US Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti is facing a lot of criticism on social media due to his comment on Khalistan supporter Gurpatwant Singh Pannu.
An interview with Eric Garcetti was published in the English newspaper Times of India on 24 October.
In this interview, Garcetti was asked a question about Vikas Yadav, a former Indian government official, in the case of conspiracy to murder Pannu.
In response to this, the US ambassador said that a lot is at stake between India and America.
He said that America will be satisfied in this matter only when responsibility is fixed for the attempt to murder Pannu.
The US Justice Department announced on October 17 to register a case of attempted murder and money laundering against Vikas Yadav.
This case is related to the failed conspiracy to murder American citizens and Sikh separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannu in New York City in the year 2023.
US officials say that Vikas Yadav played an important role in the ‘conspiracy to kill Pannu’.
According to the US, Yadav worked for India’s intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), which is a part of the Cabinet Secretariat.
Another Indian citizen Nikhil Gupta is already in US custody in this case.
At the same time, India has said that Vikas Yadav is no longer an employee of the Indian government.
What did the US ambassador say?
Eric Garcetti said in an interview with the Times of India, “US officials are satisfied with India’s investigation but Washington will be satisfied only when accountability is fixed in this case.”
Garcetti said, “America will not compromise on any kind of criminal activities, whether it is done by a friendly country or an enemy country.”
However, the US ambassador did not say anything on whether America will demand the extradition of Vikas Yadav. But he said that extradition can happen only if he is arrested.
Regarding the impact of this case on India-US relations, Eric Garcetti said, “If India and America do not resolve this matter properly, then a lot will be at stake for both the countries.”
On the freedom being given to Khalistani separatists in Canada and the threats being received from Khalistanis from American soil, Eric Garcetti said that America takes real threats seriously.
Garcetti gave the example of the Mumbai attack accused Tahawwur Rana and said, “India and America have set a strong example of extradition.”
Garcetti said, “We have said two things from the beginning. First, this kind of behavior of any country cannot be tolerated. There is a boundary line for any friend and enemy.”
“It is our first responsibility that no matter who it is or what it says, as is the case in every country, there should be a boundary line that it is illegal to get someone killed by paying money.”
“Second, we want accountability. Instead of repeatedly repeating that this crime will not happen again in the future, the people involved in this case should be held responsible. Our government lawyers are focusing on this. “
He said, “Our lawyers are not 100 percent politically motivated. They live in a different environment.”
Earlier, Eric Garcetti had cited ‘freedom of expression’ in an interview to news agency ANI for saving Pannu.
Gasserty was asked why the US administration was saving Pannu.
On this, Eric Garcetti said, “We are very cautious about freedom of expression. This is very different from the freedom of expression that exists in India.”
Sharp reaction to Garcetti’s statement
The sharp reaction is being seen in India on the statement of US Ambassador Eric Garcetti.
Former Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal has said that when the governments of both countries were trying to resolve this matter and an Indian team had gone to Washington, there was no need for Garcetti to give such an interview.
He said, “When the spokesperson of the Indian Foreign Ministry has already stated in this matter, then why is Garcetti demanding accountability from India? If the US government is not satisfied with this, let them say it.”
Sibal said that a good ambassador leaves it to the headquarters to avoid wrong statements and he tries to avoid controversies and maintain friendship between the two countries.
Sibal says, “Garcetti is insulting India as if India is a criminal. He is giving the message that punishment will be given even without accountability and remorse in the matter.”
Sibal said, “Garcetti is completely ignoring our concerns about Pannu and others and he is protecting them in the name of so-called freedom of expression.”
First Post senior editor Srimay Talukdar says that the journalist who interviewed Garcetti should have asked him why the US has not yet arrested a single accused in the attack on the Indian consulate in San Francisco.
He says, “Garcetti talked several times about inaction and accountability. He should also have been asked why the US decided to settle with Headley while keeping India in the dark?”
He said, “Why were Indian officials not allowed to question Headley at the crime scene? Most Indians were killed in that attack by Pakistani terrorists.”
“Does this show that the US gives more importance to American citizens than Indian citizens? Does our government agree with the statement of the US ambassador?”
Well-known strategic affairs analyst Brahma Chellaney has criticized this interview on X.
He says, “Two things are emerging from the US ambassador’s interview. While demanding accountability from India for the alleged conspiracy, he avoids answering how Pannu, who lives in New York, is threatening to launch terrorist attacks from American soil. This also includes the recent threats to Indian planes.”
Chellaney said, “Garcetti is ridiculously claiming that his investigating officers are 100 percent apolitical. But the biggest reason for political polarization in America is the use of the justice system as a weapon, due to which his officers are becoming political.”
“By trying to gain leverage by using the Khalistani card against India, the US risks damaging bilateral relations, including by sheltering and protecting Sikh extremists who want to carry out terrorist activities in India,” Chellaney said.
“If an extremist who has been labeled a terrorist threatens to carry out terrorist attacks on US airliners from Indian soil and India does not prosecute him, what will the US say?” Brahma Chellaney asks.
“Mass murderers, including the mastermind of the 1985 bombing of an Indian airliner in Canada, remain poster boys for Sikh extremists who have been sheltered by the US and Canada,” he says.
“This includes Pannu, who lives in New York, who threatened to bomb Air India planes last week.”
Questions on America
People in India are also linking the Pannu case to the Riddhi Patel case, in which Riddhi Patel, an Indian-American woman, and a Palestine supporter, expressed her displeasure over not supporting the resolution brought in the Bakersfield Council for a ceasefire in Gaza.
While giving her speech, she threatened to kill the mayor and council members of Bakersfield city, after which she was arrested. This speech of Riddhi Patel went viral.
An Indian social media user, quoting the clip of Riddhi Patel’s speech and the response of the US ambassador in the Pannu case, asked, “Mr. Garcetti, is this different from what Pannu is saying? The only difference is that Pannu spoke against India and not against American officials.”
The user said, “Are other legal provisions also applicable for punishment in America, not just speech?”
“Both should be convicted.”
