Why India is cooperating with the US in the Pannun case but not in Canada's Nijjar probe?

There were two instances of Khalistani terrorists, but india responded in two very different ways. While india is working with the US on the Pannun plan, it has rejected a Canadian probe into the death of Najjar. However, why has India's response to the two cases—one of which has developed into a diplomatic crisis—been so different?

The US case concerns an attempt on the life of a terrorist from Khalistani, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, who is well-known for baiting India. The united states claimed indian operatives attempted to murder Pannun. Two defendants have been charged in the case, and an accused party has been extradited.

The issue in canada concerns claims made by prime minister Justin Trudeau's administration that Indian authorities were involved in the killing of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar. In june of last year, Najjar was shot and killed in Surrey. The only progress in the case, other than assigning fault, has been the recall and expulsion of ambassadors.

Although canada has gone all out based only on intelligence inputs, the US appears to have given india actionable proof whereas the US has just asked for India's assistance in the Pannun and Nijjar instances, respectively. That was also taken from the United States.

The united states announced on october 17 that it "appreciated" India's assistance.

"We're happy with the collaboration... The US Department of State's spokesperson, Matthew Miller, stated, "We appreciate the cooperation, and we appreciate them updating us on their investigation, and we update them on ours." He made these comments during the discussion between US authorities and the indian inquiry committee about the abortive attempt to assassinate Pannun in the US.

In contrast, india called back its high commissioner and other diplomats from canada when canada designated them as "persons of interest" in the assassination of Najjar.

India claimed it didn't supply a "shred of evidence" in response to repeated demands and referred to Canada's claims as unfounded.

Canada has no proof, thus it did not submit any

During his deposition before the panel investigating foreign meddling in Canada's political processes, Trudeau acknowledged this.

During an india Today tv discussion, Michael Kugelman, the director of the Wilson Center's South Asia Institute, stated, "The way that the US has handled the case is very responsible." Senior US officials, according to him, have not been publicly commenting on the matter. This stands in sharp contrast to the actions of the Trudeau administration.

Canada is winging it whereas the US appears to have made an effort to get evidence and even managed to have Gupta extradited from the Czech Republic. That is precisely the rationale behind India's cooperation with the US and its lack of receptivity to Canadian accusations. Considering that they are only accusations supported by no concrete proof.