It was a tumultuous and revealing week for Indian diplomacy, ignited by a Monday bombshell press conference in Canada. Senior Canadian police officials alleged that Indian diplomats were “likely” involved in criminal activities, including murder, targeted assassinations, and threats against members of the Canadian Sikh community. These accusations are not merely diplomatic faux pas—they echo the gravity of international scandals that have eroded global trust and carry significant geopolitical consequences.
The allegations claim that Indian diplomats, including the high commissioner, orchestrated the murder of Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who was shot dead near a gurdwara in a Vancouver suburb last July. Even more alarming, the claims extend to accusations of outsourcing their “dirty work” to a notorious gang led by India’s most wanted man, implicating Indian diplomats in other unsolved murders on Canadian soil.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau amplified these accusations just two days later. He informed a public inquiry that Canada’s intelligence directly linked Indian diplomats to a range of violent crimes across the country, including drive-by shootings, home invasions, extortion, and murder. Trudeau declared that India had made a “horrific mistake” in violating Canadian sovereignty, escalating an already simmering diplomatic spat into an outright international crisis.
This conflict between India and Canada echoes the disturbing case of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder in 2018, which shocked the global diplomatic community. Like Khashoggi’s assassination, which implicated Saudi Arabia in state-sponsored violence, these allegations suggest India may be following a similar path of extrajudicial killings on foreign soil. The comparison is unsettling: Khashoggi’s death exposed state repression extending beyond borders, and now, India’s alleged involvement in targeted killings abroad threatens to plunge its international standing into a similar moral and legal quagmire.
Trudeau’s accusations of Indian diplomats’ involvement in acts of violence reflect a deepening diplomatic crisis that has strained India-Canada relations to unprecedented levels. This escalation follows Trudeau’s statement to Parliament last year about “credible allegations” linking Nijjar’s murder to Indian officials—a claim New Delhi promptly dismissed as “preposterous.” The comparison to the Khashoggi incident raises critical questions about diplomatic immunity, sovereignty, and the global community’s tolerance for states employing extrajudicial violence.
In both cases, the consequences extend far beyond the nations directly involved. State-sanctioned murder undermines international law and destabilizes diplomatic norms crucial for maintaining global order. If these allegations are proven true, India could face severe diplomatic isolation, similar to Saudi Arabia’s experience following Khashoggi’s murder. Once again, the international community must confront the dangerous precedent of state actors operating with impunity across borders.
In the wake of these revelations, Canada has faced additional allegations regarding India’s pattern of overseas violence and harassment. These claims now extend beyond the U.S. and Britain to Pakistan, where Sikh activists report threats against them.
Western officials and Sikh community members say the investigation has exposed a broad, albeit sometimes clumsy, agenda of transnational oppression aimed at silencing former Modi supporters. Canadian authorities claim their evidence implicates Amit Shah, Modi’s right-hand man and India’s powerful home minister, indirectly ordering threats and harassment.
India vehemently denies involvement in the killings or harassment, asserting these acts are not official policy. The Indian government swiftly dismissed Canada’s accusations as “preposterous imputations” and labeled Prime Minister Trudeau’s statements “ludicrous.” New Delhi further accused Canada of providing a haven for Sikh terrorists, escalating the diplomatic row.
By Friday morning, India faced an even more damning development from the U.S. Vikash Yadav, an Indian government employee, and former intelligence official with direct links to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, was prosecuted for his role in a conspiracy to assassinate Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a prominent Sikh activist and U.S. citizen, in New York last year.
The indictment shed new light on the alleged murder-for-hire plot against Pannun, first disclosed by U.S. federal prosecutors last December. U.S. investigators claimed that Yadav, operating from New Delhi, recruited an Indian middleman in New York City to execute the contract killing of Pannun—a vocal Sikh separatist on India’s terrorist watch list.
sealed_superseding_indictment_s2_23_cr._289_vm_redactedThese revelations point to a deeply troubling trend. State-sponsored assassination plots on foreign soil not only challenge diplomatic norms but also raise serious concerns about the safety of dissidents and activists worldwide. Just as Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the Jamal Khashoggi murder strained its foreign relations, these allegations against India are likely to impact its relationships with Western democracies and expose the dark undercurrents of transnational repression at a time of heightened global scrutiny.
