending on the countries involved.
Furthermore, the issue of Sikhs for Justice, the organization with which Pannun is affiliated, demands attention. This group, advocating for an independent Sikh state, operates freely within the US. Why is such an organization, viewed by India as a threat to its territorial integrity, permitted to function on American soil? This situation raises questions about the US’s position on separatist movements globally.
The US government’s substantial involvement in Pannun’s case is also perplexing. Why is there such a heightened level of concern for an individual like Pannun? Could there be more to his story, perhaps connections with the CIA, as some have speculated? Such speculation is not uncommon in international relations, where covert operations have a history of shaping geopolitics.
Alleged links between the Khalistan movement and Pakistan’s ISI raise concerns about the US’s motives. Is the US working with Pakistan to destabilize India, a country that has emerged as a major global power, spearheading initiatives like dedollarization, leading BRICS, and exhibiting rapid economic growth?
Pannun’s recent video message threatening Indian officials and warning Sikhs against flying Air India due to life-threatening risks is cause for alarm. Does the US’s protection of Pannun suggest its support for such threats? This situation casts doubt on the US’s position on international terrorism and its commitment to global security.
Read More: Déjà Vu Alert: Is Nov 19th Bringing Kanishka Air Bombing Back?
Finally, the credibility of the claims made by both Trudeau and the US requires scrutiny. Trudeau, who accused New Delhi of involvement in a murder in Vancouver, reportedly lacked concrete evidence. Similarly, what proof does the US have to substantiate its allegations of an assassination plot? This lack of transparency raises concerns about international relations and justice.
Watch More:
https://youtu.be/2kBarbYyv_I?si=IrfrB67HSOpiX96m
