Assassination plot clouds India’s intelligence ambitions

RUSHALI SAHA

On 29 May, a US court is set to sentence Indian national Nikhil Gupta to between 19 and 23 years in prison, along with a fine of up to US$500,000. Gupta pleaded guilty in February to orchestrating a failed assassination plot in New York against Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a vocal advocate for the creation of Khalistan – a separate homeland for the Sikh community in India.

Gupta’s confession came after the US Department of Justice (DOJ) alleged this wasn’t a targeted mob hit orchestrated by non-state actors, but an assassination attempt involving an “Indian government employee” identified as Vikash Yadav. Described as a “senior field officer” in “intelligence” and “security management”, Yadav is believed to have been associated with India’s external intelligence agency Research & Analysis Wing (RAW), which is directly controlled by the office of India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi.

Following Gupta’s confession, the Indian government has not issued any further official statement on the alleged involvement of a government official. After US authorities announced charges against Gupta in 2023, a high level inquiry committee was set up in New Delhi to investigate the facts of the case. According to media reports, the inquiry found the involvement of “rogue operatives” who acted without official authorisation. Although the findings of the inquiry have not been made public, in January 2025, the Ministry of Home Affairs urged swift legal action against the individual based on the committee’s finding, alongside systemic overhauls to strengthen India’s future response capabilities.

Although India – which prides itself on being the world’s largest democracy – has consistently maintained that targeted killings were not government policy, the guilty plea and upcoming sentencing force New Delhi to address uncomfortable questions about its alleged involvement in serious human rights abuses on foreign soil.

This is not the first time that Indian officials have been directly linked with such activities in countries it identifies as “strategic partners”. In 2020, Australia expelled two Indian intelligence operatives who purportedly tried to gain access to sensitive information on Australia's defence technology and airport security protocols. New Delhi dismissed these claims as “speculative” and there is no public record of any criminal action taken against the identified individuals. The same year, German prosecutors charged an Indian national with spying on the Sikh community and Kashmir activists for RAW. When former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau linked the Indian government to the 2023 killing of Khalistan activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar near Vancouver, New Delhi again rejected the accusation as “absurd”.

So far New Delhi has prevented any long-term major fallout in bilateral relations with these countries due to these incidents. A sharp downturn in relations with Canada did follow, with both nations expelling top envoys and diplomats, but ties have been expanded under the new Carney administration. A trade deal is expected to be concluded with Ottawa by the end of this year, and security cooperation measures have been agreed.

With the United States, under the Biden administration, the immediate fallout for bilateral ties following the Pannun assassination plot investigation was largely contained – but not without challenges. An armed drone sale was blocked by the Congress over these allegations and was only approved after the White House provided “reassurances” that the case would be properly investigated. Since Donald Trump took over as president in 2025, his administration has so far refrained from speaking directly about the case in public. The only official communication from the White House on the issue came ahead of a Modi-Trump meeting in February 2025, in response to a media query with a vague response reassuring “the safety of every American” remains the administration’s priority. Ties between the two nations have instead been strained over tariffs and responses to the May 2025 India–Pakistan conflict.

Evidence of Indian government involvement in transnational repression shifts the narrative from India as victim to India as perpetrator.

Gupta’s sentencing might not be the end of the matter, however. While New Delhi has categorically denied any links with Gupta, the government has implicitly confirmed Yadav’s employment. The US DOJ has filed charges against Yadav, and he remains on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s “Most Wanted” list and is subject to an Interpol Red Notice. Media reports suggest Yadav – who was arrested in a separate kidnapping and extortion linked case in Delhi – is believed to be in India and out on bail. With Gupta’s admission providing the “probable location” required under Article 9 of the India-US Extradition Treaty, the door is now open for the DOJ to demand Yadav’s extradition. No formal extradition request is reported to have been filed, but Trump may be less inclined to ward off pressure from the US Congress on this issue – as Biden did – given the visible rupture in Modi-Trump relations.

Even with New Delhi’s insistence of a “rogue operative” at play, it paints India’s national security agencies in a poor light, potentially hampering a diplomatic blitz in the wake of the 2025 Pahalgam attack to strengthen international counter-terrorism cooperation. It diminishes the prospect of India joining the Five Eyes intelligence sharing pact, as was recommended by a 2021 US Congress Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations. Incidents of this type also exacerbate a long-standing trust deficit, serving as a reminder that India is among the few democracies that have no parliamentary oversight for its intelligence services.

New Delhi has been vocal about perceived Western impassivity towards its legitimate security concerns stemming from Pakistan-supported Khalistan militancy operating on US soil. But substantial evidence in support of allegations that the Indian government is involved in transnational repression shifts the global narrative from India being a victim to becoming a perpetrator of violence. New Delhi’s response – at minimum – should include a formal accounting of how this operation was authorised and by whom.

The article appeared in the lowyinstitute