India's Modi Brags About Ordering Transnational Assassinations

In a campaign speech on May 1, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi bragged about his campaign of transnational assassinations of individuals he has labeled "terrorists". “Today, India doesn't send dossiers to the masters of terrorism, but gives them a dose and kills them on their home turf", he is reported to have said, according to a tweet posted by his BJP party. Last month, Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh made a similar admission. “If any terrorist from a neighboring country tries to disturb India or carry out terrorist activities here, he will be given a fitting reply. If he escapes to Pakistan we will go to Pakistan and kill him there,” Singh said in an interview to Indian TV news network News18. 

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at a BJP Campaign Rally. Source: BJP

Earlier, Pakistan government accused India of carrying out assassinations of Sikh and Kashmiri separatists on Pakistani soil. “We have documentary, financial and forensic evidence of the involvement of the two Indian agents who masterminded these assassinations,” Pakistan's Foreign Secretary Sajjad Qazi said at a news conference in Islamabad.

Pakistan is not alone in accusing India of assassinating dissidents overseas. Canada and the United States are also investigating murders allegedly carried out by Indian agents on their soil. Indian spies have also been kicked out of Australia after being caught monitoring Indian diaspora in the country. "They monitored their country's diaspora community, according to  the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) Director-General Mike Burgess  as reported by the Australian Broadcasting Corp (ABC). "They asked a public servant to provide information on security protocols at a major airport."

Derek Grossman on India's Spy Agency RAW. Source: X

Commenting on the news fromAustralia, a US analyst Derek Grossman posted on X:  "Indian RAW gets exposed again, this time in Australia. Maybe, just maybe, they aren’t very good at the spy game". 

Gerry Shih of the Washington Post appears to concur with Derek Grossman's assessment of the incompetence of the Indian spy agencies. Referring to RAW's assassination plot against Sikh activist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a US citizen, Shih reported as follows: 

"After the plot against Pannun failed, the decision to entrust (Vikram) Yadav with the high-risk mission sparked recriminations within the agency, former officials said. Rather than joining RAW as a junior officer, Yadav had been brought in midcareer from India’s less prestigious Central Reserve Police Force, said one former official. As a result, the official said, Yadav lacked training and skills needed for an operation that meant going up against sophisticated U.S. counterintelligence capabilities". 

Back in 2018, India's former RAW officers, including one ex chief, have blamed Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav, arrested by Pakistan in 2016, for getting caught in Pakistan as a "result of unprofessionalism", according to a report in India's "The Quint" owned and operated by a joint venture of Bloomberg News and Quintillion Media. The report that appeared briefly on The Quint website was later removed, apparently under pressure from the Indian government.

Load Previous Comments
  • Riaz Haq

    Dr. Audrey Truschke
    Threatening family members to assassination plots.

    Read every word to see how far Modi's India is going to repress its critics and how the Biden administration is allowing the targeting of US citizens and residents. #India #BJP #Modi #India


    India’s efforts include a handful of high-profile incidents, most notably an assassination plot against American and Canadian activists. But more commonly, India engages in subtle forms of harassment that fly under the public radar.

    An American charity leader who spoke out on Indian human rights violations saw his Indian employees arrested en masse. An American journalist who worked on a documentary about India was put on a travel blacklist and deported. An American historian who studies 17th-century India received so many death threats that she could no longer speak without security. Even a member of Congress — and vocal critic of the Modi regime — said she was concerned about being banned from visiting her Indian parents.

    “I’m always thinking about the impact on my family — for example, if there was some attempt to not allow me back into India,” says Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA).

    In some ways, the Indian campaign is more brazen than Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. While no evidence has emerged that Russia threatened harm against American citizens and their family members, India has been caught doing so repeatedly.

    And while Russian involvement in the 2016 election swayed few votes, there’s good reason to believe India’s campaign is working as intended — muting stateside criticism of India’s autocratic turn under Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

    An American academic warned me that they couldn’t speak openly about India out of concern for family. An American think tank expert described numerous examples of censorship and self-censorship at prominent US institutions. These two sources, and many others, would only share their personal stories with me anonymously. All were concerned about the consequences for their careers, their loved ones, or even themselves — and they weren’t alone.

