The revelations serve as a crucial reminder of the need for accountability in the actions of state security agencies
By Iftikhar Gilani
In a chilling revelation that reads more like a spy thriller, a complex web of allegations has emerged involving Indian intelligence agencies purportedly collaborating with criminal gangs to target dissidents on foreign soil.
Central to these claims are the recent accusations from Canadian authorities linking the Lawrence Bishnoi gang, a notorious criminal syndicate, with the Indian government’s covert operations against pro-Khalistani elements in Canada.
The diplomatic tension between India and Canada escalated with the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian citizen of Sikh descent known for his pro-Khalistani or separate Sikh state activism.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) implicated “agents of the Government of India” in collaboration with criminal elements for this assassination. This accusation is not isolated; it reflects a series of events and operational patterns that suggest a state’s systemic use of underworld networks to achieve geopolitical objectives outside its borders.
Lawrence Bishnoi, born in 1993 in Punjab, India, transformed from a university student leader to a notorious criminal figure. His criminal dossier spans across multiple Indian states, with charges including murder, extortion, and leading a gang involved in over 700 documented criminal activities.
Despite his incarceration, Bishnoi reportedly manages his criminal operations, signalling a well-entrenched network that operates with both impunity and precision.
In 2021, Bishnoi was transferred to Tihar Jail in Delhi concerning a case registered under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA). Authorities claimed that Bishnoi used Voice over IP (VoIP) calls to communicate with his associates from within the prison. Even incarceration in high-security facilities has not prevented him from allegedly orchestrating high-profile crimes.
In August 2023, the Gujarat Anti-Terrorism Squad received custody of Bishnoi, citing a case of drug smuggling, and he was transferred to a high-security ward in Sabarmati jail. Since then, no other state police has been allowed to interrogate him.
Bishnoi’s influence in the criminal underworld remains evident, behind bars.
Bishnoi’s network has been linked to a string of violent incidents, involving both prominent public figures and those considered enemies by the gang.
In 2018, Bishnoi’s close associate Sampath Nehra allegedly attempted an attack on Bollywood star Salman Khan, linked to Khan’s involvement in the Black Buck hunting case—a species considered sacred by the Bishnoi community.
The Lawrence Bishnoi gang was also implicated in the assassination of Punjabi singer Sidhu Moose Wala in May 2022. Goldy Brar, another associate of Bishnoi, claimed responsibility for the killing while Bishnoi himself was in custody in Tihar Jail at the time.
This brutal act highlighted the gang’s reach and ability to carry out targeted killings despite the leaders being behind bars.
Bishnoi continued to make headlines in 2023, when he claimed responsibility for the killing of Khalistani separatist Sukhdool Singh Gill, also known as Sukha Duneke.
More recently, in October 2024, Bishnoi’s gang claimed involvement in the assassination of former Maharashtra’s Cabinet minister Baba Siddique, citing his close connection with Salman Khan.
Despite efforts by Mumbai Police to take Bishnoi into custody, an order from Home Ministry prevented the transfer.
The spectre of state involvement in these criminal acts adds a chilling layer to the narrative. Reports have surfaced, quoting sources that attribute the orders for some of these killings to none other than India’s Home Minister, Amit Shah.
Case of Vickey Malhotra
However, others point to Ajit Doval, India’s National Security Adviser, whose career as a former intelligence director has been marked by a robust, at times controversial, approach to national security.
Doval’s name surfaces in multiple accounts of India’s alleged collaboration with criminal elements. His alleged involvement in using criminal networks for intelligence operations casts light on the murky intersection of state security practices and criminal enterprises.
Former Mumbai Police Commissioner Meeran Chadha Borwankar’s autobiography “Madam Commissioner” details a dramatic incident involving the Mumbai Police and Doval himself.
Mumbai Police had been tracking Vicky Malhotra in 2005, a sharpshooter linked to the Chhota Rajan gang. A surveillance operation led them to a confrontation in New Delhi, where Malhotra was found with Doval.
When police officers attempted to arrest Malhotra, Doval intervened, demanding his release and reportedly threatening the officers with repercussions. This episode starkly demonstrated the blurred lines between the state’s intelligence apparatus and criminal networks.
Years later, a former home secretary hinted that members of the Chhota Rajan gang were allegedly being trained by a former intelligence chief to execute a plot to kill notorious gangster Dawood Ibrahim in the Middle East.
