On a crisp autumn morning in New York, the hum of city life masked a brewing international storm. Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a U.S.-based Sikh separatist leader, received an unsettling warning—his life was in danger. Across the city, federal agents had uncovered an alleged assassination plot, with fingers pointing toward an Indian national with suspected intelligence links. As news broke, Washington demanded answers, while Delhi distanced itself, reiterating its long-standing stance that Pannun and his group, Sikhs for Justice, were stirring separatist unrest. In the corridors of power, diplomacy and espionage blurred, as both nations scrambled to contain the fallout.
During his meeting with U.S. intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard on Monday, Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh raised concerns over Khalistani extremists operating from American soil against Indian interests. He specifically highlighted the activities of Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), a banned organisation in India due to its involvement in anti-India and national security threats.
The United States has long been a destination for diverse immigrant communities seeking freedom and opportunity. Among these communities is a segment of the Sikh diaspora advocating for the creation of an independent Sikh state, Khalistan. While Canada is known for being a haven for Sikh separatists, including extremist militants; the US is also increasingly turning out to be a problem area for India.
The Sikh community has established significant diasporas worldwide, including in the United States. While the majority of Sikhs integrate and contribute positively to their adopted countries, a subset supports the Khalistan movement, a violent campaign for an independent Sikh homeland, with the support of Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI. This movement, which saw violent insurgencies in India during the 1980s and 1990s, has found new platforms and support bases abroad, particularly in countries like the U.S., Canada, and the UK.
Historical Context
The Khalistan movement, which gained traction in the 1970s and 1980s, was driven by a mix of political and religious factors, often fuelled by external influences. Punjab, a Sikh-majority state, became the centre of violent militancy as extremist groups launched attacks against the Indian state, leading to a period of insurgency.
The situation escalated with Operation Blue Star in 1984, a military operation to eliminate armed separatists who had taken refuge inside the Golden Temple. The subsequent assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards triggered widespread unrest.
The Khalistan movement has long been linked to external influences, particularly the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan. Since the 1980s, evidence has pointed to Pakistan’s active role in supporting Sikh separatism in India, using it as a proxy to destabilise Punjab and weaken India internally. The ISI’s involvement has ranged from providing financial backing, arms, training, and ideological support to militant groups seeking to revive the Khalistan insurgency.
While the insurgency was eventually handled by the Indian government, many extremist elements sought refuge abroad, particularly in Western countries like the United States, where some continue to advocate for separatism under the guise of human rights activism.
Sikh Separatist Organizations in the U.S.
In the United States, several organizations advocate for Sikh separatism. One of the most prominent is Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), established in 2007. SFJ campaigns for a referendum among Sikhs worldwide to establish Khalistan. The group utilizes legal avenues, public demonstrations, and digital platforms to promote its agenda. India designated SFJ as an unlawful association in 2019, citing its secessionist activities.
Among these figures, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun has emerged as one of the most vocal and dangerous Khalistani extremists, leading Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), a banned terrorist organisation in India. Pannun is not a mere activist—he is a designated terrorist under India’s Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), charged with inciting violence, calling for terror attacks, and attempting to radicalise Sikh youth against the Indian state.
Despite posing as a human rights advocate, Pannun has repeatedly called for violent actions against India. His public statements have included: threats against Indian diplomats abroad, calls for terror attacks in Punjab and Delhi, incitement of anti-India violence in the U.S. and Canada, efforts to destabilise India through legal warfare, propaganda, and extremist mobilisation.
U.S. Legal and Political Landscape
The U.S. upholds principles of free speech and assembly, allowing various groups to advocate for their causes within legal boundaries. This environment has enabled organizations like SFJ to operate openly. However, their activities have occasionally led to legal confrontations. For instance, SFJ filed a lawsuit in a U.S. court seeking to designate the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindu nationalist organization in India, as a foreign terrorist organization. The U.S. government opposed this plea, indicating the complexities involved in labelling foreign entities as terrorist organizations.
