After humiliating India over Nijjar killing, will Canada and US apologise?

New Delhi: The latest US action in the Hardeep Singh Nijjar murder case raises a question Canada, the US and much of the Western media cannot avoid now. If the Nijjar killing was always going to be prosecuted as a gang-led organised crime case, why was India placed in the dock first? For nearly three years, the Nijjar case was used to damage India’s standing. Canada accused India in public. The allegation was amplified in Western capitals and repeated by the media as if the main question had already been settled. India’s denial was treated with suspicion, while Canada’s claim was treated with indulgence. Now, US prosecutors have charged Lawrence Bishnoi and Satinderjeet Singh, alias Goldy Brar , with allegedly orchestrating Nijjar’s killing as part of Operation Hard Ball, a wider case against India-based transnational organised crime groups. The US case covers 37 defendants across three indictments and includes allegations of racketeering, extortion, drug trafficking, firearms offences, kidnappings, targeted killings and threats to Indian-origin communities abroad. The legal process will take its course. But, the question is why a sovereign country was publicly humiliated before the available prosecutable case pointed to gangs. The accusation came first, evidence did not In September 2023, then Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Parliament that Canadian agencies were pursuing “credible allegations” of a potential link between Indian government agents and Nijjar’s killing. Canada expelled an Indian diplomat. India rejected the allegation as “absurd and motivated” and expelled a Canadian diplomat in response. That allegation changed the tone of India-Canada relations almost overnight as trade talks were affected and diplomatic engagement froze. India’s image was dragged into a murder case in a friendly Western democracy before any open legal process had established responsibility. Canada was entitled to investigate a killing on its soil. It was also entitled to seek cooperation from India if it believed Indian-origin suspects, criminal networks or intelligence leads were involved. But Canada was not entitled to turn an allegation into a public diplomatic weapon without placing evidence in a transparent forum. The US and other Western partners were also not entitled to let the narrative harden without asking for the same evidentiary standard they demand from others. What followed was not only an investigation. It became a political and media campaign in which India was repeatedly framed as a suspect state. What the US case now says Operation Hard Ball charges alleged organised crime figures. The FBI is offering a reward of up to $50,000 for information leading to the arrest of Goldy Brar. A federal warrant was issued in California on July 1, charging him with racketeering conspiracy, extortion and drug distribution conspiracy. The FBI says Brar has ties to the US, Canada, India and Mexico. US authorities have described Brar as a senior figure in the Lawrence Bishnoi organised crime group in North America. Bishnoi is in jail in India, while Brar remains at large. The DOJ and FBI press conference also made the frame clear. The display included seized firearms, ammunition and large packets of suspected contraband. Screens carried Operation Hard Ball branding, suspect photographs and wanted posters for Brar. The case was presented as a law-enforcement action against transnational gangs. It was not presented as a diplomatic case against India. A correction is not enough The apology owed to India is not for investigating Nijjar’s killing. It is for the manner in which India was named, shamed and diplomatically punished before the public case reached its present form. A correction in tone does not work at all. A formal apology is the least expection if Canada and its partners cannot show evidence that justifies the way India was implicated. The West cannot run two standards. India was not merely asked to cooperate. It was publicly associated with an assassination. Its denial was treated as defensive. Its concerns about Khalistani extremism, organised crime and threats to Indian missions were often pushed into the background. Now the US case itself shows that organised crime, diaspora intimidation and gang networks were central to the investigation. That is exactly the kind of issue India had been flagging for years. The Five Eyes problem The Nijjar case also raises a question for the Five Eyes intelligence network. If intelligence inputs existed, why did they lead to such a public political accusation before a criminal case had matured? If those inputs pointed to gangs, why was the Indian state made the central public target? If those inputs pointed beyond gangs, why has the present prosecution not reflected that in the public record so far? These are not small questions. Intelligence cannot be used as a shield forever when it is also used to damage another country’s reputation. Canada cannot say it has secret evidence and then expect the world to ignore the public prosecution that now points to organised crime. The US cannot allow a case to be sold politically as one thing and prosecuted publicly as another without explaining the gap. India has reasons to ask for answers as well as an apology.