Such instances suggest a systemic approach where criminal elements are used for state-sanctioned operations, raising significant ethical and legal concerns.
The assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada, and the subsequent accusations against India, form part of a broader alleged pattern of using criminal networks to silence dissidents. Canada is not alone in making such accusations.
In 2022, a 75-year-old Sikh Canadian named Ripudaman Singh Malik, previously acquitted of involvement in the 1985 Air India bombing, was shot dead under circumstances that remain unclear.
More recently, in November 2023, the United States authorities reported an alleged plot involving an Indian government official directing an assassination attempt against Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a Sikh separatist and dual citizen of the US and Canada.
According to an indictment, an Indian Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) official named Vikram Yadav ordered Pannun’s killing two days before Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s high-profile visit to the White House.
However, the plan was thwarted when the hired assassin turned out to be an informer working with US federal agencies.
The Canadian investigation reportedly found a disturbing pattern: intelligence about dissidents gathered by Indian operatives was passed to criminal gangs for the final execution.
This alleged tactic is part of a broader campaign targeting pro-Khalistani activists abroad, including Lakhbir Singh Rode and Paramjit Singh Panjwar—both prominent separatist leaders living in Pakistan who were assassinated in recent years.
The alleged use of criminal networks for extrajudicial killings raises grave concerns regarding the conduct of state intelligence operations. If proven true, these actions represent egregious breaches of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which strictly prohibits the use of diplomatic channels for unlawful activities.
Canada-India Tensions
Engaging criminal gangs for state operations not only violates international law but also undermines the sovereignty of foreign nations, creating severe diplomatic tensions.
The assassination of Nijjar and other dissidents abroad highlights the potential overreach of state powers under the guise of national security. Such actions, if verified, could have far-reaching implications for India’s diplomatic relations, particularly with countries that have significant Sikh diasporas.
Canada, with its large Sikh population, has seen increasing tension with India as the allegations have been met with strong denials from Indian authorities.
The unfolding espionage saga calls for increased transparency and accountability in intelligence operations.
The notion that a state might utilize criminal elements to carry out extrajudicial killings is alarming and necessitates a robust response from the international community.
Diplomatic channels must be utilized to investigate these claims thoroughly, and any state found to be complicit in such acts should be held accountable under international law.
The case also raises questions about the methods employed by countries in pursuing their national security interests. Intelligence agencies worldwide operate in the shadows, but there is a line between covert operations that protect national interests and those that cross into unlawful territory, violating human rights and international norms.
The allegations against India underscore the need for a balanced approach that upholds justice, transparency, and respect for international relations.
India’s aggressive stance on pro-Khalistani movements abroad is partly influenced by its complex history with separatism and insurgency in Punjab during the 1980s and 1990s.
The fear of a resurgence of separatist sentiments has driven Indian authorities to take a hard line against Sikh activists overseas.
However, as India seeks to assert itself as a regional power, such alleged actions risk tarnishing its international image. Diplomacy, rather than covert violence, should form the bedrock of India’s approach to handling dissent, particularly in countries where it has friendly relations.
The United States and Canada, two of India’s key partners, have both raised concerns about the alleged targeting of their citizens by Indian agents.
As these nations continue to enhance their strategic partnerships with India, especially in countering China’s growing influence, they are faced with the challenge of reconciling their security ties with allegations of unlawful activities by their ally.
The alleged nexus between Indian intelligence agencies and criminal gangs like the Lawrence Bishnoi syndicate to target dissidents on foreign soil has brought a deeply troubling dimension to international relations.
The revelations serve as a crucial reminder of the need for accountability in the actions of state security agencies. The use of extrajudicial means, particularly involving criminal elements, sets a dangerous precedent that could erode the rule-based international order.
As more details come to light, the call for a rigorous investigation into these allegations grows louder.
It is incumbent upon the international community to ensure that states do not overstep their bounds in the pursuit of security. The pursuit of national interests must align with the principles of justice, human rights, and respect for international law.
Only by holding accountable those who cross these lines can a world order that respects both security and human dignity be maintained.
