By Tariq Khan Tareen

The international system rests upon a simple but inviolable premise: sovereignty is sacrosanct, and political dissent must be contested through lawful means rather than silenced through violence. Recent judicial and parliamentary disclosures in North America, however, have unsettled that premise by illuminating a pattern of alleged extraterritorial coercion linked to Indian actors. What once existed in the realm of diplomatic accusation has now entered the domain of sworn testimony and legislative record.

In Canada, the 2023 killing of Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar triggered an expansive national security probe led by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Canadian authorities publicly identified the Lawrence Bishnoi Gang as a transnational criminal organization allegedly involved in targeted violence. The network, associated with jailed gangster Lawrence Bishnoi, was formally designated a terrorist entity by Ottawa on 22 September 2025. Such a designation by a G7 democracy is neither symbolic nor casual; it reflects conclusions drawn from intelligence assessments and law enforcement investigations.

Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, addressing Parliament, went further. He stated that Indian diplomatic personnel had gathered intelligence on Canadian citizens critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and that this intelligence was allegedly relayed to criminal intermediaries, culminating in violence. These remarks were delivered within Canada’s sovereign legislature, underscoring their gravity and institutional legitimacy.

Simultaneously, proceedings in a United States federal court have added a judicial dimension to the controversy. Indian national Nikhil Gupta pleaded guilty to transferring $15,000 in 2023 to arrange the assassination of Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a U.S.-based activist affiliated with Sikhs for Justice. American prosecutors asserted that the plot was directed by an employee of the Indian government and overseen by individuals linked to India’s external intelligence service, the Research and Analysis Wing.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation described the intended target as a victim of transnational repression—penalized for speech protected under U.S. constitutional law. This characterization, placed on record under judicial scrutiny, transforms geopolitical dispute into a matter of legal consequence. The convergence of prosecutorial filings, guilty pleas, and official statements constructs a narrative far more consequential than speculative rhetoric.

Viewed collectively, the American and Canadian developments suggest a structured pattern rather than isolated aberrations. Intelligence gathering, alleged facilitation through criminal proxies, and the targeting of dissidents abroad form a continuum that challenges the integrity of international norms. When democratic states publicly attribute such conduct to networks associated with a foreign power, the issue transcends bilateral tension and enters the realm of systemic concern.

For Pakistan, these disclosures resonate with long-articulated claims regarding Indian covert activities in the region. The 2016 arrest of Kulbhushan Jadhav was presented by Islamabad as evidence of clandestine operations designed to destabilize the country. Pakistani authorities have repeatedly alleged Indian backing for separatist outfits such as the Balochistan Liberation Army and the Balochistan Liberation Front—allegations New Delhi has denied. Yet the judicial admissions and official investigations unfolding in North America inevitably recalibrate how these denials are perceived within the broader international community.

Beyond the immediate diplomatic ramifications lies a deeper reputational question. India has long cultivated an image of democratic resilience and pluralistic legitimacy, positioning itself as a strategic partner to Western democracies. The documented cases emerging in Washington and Ottawa complicate that portrayal. They introduce into strategic dialogue the specter of coercive reach extending into allied territories—an uncomfortable variable for policymakers invested in a rules-based order.

This moment may ultimately prove pivotal. When sovereign courts record admissions tied to assassination plots and allied governments designate criminal networks connected to foreign actors as terrorist entities, plausible deniability erodes. The cumulative documentation—judicial, legislative, and investigative—reshapes global perception in ways that diplomatic rebuttals alone cannot easily reverse.

At its core, the controversy is not confined to India’s bilateral relations with Pakistan, Canada, or the United States. It implicates the foundational norms that regulate state conduct in an interdependent world. Political dissent, however contentious, must be engaged through lawful channels and democratic discourse. The export of coercion—whether direct or through deniable intermediaries—undermines the very architecture of sovereignty that states collectively claim to uphold.

History often marks turning points not by rhetoric but by record. In this instance, the record is accumulating—in court transcripts, parliamentary proceedings, and formal terrorist designations. Whether this episode becomes a catalyst for accountability or merely another chapter in geopolitical contestation will depend on how resolutely the international community defends the principles it professes to cherish.