Second, in this circumstance, what would a rogue actor be? A lone wolf? Part of a small cohort purportedly acting in the country’s best interest? Or an authorised government official disguising himself as a rogue?

Third, whoever CC-1 is, was this handled incompetently? CC-1 recruited a certain Nikhil Gupta who’s “an international narcotics trafficker”. Did he not know this? And if he did not, shouldn’t he have? But if it was deliberate, was this a wise choice?

Fourth, Nikhil Gupta, in turn, contacted a criminal associate who turned out to be a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) informant. This person put Gupta in touch with the supposed hitman who was an undercover officer. Does this suggest the DEA was tracking Gupta and, therefore, knows a lot about him we haven’t been told? More importantly, doesn’t this sound like horrific bumbling? Dad’s Army would probably be more efficient.

Fifth, hours after Hardeep Singh Nijjar’s assassination on June 18, CC-1 “sent Gupta a video clip that shows Nijjar’s bloody body slumped on his vehicle”. Does this allegation suggest the US authorities have electronic evidence directly linking CC-1 to Nijjar’s assassination? If yes, does that support Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau’s allegations?

Sixth, the US indictment says “over the ensuing weeks, Gupta engaged in a series of electronic and recorded communications” with the criminal associate and, later, the hitman, “including by phone, video and text message”. These may have been encrypted but they were intercepted. Does this mean the US authorities have a wealth of detail that has not as yet been made public? It also raises disturbing questions about the security of our communications.

Seventh, the indictment says at least five separate targets were discussed, one in New York, presumably Pannun, another in California and three in Canada. In fact, at one point, Gupta said, “We will give … every month 2-3 job(s).” Does that sound like a one-off or a first step in a campaign of assassinations?

Finally, there’s the US government’s response. Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor, raised this with his counterpart Ajit Doval in August. A week later, William Burns, the head of CIA, flew to Delhi to talk to the head of R&AW. President Biden raised it in September at the G20. Antony Blinken and Sullivan did so again with foreign minister S Jaishankar in Washington at the end of that month. Finally, in October, Avril Haines, the director of National Intelligence, flew to India with further details. Doesn’t this mean the White House has taken it very seriously? In fact, the Washington Post says Sullivan told Doval “the United States need(s) an assurance that this would not happen again.” Is that tough language?

Only if we believe the indictment is fiction can we disregard these questions. But if you take them seriously there’s another that follows. If, in the end, Washington is prepared to overlook this – because our shared strategic interests are more important – will it want its pound of flesh?

I’d hate to be an Indian Antonio at the mercy of an American Shylock or is there a Portia mercifully waiting in the wings?

Karan Thapar is the author of Devil’s Advocate: The Untold Story. The views expressed are personal