######
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 at 10:50, iftikhar Gilani <iftikhar.gilani@gmail.com> wrote:
Wheel of History: Autonomy, Betrayal, and the Resilient Spirit of Kashmir
The recent assembly elections served as a stark reminder of the region’s enduring spirit of autonomy and resistance to external dominance in Jammu and Kashmir
By Iftikhar Gilani
In Jammu and Kashmir, a complex and deeply rooted political struggle continues to unfold, showcasing the resilience and determination of its people.
Despite the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s calculated attempts to establish a stronghold in Jammu and Kashmir through electoral engineering and intensive campaigning, the people of Kashmir have once again shown their indomitable spirit.
The BJP, despite its massive electoral machinery and strategic manoeuvring, has failed to secure a significant presence in the Kashmir Valley and the Muslim-majority regions of Jammu.
The recent assembly elections served as a stark reminder of the region’s enduring spirit of autonomy and resistance to external dominance. Historically, the BJP has struggled to establish a foothold in predominantly Muslim areas, where deep-rooted political and social complexities make it difficult to garner support.
Despite deploying 19 candidates across the Kashmir Valley, none succeeded, with most losing their deposits, underscoring the BJP’s continued unpopularity in the region.
The timing and conditions of the election seemed meticulously crafted to favour the ruling party in New Delhi. Delays, gerrymandering, and the redrawing of electoral boundaries were viewed as strategic attempts to tilt the electoral balance.
Yet, despite these efforts and full administrative control, the BJP’s iconic lotus failed to bloom on Kashmiri soil. This election was less about immediate political gains and more a referendum on the central government’s controversial decision to revoke Article 370 in August 2019, which stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its statehood and special status, reducing it to a union territory and thereby centralizing control from New Delhi.
Voters wielded their power, not through aggressive protests or violence, but through the democratic expression of voting, showcasing a mature political strategy aimed at reclaiming their autonomy.
The overwhelming support for the National Conference (NC) indicated a collective rejection of the central government’s policies. The NC, under the leadership of Farooq Abdullah and his son Omar Abdullah, secured a substantial victory, winning 42 seats—seven of them in Jammu—reflecting a strong mandate for their stance on greater autonomy and opposition to central government interventions.
In 1995, during a period of intense international pressure on India to hold assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir, the situation seemed remarkably similar.
At the time, Farooq Abdullah and the NC were grappling with New Delhi over the restoration of the region’s pre-1953 autonomy. Despite promises and assurances made to Farooq by then-Prime Minister Deve Gowda, those assurances fell apart when the Janata Dal government lost power and the BJP, led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, came to power. The resolution seeking maximum autonomy was subsequently rejected by New Delhi in 2000.
Repeating History
The 1996 elections were marked by low public participation, with people in many places being coerced by the army and paramilitary forces to cast their votes. However, the NC emerged victorious, gaining 57 seats in the 87-member assembly. Farooq Abdullah, faced with the bitter reality of his unfulfilled promises from New Delhi, chose to stay in power, despite the betrayal. His son Omar Abdullah, then a junior minister in Vajpayee’s government, did not resign either.
This sense of political betrayal reverberates through Kashmiri history. Today, as in the past, the promise of autonomy remains unfulfilled, and New Delhi’s approach towards the region has often been marked by broken assurances. Yet the recent elections show that the wheel of history, though it turns slowly, brings the people of Kashmir back to the same position of resistance and determination.
The Congress party’s lacklustre performance was another subplot of this electoral drama. It had aligned with the NC and was supposed to show some spine in the Hindu belt of Jammu.
Congress’s tepid campaign and inability to galvanize the secular votes only facilitated the BJP’s dominance in Jammu, albeit limited. The absence of prominent national figures like Rahul Gandhi from the campaign trail in Jammu, coupled with a vague and uninspiring electoral narrative, left the Congress with a paltry six seats—all from Muslim-majority constituencies.
The election also highlighted the deep-seated communal divisions within the state, with Hindu-majority areas predominantly supporting the BJP, while Muslim-majority regions, including pockets within the Jammu area, backed the NC and other regional entities. This polarization is a concerning trend that underscores the need for inclusive governance that bridges communal divides rather than deepening them.
Despite these challenges, the people of Kashmir remain hopeful. This election, much like the one in 1996, was a do-or-die situation for them to maintain their identity and demographic integrity.
The NC’s victory is also seen as a win-win situation for both the people of Kashmir and New Delhi. For Kashmiris, it represented a chance to breathe, to resist the creeping changes brought on by outside forces.
