The Long Arm of the State: India's Transnational Repression Targeting the Sikh Diaspora

Introduction

Transnational repression (TNR) is a coercive practice wherein a government reaches beyond its own borders to monitor, harass, intimidate, and even physically harm members of its diaspora or exile communities. It fundamentally undermines the sovereignty of host countries and violates the human rights and freedoms of targeted individuals. For decades, the Sikh diaspora in nations such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom has raised concerns about such tactics emanating from the Government of India (GOI). The rise of Hindu nationalist politics has coincided with a significant escalation in these efforts, particularly targeting Sikh activists who advocate for Khalistan (an independent Sikh homeland) or criticize India's human rights record. Recent, high-profile cases involving attempted assassinations in the US and the chilling use of legal and financial tools in the UK have brought the reality of India's transnational repression against the Sikh community to the forefront of international diplomacy and national security concern.

The diaspora's vulnerability is exacerbated by the host states' reluctance to publicly confront a major trade and strategic partner like India. This essay will examine the mechanisms of India's TNR, provide detailed case studies from the US and UK focusing on Gurpreet Singh Rehal, incorporate statements from lawmakers, and conclude with a call for stronger accountability.

The Mechanism of Transnational Repression

Transnational repression operates through a variety of overt and covert means, creating a pervasive climate of fear designed to silence dissent. For the Sikh diaspora, the tactics employed by the GOI and its proxies have been wide-ranging, as documented by organizations like Freedom House and various parliamentary inquiries in the UK.

Spectrum of Tactics

The repression is often multi-faceted, ranging from digital harassment to kinetic operations. Key tactics include:

1. Physical Harm and Assassination Plots: The most extreme manifestation involves targeting activists for murder. The June 2023 assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a prominent Sikh leader, in British Columbia, Canada, and the foiled plot to assassinate Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a U.S. citizen and activist, in New York, starkly demonstrate the use of state-directed violence. These acts sent a clear, chilling message that activists are not safe even in their adopted countries. These actions represent a significant breach of host-nation sovereignty and have forced Western intelligence agencies to formally acknowledge a threat they had previously downplayed (Sikh Coalition, 2025a).
2. Abuse of Legal and Diplomatic Tools: India has been accused of misusing international law enforcement channels, particularly the Interpol Red Notice system, to secure the arrest and extradition of activists based on politically motivated charges under draconian domestic laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The long-term arbitrary detention of British Sikh activist Jagtar Singh Johal in India is a prominent example. Furthermore, India has been explicitly named in a UK Parliamentary report for the "systematic misuse" of international police systems like Interpol to silence political dissidents (The Wire Staff, 2025). This tactic weaponizes the legal systems of the host countries, draining the financial and emotional resources of activists through protracted legal battles.
3. Surveillance and Harassment of Family in the Homeland: A common and devastating tactic is the coercion of diaspora members through threats, harassment, torture, or detention of their relatives who remain in India. This leverage effectively forces silence or compliance from activists abroad who fear for their loved ones' safety. Sikh community members in the UK have reported that peaceful protests outside the Indian High Commission in London are used for "intelligence gathering purposes, with protestors and their families being subsequently targeted by Indian security agencies and denied visas" (World Sikh Parliament, 2025).
4. Digital and Financial Vilification: Coordinated multimedia campaigns, often leveraging India-aligned media, label Sikh activists as "extremists" and "terrorists" to destroy reputations, curtail financial activity, and generate hostility towards the community’s advocacy for self-determination. This is often coupled with visa weaponization, where individuals are placed on blacklists based on alleged political activity abroad, preventing them from visiting their families or ancestral lands.

Case Studies: The US and UK Experience

The geographical scope of India’s transnational repression encompasses key Western allies, presenting a profound challenge to democratic norms and sovereignty.

The United States: A Breach of Sovereignty

The foiled plot against Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a dual US-Canadian citizen, provided the clearest evidence of India's state-directed actions on American soil. US federal prosecutors charged an Indian national, Nikhil Gupta, alleging he was directed by an Indian government employee to orchestrate the assassination. This revelation prompted immediate concern from US lawmakers.

In a letter to the White House, US lawmakers expressed deep concern, writing that the GOI's actions represent "a breathtaking violation of U.S. sovereignty and bold attack on Americans, on American soil" and highlighted a pattern of "increased clandestine security and surveillance operations targeting Sikhs" (Sikh Coalition, 2025a). The involvement of a senior Indian government intelligence officer in directing the plot, as alleged in the US indictment, elevates this from a criminal conspiracy to a matter of statecraft, impacting bilateral relations at the highest level.

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) also voiced alarm, stating: “The Indian government’s alleged involvement in the killing of Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada and the plot to kill Gurpatwant Singh Pannun in the United States are deeply troubling, and represent a severe escalation of India’s efforts to silence religious minorities and human rights defenders both within [and] outside India’s borders” (USCIRF, 2023). This unified North American pattern of alleged state-sanctioned violence established a clear, urgent narrative for the need to protect the diaspora.

The United Kingdom: The Case of Gurpreet Singh Rehal

The UK has been a critical hub for Sikh activism, and the GOI’s operations there are reported to have been ongoing for decades, often exploiting the UK’s strong counter-terrorism cooperation with India. The UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) launched an inquiry into transnational repression, naming India among the countries accused of perpetrating TNR on British soil.