Despite India’s repeated warnings about Khalistani terrorism, including formal requests to designate SFJ and Pannun as terrorists, the U.S. and other Western nations have failed to take decisive action. These same governments have actively pursued terror groups linked to other conflicts but continue to allow Khalistani extremists to operate freely on their soil.
Even though the U.S. recently thwarted an assassination attempt on Pannun, allegedly linked to an Indian national, the larger issue remains unaddressed, why is a designated terrorist like Pannun being protected by the West while openly inciting violence?
Diplomatic Tensions
Within the United States, the activities of Sikh separatist organizations have sparked debates about national security, freedom of expression, and the potential for foreign influence. Incidents such as the desecration of the BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir in California with anti-India and anti-Hindu graffiti have raised concerns about communal tensions and the potential for hate crimes. While investigations are ongoing, such acts highlight the need for vigilance and community engagement to prevent the escalation of conflicts rooted in foreign political issues.
The activities of Sikh separatist groups in the U.S. have been a point of contention in U.S.-India relations. India has expressed concerns over these organizations using foreign soil to promote secessionist agendas. With India formally requesting the U.S. to designate SFJ as a terrorist organization during the visit of Gabbard; this has never been clearer. This request followed the exposure of the assassination plot against Pannun and reflects India’s broader concerns about the Khalistan movement’s international dimensions.
Transnational Repression Allegations
Allegations have surfaced accusing the Indian government of attempting to suppress Sikh separatist activities abroad through extrajudicial means. Beyond the foiled plot against Pannun in the U.S., similar incidents have been reported in other countries with significant Sikh diasporas. For example, in Canada, the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a prominent Khalistan advocate, led to diplomatic tensions between Canada and India. These incidents have raised concerns about transnational repression and the safety of political dissidents abroad.
It would not, however, be a complete honest portrayal to label violent militants and banned organisations as dissidents. When the Western nations have found diverse and creative ways to deal with the elements on foreign soils that have threatened the integrity of their nations, similar attempts from India are frowned upon.
Community Impact and Responses
The broader Sikh community in the U.S. is diverse, with varying perspectives on the Khalistan issue. While some rally behind the violent separatist movement, most focus on cultural preservation, religious practices, and integration into American society. It is not just limited to the Sikhs in foreign lands, but back home in India too. Incidents targeting Indian institutions and representations, such as vandalism of temples, have heightened community concerns.
The Khalistan movement is as good as dead in India. However, some tiny numbers with vested interests and the support of Pakistan are looking to revive the movement. If it is not with diplomacy, then with violence. The Khalistani movement has the history of plane hijacks, murders, and so much more. It did not find the support of the Sikh community back in its peak days, it is certainly not getting now, except for a few noises here and there on social media. Even there some of these accounts echoing Khalistani propaganda are found to be proxy Pakistani accounts.
U.S. Government is Playing with the Fire
The U.S. government faces a delicate balancing act. On one hand, it upholds freedoms that allow advocacy for various causes; on the other, it must address foreign policy implications and domestic security concerns. They certainly do not want to be playing with the fire.
The indictment of individuals plotting violence on U.S. soil demonstrates a commitment to rule of law and the protection of all citizens, irrespective of their political affiliations. However, the designation of foreign organizations as terrorist entities involves complex legal and diplomatic considerations.
The presence and activities of Sikh separatist organizations in the United States reflect the complexities of diaspora politics, freedom of expression, and international diplomacy. While the U.S. provides a platform for advocacy, it also grapples with the implications for its foreign relations and domestic harmony. Navigating these challenges requires a nuanced approach that respects individual freedoms while addressing legitimate security and diplomatic concerns.
The U.S. government has to ponder upon the implication of hoisting with your own petard. This has happened earlier with its support of the Mujahideen movement in Afghanistan to solidify its position against the USSR during the Cold War. It has happened with Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and several other examples scattered throughout the history telling U.S. the consequences of breeding a viper in its nest.
