Goodbye, Eric Garcetti, And Please Stay Out Of The Business Of Diplomacy

Eric Garcetti, the United States (US) Ambassador to India, has somehow managed to turn diplomacy into a circus act.

Garcetti's tenure has been a disservice to both the United States and India, one characterised by baffling statements, selective amnesia regarding security, and a blatant disregard for India’s legitimate concerns.

His misguided, if not outright irresponsible, remarks about Khalistani extremists and the US’ complicity in shielding them have done nothing to strengthen US-India relations — if anything, they’ve undermined them. It’s no surprise that Garcetti’s time as Ambassador is coming to an end, and the sooner he’s out of Delhi, the better.

Garcetti's latest defence of the Biden administration’s stance on Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a Khalistani extremist operating openly on American soil, is perhaps the most absurd of his many blunders. In a podcast with journalist Smita Prakash, Garcetti asserted that in the United States, "you can’t be punished for speech, only actions."

This misguided defence of free speech is not only naive but downright dangerous. It’s as though Garcetti believes that words when spoken by individuals with malicious intent, have no consequence — completely ignoring the incitement to violence that those very words can cause.

Pannun’s rhetoric is clear: he has threatened the lives of Indian leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Punjab, and others. Yet, Garcetti suggests that unless Pannun directly acts on those threats, the US is powerless to intervene. This absurd standard completely ignores the fact that Pannun’s incitement has already led to attacks on Indian diplomatic missions, terror threats, and general unrest.

If Garcetti and the Biden administration are so keen on maintaining this narrow interpretation of free speech, then they are complicit in allowing violence to fester under their watch.

What’s more troubling is Garcetti’s pattern of downplaying serious threats posed by Khalistani extremists. In a separate interview, Garcetti suggested that the US only acts on "crimes," not "opinions," downplaying India’s concerns about Khalistani terrorism.

His remarks, which seem to signal a green light to extremist groups, not only display a lack of understanding of the broader geopolitical issues at play but also reveal a disturbing complacency when it comes to safeguarding innocent lives. It almost seems as though Garcetti believes the US should wait for the blood to be spilled before taking any meaningful action.

India has long raised concerns about the safe havens provided to Khalistani extremists in the US, and Garcetti’s statements only seem to confirm suspicions that the US is turning a blind eye to these groups, even as they grow bolder.

Pannun, in particular, has become a symbol of this indifference, using his platform to incite violence against India and its people. Yet, Garcetti continues to downplay the severity of these actions, as though they are inconsequential.

This level of incompetence and irresponsibility would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. The US’ failure to take decisive action against individuals like Pannun suggests a troubling disregard for the safety and security of a close ally.

Garcetti, in his diplomatic naivety, may have thought he could charm his way through these issues, but the reality is that his tenure has only served to alienate India. His comments have deepened the rift between the two nations, making it clear that the US is not serious about countering the Khalistani threat.

Garcetti’s confirmation as Ambassador in 2022 came only after a yearslong battle to save his failing career, tainted by his disgraceful cover-up of sexual harassment by one of his top aides. As US Ambassador to India, he continued to embarrass himself and the US, fumbling diplomacy and proving, every day, that he was unfit for the job.

The most ironic part of Garcetti’s tenure is his own admission that the US-India relationship isn’t strong enough to be taken “for granted.”

If anything, Garcetti’s bungling of sensitive issues like the Khalistani extremism debate and his tone-deaf statements about free speech show just how weak this relationship remains under his watch. His words — carelessly thrown out without understanding the full context — have done more harm than good.

Garcetti’s diplomatic career will likely be remembered for his failures in India, and good riddance when he’s gone. With a Republican administration likely returning to the White House in 2025, the hopes of real diplomatic progress with India are much brighter.

As for Garcetti, he’ll return to his political obscurity, possibly setting his sights on another cushy job when another Democratic administration takes the White House — hopefully, without the power to affect international relations again.

The sooner he is out of the picture, the better for both India and the US.