The case of Gurpreet Singh Rehal, a British Sikh businessman from Coventry, exemplifies a concerning shift in the nature of Indian pressure. Rehal's initial targeting was reportedly via a previous extradition request, mirroring the failed attempt against the "West Midlands Three," which collapsed in 2021 after the Indian government "failed to present any evidence to the courts to support their charges" (Anonymous, 2025). This history shows a consistent pattern of using the UK’s justice system for harassment and intimidation.

The situation escalated dramatically in December 2025, when the UK government itself imposed sanctions on Rehal and the group Babbar Akali Lehar, citing links to pro-Khalistan terror and utilizing the country's Domestic Counter-Terrorism Regime for the first time in this context (HM Treasury, 2025). The UK's HM Treasury explicitly assessed Rehal to be involved in the terrorist activities of the pro-Khalistan militant group Babbar Khalsa, including "promoting and encouraging, carrying out recruitment activities for, providing financial services to, as well as supporting and assisting those organisations" (HM Treasury, 2025). This action resulted in an asset freeze and director disqualification, immediately severing his business ties and financially crippling him.

While the sanctions are a UK government action, the underlying intelligence is widely believed to be provided or heavily influenced by Indian agencies. The sanctioning of an individual based on pro-Khalistan activism, rather than a proven, kinetic attack on UK soil, is viewed by the Sikh community as the UK government effectively weaponizing its own counter-terrorism apparatus at the behest of a foreign state to suppress political speech. This is arguably a more sophisticated form of TNR, where the GOI leverages its strategic relationship to silence dissent without leaving its own fingerprints on the legal documents, essentially having their primary adversary's government do their work for them.

The Response of Lawmakers and the Challenge of Accountability

The response from Western governments has been divided, often balancing national security concerns against significant trade and political partnerships with India.

Lawmakers in the US and UK

In the US, the judicial process surrounding the Pannun plot demonstrated robust independence, but political action has been cautious. However, US lawmakers have used formal letters to push the executive branch for transparency and accountability (Sikh Coalition, 2025a).

In the UK, the government’s reaction has been criticized as being politically constrained. Labour MP Preet Kaur Gill, speaking in the House of Commons, publicly raised the issue of transnational repression and the alleged assassination plots: "Given the reports of British Sikhs facing similar threats, what steps are the Government taking to secure their safety? Will the Minister show the same strength as our partners do in publicly defending their democratic rights" (Gill, 2024).

Conversely, the response from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Lucy Rigby KC MP, following the sanctions on Rehal, reflects the government’s stated commitment to action on the provided intelligence: “We will not stand by while terrorists exploit Britain's financial system. This landmark action shows we are prepared to use every tool at our disposal to choke off funding for terrorism – wherever it occurs and whoever is responsible” (HM Treasury, 2025). The tension lies in whether this commitment is directed solely at genuine terror threats or if it inadvertently—or intentionally—serves the political repression goals of the Indian state. The JCHR heard evidence that "Gaps are less in legislature specifically but more in the will of UK political reps being willing to speak against India, a major trade partner" (Anonymous, 2025), underscoring the political calculus that often shields the GOI from public condemnation.

The Indian Government’s Motivation and Response

The motivation behind the GOI's aggressive transnational repression is twofold: an absolute opposition to the Khalistan movement and a broader effort to silence all domestic and international criticism of its human rights record, particularly concerning religious minorities. The government frames Sikh activists as "extremists" and "terrorists" to legitimize its actions.

The GOI has vehemently denied direct involvement in the assassination plots. Following the UK Parliamentary report on TNR, India launched a “blistering counterattack” against the report's accusations. India’s Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson, Randhir Jaiswal, denounced the allegations as “baseless,” “politically motivated,” and “drawn from dubious and discredited sources,” dismissing the claims as an orchestrated smear (ITV News, 2025). This aggressive diplomatic denial signals a deep unwillingness to accept international scrutiny or accountability for actions against its diaspora, placing severe strain on diplomatic relations with its Western allies.

Conclusion and Call for Accountability

The evidence of India’s transnational repression targeting the Sikh diaspora in the US and the UK is compelling and points to a coordinated campaign that poses a direct threat to the sovereignty of Western nations and the fundamental human rights of their citizens and residents. The foiled assassination plot in the US, and the aggressive use of Interpol and now domestic counter-terrorism sanctions in the UK—as seen in the Gurpreet Singh Rehal case—are not isolated incidents but represent the most extreme tactics in a comprehensive strategy of harassment, surveillance, and intimidation.

Addressing TNR requires host governments to move beyond diplomatic platitudes and implement robust legal frameworks, enhance intelligence-sharing, and provide protective measures for vulnerable diaspora communities. Most critically, host governments must ensure that their own legal and financial tools are not weaponized by foreign states to suppress political dissent. The long arm of the state must be definitively checked at the border of sovereign nations. Failure to hold the GOI accountable for these violations risks normalizing state-sponsored terror on foreign soil, further eroding international law, and abandoning diaspora communities to a cycle of fear and silence. The integrity of Western democracies demands a firm, unified response.