The recent assassination plot against Sikh activist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, uncovered by U.S. authorities, reveals how intelligence agencies worldwide increasingly use criminal networks to execute covert operations abroad. This incident is part of a broader pattern of transnational repression. Indian government employee Vikash Yadav allegedly conspired to assassinate Pannun in New York, a case that seems more fiction than reality. The hired “hitman” was an undercover American officer who successfully infiltrated the operation. Yadav, arrested in the Czech Republic, remains wanted by the FBI, with the U.S. seeking his extradition from India.
The suspected middleman, named Nikhil Gupta, fled to the Czech Republic, where he was arrested and later deported back to the US, where he entered a not-guilty plea. On Friday, the FBI released a wanted notice for Yadav, and it believed the US will seek his extradition from India, where he is still thought to be “at large,” according to The Guardian UK.
This case extends beyond India and Canada; the U.S. investigation directly links the two incidents. Investigators claim Yadav planned Pannun’s murder while coordinating the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada. Shortly after Nijjar’s death, Yadav allegedly sent his middleman a video of the slain activist’s body, highlighting their operation’s success. This reveals a broader agenda spanning multiple countries aimed at silencing dissent.
The U.S. Department of Justice has categorized the attempted assassination of Pannun as transnational repression—a practice where foreign governments use illegal and violent means to target dissidents abroad. While the international community has hesitated to condemn India’s actions directly, parallels to other instances of state-sanctioned violence, such as the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, are evident. The Saudi government’s elimination of a dissident on foreign soil set a dangerous precedent, one that Indian authorities may have considered in their efforts to suppress opposition to Modi’s nationalist agenda.
India now faces accusations from two Western allies, Canada and the U.S., of violating their sovereignty to carry out violent extrajudicial actions. This presents an existential crisis for India’s global reputation. For a nation once known for its cautious, non-aligned foreign policy, these allegations suggest a radical departure in how India’s intelligence agencies operate under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. A pattern of repression has emerged, extending from the suppression of opposition within India to the targeting of Sikh separatists abroad.
This isn’t the first time allegations of state-sponsored violence have surfaced. A 2018 investigation traced numerous killings of dissidents in Pakistan to Indian intelligence, and now similar tactics are reportedly being employed in Western nations. Reports suggest that Indian agencies have adopted methods from Israel’s Mossad, known for its extraterritorial operations. One intelligence officer chillingly stated, “What the Saudis did was very effective. You kill your enemy and murder the spirit of those who have sided against you.”
India’s official stance remains in denial. No formal charges have been filed in either Canada or the U.S. against high-ranking Indian officials, though “persons of interest” are under scrutiny. India has swiftly rebuffed the accusations, maintaining that such actions are not part of their official policy. However, analysts warn that this marks a dangerous shift in Indian intelligence operations, with Modi’s domestic repression now extending across borders to target diaspora groups, particularly those involved in the Sikh separatist Khalistan movement.
India’s reaction to these two cases has been markedly different, reflecting its geopolitical priorities. While relations with Canada have deteriorated significantly, India cannot afford to alienate Washington. After Pannun’s indictment, India initiated a high-level inquiry, with officials visiting Washington to address U.S. concerns. The Indian foreign ministry confirmed that Yadav “retired within the rules and procedures of service.” Still, the damage to India’s image as a responsible global player may be harder to repair.
The White House is treading carefully, balancing the need for justice with the geopolitical imperative of maintaining strong ties with India, a crucial strategic and economic partner. However, U.S. Attorney General Matthew Olsen made it clear that diplomatic considerations would not impede justice, stating, “We are condemning acts of terrorism that have occurred in the last 18 months, and let there be no doubt: The Department of Justice will find every plot case elsewhere.”
These revelations expose a broader, more sinister reality. Intelligence agencies leveraging criminal groups and rogue operators to carry out violence on foreign soil is not new, but it has reached new heights of coordination and impunity. Meanwhile, the media largely ignores the civil war brewing in Mexico between cartels and civilians, another example of state and non-state actors clashing with little international attention.
