'This incident offers ammunition to those inside the US government and elsewhere who question the wisdom of trusting India, so it will have a lasting consequence no matter how it is managed.'
"If the trial goes forward and produces additional material that implicates Indian officials, and if the Indian government is unwilling or unable to assure that it is taking appropriate measures to guarantee that similar activities have been curtailed, then the project of improving the US-India strategic partnership will slow."
"US prosecutors are aware of the sensitive nature of this case, and might be willing to avoid a major escalation if they believe that the Indian government is quietly forthcoming in its own investigation," Daniel S Markey, Senior Advisor, South Asia, United States Institute of Peace, tells Nikhil Lakshman in an e-mail interview.
US Secretary of State Antony J Blinken said last week that the US is taking the DoJ indictment very seriously.
Is this comment for mere public consumption or is the Biden administration perturbed about the conduct of a nation that it perceives as an ally?
What are the likely US measures that India can expect in response to this case?
An Indian news outlet mentioned that America has prohibited India from posting fresh RA&W agents on American soil.
Can India expect more of such actions?
Secretary Blinken's comments should be taken as an accurate reflection of the Biden administration's stance.
The entire US national security establishment would like to see India respond with an effective investigation of the episode that delivers appropriate consequences for those involved and demonstrates that similar events will never happen again.
I think it is safe to conclude from public reporting that the United States and Canada have told their Indian counterparts that R&AW will be denied normal access until this abnormal situation has been resolved.
US policies should be perceived in India as a firm stance on this specific issue, with the broader and equally important desire to get back to cooperative ventures that would advance the US-India strategic partnership in areas of common interest.
Indians feel the US reaction is disproportionate considering that it does not censure Israel when Mossad targets Iranian scientists or when the US itself assassinates Qasem Soleimani.
They ask why then is Washington so aggrieved about India wanting to get rid of someone Indian intelligence agencies perceive as a terrorist.
What would you say to them?
If Indians actually perceive that India's relationship with the government of the United States is equivalent to the hostile US-Iran relationship, then perhaps such an equivalence would make sense.
However, the United States and India have a warm and intensifying relationship based on important common interests.
Moreover, the United States has a political system founded on the rule of law, through which the Indian government is perfectly free to pursue extradition or other legal and political action against terrorists.
It is incumbent on the Indian government to work cooperatively with US officials to develop mechanisms that serve the national security interests of both sides.
That, not the contracting of criminal killers, is the appropriate action to take against US citizens that India considers a threat.
If India doubts the US legal system, even to the point that Indians believe the United States is a 'State sponsor' of anti-Indian terrorist groups, then there will be no firm foundation for US-India cooperation on other ventures going forward, particularly in the area of intelligence sharing.
Indians should appreciate that hiring killers to eliminate US citizens is an extreme violation of US law and sovereignty.
What impact -- short-term and long-term -- will this DoJ indictment and trial have on the India-US relationship?
Will it decelerate some of the wheels that are currently in motion?
The looming DoJ indictment already occupied the time and attention of the most senior officials in the US government, and to that extent it has already sucked energy from a positive, forward-looking agenda.
If the trial goes forward and produces additional material that implicates Indian officials, and if the Indian government is unwilling or unable to assure that it is taking appropriate measures to guarantee that similar activities have been curtailed, then the project of improving the US-India strategic partnership will slow.
US-India initiatives will face new scrutiny and political headwinds from the US Congress as well as from powerful institutions within the US national security bureaucracy.
Will the Nikhil Gupta trial further complicate things in the future?
Is it possible that this case could be resolved away from public view -- like the Devyani Khobragade issue was settled -- or don't Indians understand how the US judicial process works?
Unlike the Khobragade incident, the current situation does not offer a simple diplomatic 'fix'.
Nikhil Gupta is not an Indian diplomat, and his case will be handled by the DoJ.
Prosecutors may even want to use his testimony to identify and charge his handlers in India.
Most of that process will lie outside the authority of US national security officials who, if they could, might wish to find a way to resolve the issue behind closed doors as a means to protect US-India relations.
That said, US prosecutors are aware of the sensitive nature of this case, and might be willing to avoid a major escalation if they believe that the Indian government is quietly forthcoming in its own investigation.
Is there an expectation that the India relationship is too important for an event like this to derail it?
I believe that is the hope on both sides, and I know many expect the matter to be managed so as to avoid a serious derailing of US-India relations.
However, the legal proceedings will have a life of their own, outside political and strategic considerations.
It is hard to predict where they will lead.
Moreover, this incident offers ammunition to those inside the US government and elsewhere who question the wisdom of trusting India, so it will have a lasting consequence no matter how it is managed.
Could this invoke a sense of caution at the State Department and the Pentagon and indeed the White House about dealing with India and this government in the future?
Yes. This incident is a warning about the ways in which the current Indian government perceives its relationship with the United States.
All parts of the US policy making and intelligence community should consider its wider implications.
In particular, they should appreciate the specific areas of convergence and divergence in bilateral perspectives.
That appreciation should inform how far US-India cooperation is advisable, where it will pay the greatest dividends, and where it will run the greatest risks.
In your long experience of studying the India-US relationship, is this alleged plot without precedent?
Indian diplomats and policy makers have always taken the high moral ground in international statecraft, asserting its belief in Gandhian principles.
Do you think this conspiracy is an aberration, perhaps a rogue plot, or does it reveal how Indian statecraft has changed from the past?
I am unaware of prior incidents of this sort, at least on US soil.
I am inclined to believe that this plot in the US was the extension of a campaign that included other targets.
Obviously, it is linked to the Nijjar killing in Canada, but it might also be connected to activities in the UK and Pakistan.
The indictment offers strong reasons to believe that Indian security officials were running and funding all of these operations.
If that is true, then it appears to be a reflection of a shift in Indian statecraft, although it is unclear precisely who within the Indian system would have authorised and enabled that shift.
Although consistent with assertive rhetoric of the ruling BJP government, I am reluctant to assume explicit endorsement by India's top leaders of these activities.
We will probably never know those facts.
For now, India's government will be judged by its reaction, including the steps it takes to end this apparent assassination campaign and punish those involved.
Could India's more assertive presence in the world have led whosoever conceived this business to assume that they would get away with because of New Delhi's current standing in the world?
It is difficult to ascribe assumptions of this sort. It is equally possible that those who conceived these activities merely assumed they would never be caught and had not fully considered the risks they were running.
How will this, in your opinion, damage India's standing among those countries that are currently courting it? Would there be hesitation, a reluctance in future dealing with India?
Or do you think the necessity of realpolitik make this alleged plot a temporary hiccup which will quickly be pushed to the back burner with 'Nick' Gupta taking the fall?
First, I do not believe that pinning the plot on Nick Gupta will be sufficient to resolve this matter.
Second, this incident, including India's angry response to allegations from Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau, has already put a bad taste in the mouths of policymakers in a number of countries, especially smaller countries in Europe.
They perceive India's actions as evidence of bullying and also, quite possibly, as the consequence of an increasingly illiberal turn in Indian politics.
This may constrain certain types of cooperation with New Delhi, especially in the areas of diplomacy and intelligence, in the near future.
Third, that said, all countries courting India will continue to hold high hopes for commercial investments, trade, and other aspects of the relationship.
Just as many countries have pursued close economic ties with China, India's size and potential will make it an important partner in spite of its politics, if not because of them.
