The Tahawwur Rana case has once again taken center stage in geopolitical discourse following the U.S. Supreme Court’s approval of his extradition to India. Subsequently, on April 10, 2025, he was extradited to India to be tried for the Mumbai attacks conspiracy. Rana, a Pakistani-born Canadian citizen, was arrested in the United States for his alleged role in the 2008 Mumbai attacks. However, in 2011, Rana was cleared of direct involvement in the Mumbai attacks, which killed over 160 people, including 6 Americans. It was a major setback to India’s long-standing narrative that sought to establish direct Pakistani involvement. For India, his acquittal was a blow to its case. However, with Rana’s extradition now, the resurrection of the case could turn the tables. The US courts including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the charges in India were distinct from those in the US. Despite Rana’s plea that his extradition to India would subject him to double jeopardy, the US courts maintained that his trial in India would not violate the clause of double jeopardy.
His extradition to India must not only be seen through the lens of legality. The move aligns with India’s broader strategic objectives and long-standing approach to regional maneuvering. The rhetoric being flowed is not just about the justice for the 26/11 attacks, it serves as a calculated move in the geopolitical playbook of India. As a precedent Indian strategic culture has always emphasized shaping narratives in order to justify its military, diplomatic, and intelligence-driven engagements. In order to externalize its security challenges, India has been persistent in such kind of maneuvers. The emphasis on Rana’s potential testimony regarding Pakistan’s alleged involvement in 26/11 fits into this pattern. By bringing Rana into Indian custody, New Delhi has prepared the ground for a renewed diplomatic and strategic offensive against Pakistan.
The extradition has taken place at a time when India faces mounting backlash on multiple fronts. It has been facing allegations of transnational terrorism, a diplomatic row with Canada, India out policy in the region (with Bangladesh being the latest to show signs of discomfort with Indian influence), intensified armed resistance in IIOJK, and mounting separatist movements in North Eastern states and Khalistan as well. In this vein, the time of Rana’s extradition plays into India’s need to counter these narratives with a renewed focus on Pakistan as the perennial ‘source of terrorism.’ Unfortunately, India has often used high-profile incidents to pursue its strategic advantages. The Mumbai attacks, widely believed to have been a false flag provided a new lease of life to the Indian pretext to launch another campaign against Pakistan as a case of state-sponsored terrorism. The current focus on Rana follows a similar trajectory; his extradition is not merely about legal proceedings but about reinforcing the existing framework that India employs to rationalize its actions in the region.
One of the key reasons India invested in Rana’s extradition is that his case could serve as a counterweight to the Kulbhushan Jadhav affair. Jadhav, a former Indian Navy officer, was arrested in Pakistan and confessed to conducting espionage and sabotage operations on behalf of India. His admission remains a thorn in India’s diplomatic engagements. After securing Rana, now India can engineer its own “confessions” from him, possibly claiming that he was a conduit between the Pakistani security establishment and the Mumbai attacks. Such statements could be weaponized in diplomatic forums to counter Pakistan’s evidence against Jadhav, diverting attention toward Islamabad in a misleading narrative. The implications are clear, Rana is not just a suspect—he is a pawn in a broader geopolitical struggle.
The timing of these developments also coincides with India’s increasingly aggressive rhetoric from key officials. Indian ministers including Amit Shah, S. Jaishankar, and Rajnath Singh have repeatedly vowed to vacate Azad Kashmir. On the other hand Indian Army Chief Gen. Upendra Dwivedi followed suit and falsely claimed that 80% of infiltration in IIOJK hails from Pakistan. Such statements are not isolated. They have greater implications and fit into a pattern of escalating tensions and laying the groundwork for potential diplomatic and military action. Additionally, India recently struck a border deal with China concerning the Line of Actual Control (LAC). The deal signals that India may now feel more comfortable in shifting its military focus towards the Line of Control (LoC) with Pakistan. The past precedents suggest that India could potentially use Rana’s extradition to build a narrative that Pakistan-backed groups are once again attempting to destabilize India, justifying potential cross-border strikes. The Indian military establishment also benefits from such circumstances, as heightened tensions with Pakistan justify increased defense spending.
After securing full control over Rana’s custody now India will dictate how his interrogation unfolds, what statements are made public, and how the media portrays his case. This opens the door for manipulated or coerced confessions, which could be used to construct a narrative implicating Pakistan’s security apparatus in the Mumbai attacks. The case will be turned into an emotional spectacle, painting Rana as a key figure in a Pakistani conspiracy against India. Moreover, India has a history of executing individuals due to media-driven outrage, as seen in the case of Afzal Guru, who was hanged for his alleged role in the 2001 Indian Parliament attack despite insufficient evidence. Given Rana’s Canadian nationality, India could also use the case to reinforce its accusations that Canada harbors separatist and extremist elements, aligning with New Delhi’s long-standing narrative against the Khalistan movement.
Pakistan should also be wary of how this development could be used to escalate tensions along the LoC. The Kashmiri resistance movement, which has gained momentum in recent months, could also face increased Indian crackdowns justified under the broader ‘counterterrorism’ narrative. Ultimately, the extradition of Rana should not be seen in isolation; it is part of a larger strategic shift. India is reinforcing its position as a self-styled regional power while deflecting from domestic and international scrutiny. Whether this leads to a military escalation along the Line of Control (LoC) or remains a diplomatic offensive, the signs indicate that this move is not just about the past, but about shaping the future of India’s regional posture. The focus here may not be on justice but on reshaping global perceptions to serve India’s geopolitical interests.
Author
Abdul Basit, Associate Research Officer at Center for International Strategic Studies AJK.