The ongoing events suggest a more extensive global struggle, where nation-states increasingly violate international norms to maintain control and silence dissent. The implications for global diplomacy and human rights are profound. If left unchecked, this trend of transnational repression will erode the very fabric of international law, making the world far more dangerous for those who dare to speak out against their governments.
We are witnessing not a series of isolated incidents but part of a larger, more dangerous shift in global intelligence operations and state behavior. Governments are increasingly turning to clandestine methods—often outsourcing violence to gangs, cartels, and rogue agents—to silence dissent, bypass legal constraints, and carry out extrajudicial actions across borders. This pattern of transnational repression reveals a disturbing erosion of international norms, where sovereignty and diplomacy are sacrificed for unchecked power.
The cases involving India, Canada, and the U.S. suggest a radical shift in how India’s intelligence agencies function under Modi’s leadership, adopting tactics more reminiscent of authoritarian regimes than the world’s largest democracy. By pushing these boundaries, India risks not only its relationships with critical allies but also its standing on the global stage. This should serve as a wake-up call that the rules of engagement in international relations are being rewritten—quietly, violently, and with far-reaching consequences.
The timing of these revelations is significant. As BRICS grows in influence, particularly with discussions about an alternative global reserve currency and increased cooperation outside Western structures, any attempt to weaken or destabilize a key member like India would benefit those opposing BRICS’ mission. Exposing such operations tarnishes India’s image and may reduce its leverage in global negotiations.
Intelligence agencies often expose each other’s covert operations to undermine their adversaries’ global standing. By revealing India’s alleged involvement in extrajudicial killings, Western intelligence agencies might be seeking to damage India’s credibility significantly as it rises as a global player in organizations like BRICS, which positions itself as a counterbalance to Western-dominated groups like the G7.
By exposing India’s alleged transnational repression activities, Western intelligence could be pressuring India to align more closely with Western democratic values and distance itself from authoritarian-leaning allies. With India attempting to maintain a delicate balance between its relationships with the U.S. and Russia, this could be a calculated move to steer India back toward Western alliances.
There may be more at play than meets the eye regarding Canada’s sudden escalation of allegations against India. The timing is noteworthy—Canada has faced criticism for its internal challenges, including strained relations with Indigenous communities, economic pressures, and housing Sikh separatist movements. These factors could have motivated Prime Minister Trudeau’s government to take a more assertive stance against India, deflecting attention from domestic issues while attempting to appear strong internationally.
Canada may also feel compelled to reassert its geopolitical relevance in an era of shifting global power dynamics, particularly with the rise of groups like BRICS. With India emerging as a worldwide player, Canada could view this as an opportunity to realign its diplomatic priorities and garner support from Western allies, especially the U.S. By publicizing these allegations, Canada may aim to position itself as a defender of human rights and democratic values, potentially gaining favor with nations critical of India’s foreign policy direction.
Moreover, Trudeau’s government may feel pressured to justify its earlier claims regarding India’s alleged involvement in extrajudicial activities, particularly after the initial outcry failed to lead to substantive action. Doubling down on these accusations could be Canada’s way of validating its stance and avoiding the appearance of backing down from a bold claim.
At the core of this issue lies a larger power struggle. As India strengthens its relationships outside Western-dominated spheres of influence, certain actors are making an apparent effort to curtail this momentum. In this context, Canada’s actions may be less about justice and more about positioning itself within the evolving global landscape, ensuring it maintains its standing as the international order shifts.
We’re witnessing the rise of a new era of covert statecraft, where governments are no longer bound by borders or traditional diplomacy. The real battle isn’t just between nations but between control and accountability, and the lack of media scrutiny accelerates this dangerous trend. As the world turns a blind eye to these acts of violence and repression, from Mexico’s cartel war to Canada’s assassinations, we inch closer to a reality where transparency and truth are sacrificed for political gain. The question remains: How long can this continue before the global order unravels?
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar! Follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals, or subscribe to my Substack. I am 100% people-funded.