For New Delhi, the NC’s moderate stance ensured a government that is willing to work within the parameters set by the Indian Constitution, without crossing the red lines.
The significant number of independent candidates—349 out of 873—reflects a vibrant, albeit fragmented, political landscape in Kashmir. Many of these candidates represented localized grievances and specific community interests, illustrating the complex political tapestry of the region. The electorate’s strategic voting pattern, particularly in rejecting opportunistic politics exemplified by candidates like Engineer Rashid, indicated a sophisticated voter base keen on substantive rather than symbolic representation.
Looking ahead, the elected representatives face the daunting task of negotiating with New Delhi for the restoration of statehood and the possible reinstatement of Article 370. The demands for autonomy and respect for regional identity are likely to drive the political discourse.
Omar Abdullah, now with a renewed mandate, has a rare opportunity to press the Indian government for the release of political prisoners and the repeal of repressive laws imposed by previous regimes. He can create a favorable atmosphere for dialogue with both Pakistan and the Kashmiri people, a necessary step towards a lasting solution to the Kashmir issue.
However, this government will have to work under the watchful eye of the Lieutenant Governor, whose authority and influence remain significant. The dynamics between the newly elected government and the Lieutenant Governor will be pivotal in shaping the region’s administrative efficacy and political stability. How effectively Omar Abdullah navigates this relationship will determine whether he can deliver on his promises to the people.
A critical test awaits Omar Abdullah—will he push for a resolution demanding the restoration of Articles 370 and 35A, or will he, like in the past, remain silent? The proposed resolution may not compel the central government to act, but it would send a strong message: that the people of Jammu and Kashmir have not forgotten the promises made to them, and they have not given up on their demand for autonomy. Silence, in this context, will be seen as approval of New Delhi’s actions.
Articles 370 and 35A were the result of months of negotiations between Jammu and Kashmir’s leadership and the Indian government led by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Despite their constitutional legitimacy, these articles faced vehement opposition from the RSS and later the BJP.
The Hindutva organizations kept pushing for their abrogation for decades, passing resolutions and leveraging every forum to argue against these provisions. In 2019, with the BJP in power, they realized this long-held demand.
If the NC abandons its fight for Jammu and Kashmir’s special status—the core of its politics and the very reason why its founder Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah supported the region’s accession to India in the first place—it will not augur well for the party.
Final Test for NC
Every time the NC has abandoned its core principles, it has faced massive political setbacks. The people came out in record numbers not merely to put the NC in power but to express their resistance to the BJP’s project in Kashmir. They voted for the NC and other regional parties because they wanted them to fight for the restoration of the special status.
Omar Abdullah has said he would instead push for a resolution for the restoration of statehood. While statehood is important, it should not come at the cost of abandoning the fight for autonomy.
The removal of statehood was, in part, an attempt by New Delhi to shift focus away from Articles 370 and 35A. Restoring statehood without addressing the loss of special status would be a shallow victory.
In conclusion, the recent elections in Jammu and Kashmir are a resounding statement for autonomy and a clear rebuke of the BJP’s policies in the region. As New Delhi and Srinagar navigate this complex political landscape, the aspirations of Jammu and Kashmir’s people for a dignified and autonomous existence remain at the heart of the discourse.
Omar Abdullah has an opportunity—perhaps his last—to lead the people at this critical juncture in history. If he succeeds, his name will be written in bold letters; if not, the sins of political compromises may once again wash away the trust placed in him by the people of Kashmir.
The recent assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir have revealed a deep sense of frustration among the people, reflecting their long-standing demands for political recognition and autonomy.
The elections serve as a turning point, where people came out in large numbers, determined to voice their rejection of the center’s policies. The history of broken promises is not unfamiliar to Kashmiris, yet they have demonstrated, time and again, their resilience and the enduring desire for dignity.
The journey towards self-governance has been fraught with challenges. From the time of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah’s political ascendance to the current leadership under Omar Abdullah, the narrative of autonomy versus central control has played out repeatedly.
In 1953, when the first blow to Jammu and Kashmir’s special status was struck by removing Sheikh Abdullah from power and imprisoning him, it became evident that the aspirations of Kashmiris would be at odds with New Delhi’s plans. The subsequent decades have been marked by a push-and-pull struggle, with New Delhi often reneging on its promises.
