Washington [US], October 18, 2024 – In a high-profile legal development, the U.S. has charged a former Indian intelligence officer, Vikash Yadav, for allegedly orchestrating a foiled plot to assassinate prominent Sikh separatist leader Gurpatwant Singh Pannun in New York City. This indictment, unsealed on Thursday, has raised tensions between India and the U.S., further straining India’s relationships with Western nations regarding its alleged extraterritorial actions.

The U.S. Department of Justice has accused Yadav, a former officer with India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), of masterminding the attempted murder-for-hire plot against Pannun, an outspoken advocate of the Khalistan movement and a critic of the Indian government. Pannun, a U.S.-Canadian citizen, is a leading figure in the movement that calls for an independent Sikh homeland, Khalistan, to be carved out of India’s Punjab region.

The indictment revealed that Yadav, aged 39, who was employed by the Indian government at the time, coordinated with individuals in India and abroad to plan the assassination of Pannun starting in May 2023. The plot, which involved hiring an Indian national named Nikhil Gupta, was thwarted by U.S. law enforcement before it could be executed.

Failed Assassination Attempt: The Murder-for-Hire Plot

The court filings describe how Yadav allegedly hired Gupta to carry out the assassination of Pannun. Gupta, who has also been charged by the U.S. Department of Justice, was reportedly tasked with orchestrating the killing on U.S. soil. According to the indictment, Gupta traveled from India to Prague in June 2023 to finalize the details of the operation but was apprehended by Czech authorities. He was subsequently extradited to the U.S. and pleaded not guilty in a federal court in June.

The indictment against Yadav includes charges of murder-for-hire and money laundering. U.S. officials have indicated that they will seek Yadav’s extradition from India to face trial in the United States.

FBI’s Warning Against Retaliation

Following the indictment, FBI Director Christopher Wray issued a stern warning, emphasizing that acts of retaliation or violence against individuals residing in the U.S. for exercising their constitutionally protected rights will not be tolerated. “The FBI will not allow acts of violence or other efforts to retaliate against those who peacefully criticize foreign governments from within our borders,” Wray said in a statement.

Pannun, a political activist and founder of the Sikhs for Justice organization, has been a vocal advocate for the Khalistan movement, which seeks to establish an independent Sikh state. He has often been labeled a “terrorist” by the Indian government, which considers the Khalistan movement a threat to its national security.

Pannun Responds to the Indictment

In response to the unsealed indictment, Pannun expressed relief and welcomed the U.S. action but referred to Yadav as merely a “mid-tier soldier.” In a statement, he alleged that Yadav’s actions were directed by India’s National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and former RAW chief Samant Goel as part of a broader effort by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government to dismantle Sikh separatism abroad. Pannun, who has long been a target of Indian intelligence agencies, remains under protection by U.S. law enforcement.

Context of India’s Alleged Targeting of Sikh Separatists

The allegations against Yadav come amid increased scrutiny of India’s actions against Sikh separatists on foreign soil. In September 2023, Canada accused India of involvement in the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, another prominent Sikh separatist leader, on Canadian soil. India has categorically denied these allegations, leading to a diplomatic spat between the two nations, with both countries expelling each other’s diplomats.

The U.S. Department of Justice has drawn a connection between the Nijjar assassination and the plot against Pannun. According to U.S. authorities, after Nijjar’s killing, Gupta felt there was “no need to wait” to proceed with Pannun’s assassination, suggesting a coordinated effort to target Sikh separatist leaders abroad.

India’s Response

India has denied involvement in the plot to kill Pannun. A statement from the Indian government clarified that Vikash Yadav is no longer an employee of the Indian government. Indian officials met with their U.S. counterparts earlier this week in Washington to discuss the case, with the U.S. State Department describing the talks as productive. The meeting was part of broader efforts to address concerns over India’s alleged extraterritorial activities targeting dissidents.

While India has consistently rejected claims of carrying out targeted killings abroad, it has labeled Sikh separatist movements, including Pannun’s Sikhs for Justice, as threats to its sovereignty and security. The Khalistan insurgency in the 1980s and 1990s led to violent clashes and the deaths of tens of thousands of people in India, and the movement continues to evoke strong reactions from Indian authorities.

Diplomatic Implications

The indictment against Yadav is likely to further strain India’s relations with both the U.S. and Canada, two countries with significant Sikh diaspora populations. While India remains a crucial partner for the West in counterbalancing China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific region, incidents like this may challenge diplomatic ties, particularly when it comes to issues of human rights and freedom of speech.

Washington has maintained that it will continue to investigate and prosecute foreign actors who attempt to retaliate against U.S. residents, regardless of their nationality or political beliefs. The U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI have stressed their commitment to protecting individuals targeted for their political views, particularly those exercising their rights on American soil.

Conclusion

As the legal process against Vikash Yadav unfolds, the case is expected to attract considerable international attention. The U.S. government’s move to indict a former Indian intelligence officer marks a significant step in its stance against foreign interference and retaliation on U.S. soil. For now, the case stands as a reminder of the complex and often contentious nature of international relations surrounding separatist movements, especially as they intersect with issues of national sovereignty, human rights, and freedom of expression.