By Sardar Khan Niazi

The widening shadow of-linked Indian operations has now gone beyond South Asia getting to countries such as the United States and Canada. What Islamabad has long described as a regional pattern of covert activity is increasingly being discussed in the context of cases investigated by Western governments themselves. That development matters–not simply because it adds another chapter to the deeply troubled Pakistan-India relationship, but because allegations of state-linked violence beyond national borders raise questions about sovereignty, international law and the limits of acceptable state conduct. For years, Pakistan has accused India of supporting militant activity and conducting covert operations on Pakistani soil. In January 2024, however, Pakistan publicly presented what its foreign secretary described as evidence linking Indian agents to the assassinations of two Pakistani nationals. Islamabad also pointed to similarities between those cases and allegations emerging in North America.  The issue acquired a different international dimension after the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada and the alleged plot to assassinate Sikh activist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun in the United States. US prosecutors charged Indian national Nikhil Gupta in connection with the latter case; Gupta later pleaded guilty to a murder-for-hire conspiracy. Canadian authorities, meanwhile, have publicly alleged links between Indian government agents and the Nijjar killing. The significance of these cases lies in their geography. Disputes between India and Pakistan have historically been viewed through the familiar prism of South Asian rivalry. But when similar allegations arise in North America, the issue can no longer be treated solely as another episode in bilateral recrimination. The internationalization of the issue deserves serious attention. Western governments have a particular interest in establishing whether foreign states are attempting to intimidate, surveil or eliminate political opponents on their territory. The United States and Canada have functioning legal systems and security institutions capable of investigating such allegations. Their findings therefore carry significance. Pakistan’s challenge is to present its own evidence in a manner that can withstand international scrutiny. Statements at the United Nations can draw attention to an issue, but sustained diplomatic credibility is built through documentation, independent corroboration and cooperation with foreign investigators. There is also a broader principle at stake. If states conclude that political opponents or alleged security threats may legitimately be pursued beyond their borders, the consequences will not remain confined to one region. Diaspora communities, political dissidents and refugees could increasingly find themselves vulnerable to pressure from governments they believed they had escaped. The more consequential question is whether the international system is prepared to defend the principle that national borders impose legal and political limits on state power. Pakistan has repeatedly argued that what it sees as an Indian campaign has evolved from a South Asian phenomenon into a wider one. Islamabad explicitly cited cases in the United States and Canada while accusing India of taking what it called “terrorist exports” beyond the region.  Pakistan is to ensure that evidence is preserved, independently examined and presented through credible international and legal channels. For the wider international community, the principle is simpler: alleged extraterritorial violence by any state should be investigated according to the same standards, regardless of the country involved. If the allegations ultimately withstand scrutiny, they would represent a serious challenge to the rules governing relations between states.