The 1996 elections were intended to re-establish a political process in Jammu and Kashmir, with promises of restoring the region’s pre-1953 position. However, the subsequent betrayal by the central government left a deep mark on the political psyche of Kashmir.
Farooq Abdullah’s decision to participate in the elections and continue in power, despite the refusal to restore autonomy, has been a point of criticism for many Kashmiris. Yet, the necessity of engaging in a political process—however flawed—has also been seen as a pragmatic decision to provide some semblance of governance and representation.
The events leading up to the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019 further aggravated the trust deficit between Kashmir and New Delhi. The decision was made unilaterally, without any consultation with the elected representatives of Jammu and Kashmir, as the state assembly had been dissolved at that time.
The conversion of Jammu and Kashmir into a union territory was seen as a direct affront to the identity and autonomy of its people. Despite the promises of development and integration into the mainstream, the years following the abrogation have been characterized by political repression, restrictions on civil liberties, and a lack of genuine political engagement.
The 2024 assembly elections, therefore, were not just about electing representatives—they were about reclaiming political space and asserting the will of the people. The National Conference’s victory is significant, not just in terms of the number of seats won, but in what it symbolizes: a rejection of imposed political narratives and an affirmation of the region’s identity. The mandate given to Omar Abdullah is both an opportunity and a challenge. He must navigate the intricate political landscape, balancing the expectations of the people of Kashmir with the realities of working with New Delhi.
Omar Abdullah’s leadership will be tested on multiple fronts. The first and foremost challenge is to ensure that the voice of the people of Jammu and Kashmir is heard clearly in the corridors of power. This means not shying away from pushing for a resolution on Articles 370 and 35A, even if it is largely symbolic.
It is essential to maintain the discourse on autonomy alive and remind New Delhi of the promises made to Kashmir. The second challenge lies in addressing the socio-economic needs of the people. The economic disruptions caused by years of conflict and political instability have left the region in dire need of development.
Omar Abdullah must work towards creating employment opportunities, particularly for the youth, who have been the most affected by the lack of economic growth.
The relationship between the newly elected government and the Lieutenant Governor will be critical in determining the effectiveness of governance in the region. While the Lieutenant Governor holds significant powers, the elected government must assert its role in decision-making, especially on issues that directly impact the lives of the people. This will require political acumen and the ability to build consensus, both within the region and with the central government.
Moreover, Omar Abdullah must also focus on addressing the grievances of the people in Jammu, particularly in the Muslim-majority areas, where the BJP has managed to make inroads.
The polarization between the Hindu-majority and Muslim-majority areas of Jammu is a cause for concern, and it is imperative that the government works towards bridging this divide. Inclusive governance, which takes into account the needs and aspirations of all communities, is the need of the hour.
The role of regional parties in Jammu and Kashmir has always been to act as a bridge between the center and the people of the region. The National Conference, being the oldest and one of the most significant regional parties, carries the responsibility of articulating the aspirations of Kashmiris while ensuring that they remain within the framework of the Indian Union.
Challenges Ahead
This balancing act is not easy, especially in the current political climate, where any demand for autonomy is viewed with suspicion by New Delhi. However, it is a responsibility that the party cannot shy away from if it wishes to retain its relevance and the trust of the people.
The current political landscape in Jammu and Kashmir is a reminder of the region’s unique place within the Indian Union. The struggle for autonomy is not merely a political demand—it is about preserving the cultural, social, and historical identity of the region.
The abrogation of Article 370 was seen as an attempt to dilute this identity, and the recent elections are a testament to the people’s resistance to such attempts. The National Conference, under Omar Abdullah’s leadership, has the opportunity to lead this resistance in a constructive manner, one that seeks to engage with New Delhi while steadfastly holding onto the region’s aspirations.
In conclusion, the future of Jammu and Kashmir lies in the ability of its leaders to articulate the aspirations of its people and to navigate the complex relationship with the center.
The recent elections have given a clear mandate to the National Conference, and it is now up to Omar Abdullah to rise to the occasion. The people of Jammu and Kashmir have placed their trust in him, not just to govern, but to lead them in their quest for dignity, autonomy, and a better future.
It is a challenging task, but one that carries the promise of writing a new chapter in the history of Kashmir—one that is marked by resilience, hope, and the enduring spirit of its people.
####