    “Indian Americans who are against the BJP, or oppose the BJP, have been intimidated and as a result routinely engage in self-censorship. I have heard them say as much to me,” says John Sifton, the Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. “There are prominent Indian American intellectuals, writers, [and] celebrities who simply will not speak out against Modi because they are afraid that by doing so they will subject themselves to a torrent of online abuse and even death threats.”

    As a result, one of the most important developments of our time — Modi pushing the world’s largest democracy toward an authoritarian future — is receiving far less scrutiny in the United States than it should, especially at a time when Modi is running for a historic third term.

    India’s willingness to go after critics outside its borders — a practice political scientists call “transnational repression” — is a symptom of this democratic decline.

    Most sources told me that Indian harassment of Americans began in earnest after Modi took office in 2014, with most reported incidents happening in the past several years (when the prime minister became more aggressively authoritarian at home). Modi, a member of a prominent Hindu supremacist group since he was 8 years old, seems to believe he can act on the world stage in the same way he behaves at home.

    Despite the brazenness of India’s campaign — attacking Americans at home in a way that only the world’s worst authoritarian governments would dare — the Biden administration is putting little pressure on Modi to change his ways. Judging New Delhi too important in the fight against China, the US government has adopted its own unstated policy of avoiding fights with India over human rights and democracy.

  • Riaz Haq

    John Oliver on Narendra Modi: ‘India seems to be sliding toward authoritarianism’

    “Over the course of Modi’s rise, he’s chosen to be strategically quiet about his pseudo-authoritarian, pro-Hindu vision of India,” Oliver explained. “But there’s been a noticeable shift in his rhetoric this election season” toward anti-Muslim statements, such as a recent campaign speech in which he falsely claimed that his rival party would redistribute wealth to Muslims and referred to Muslim citizens as “infiltrators”.

    “That’s already ugly enough,” Oliver noted, “but it’s also coming at a time when Modi and his party have seemed increasingly comfortable threatening democratic institutions by, among other things, stifling political opposition and freedom of the press. In fact, on multiple fronts, India seems to be sliding toward authoritarianism.”


    Modi has built his popularity in part on infrastructure and food distribution programs, delivering grain in bags with his face on it. “Which feels a little egotistical,” Oliver deadpanned. “It would be like if Lyndon Johnson signed the Food Stamp Act of 1964 but insisted that the food stamps be rebranded as ‘Lyndon’s Lucky Yum-Yum Voucher’. Good program but I don’t know, man, maybe turn it down a notch.”

    Modi especially likes to brag about the economy, which under his watch has become twice as big as it was, though Oliver noted that those numbers were suspect, and that Modi’s government had also changed the definition of poverty. “Anyone can get rid of all poverty if you just change the definition of poor people to something else,” Oliver quipped.

    The economic gains have been widely unequal; by some estimates, about 1 million people now control about 80% of the country’s wealth. “And as they’ve gotten richer, much of the country has gotten poorer – even with all those bags of grain with his face on them, under Modi, the country has fallen in the Global Hunger Index, and now sits behind North Korea and war-torn Sudan,” Oliver said. “And you would think that all of this would be fertile ground for Modi’s critics to exploit, but it’s actually hard to do that in India.” Modi hasn’t held a press conference in India in 10 years of rule, and the interviews he does grant are, as Oliver put it, “the opposite of hard-hitting”. News networks critical of his government have faced police raids for tax evasion.

    “Basically, if you criticize Modi, there’s a good chance that things are going to be very unpleasant for you,” Oliver said. “Meaningful criticism of Modi is scarce on TV in India.”

    Oliver also surveyed the BJP’s work to suppress opposition; weeks before the election began, tax agencies froze an opposition party’s bank accounts, and the head of another opposition party was arrested. “Those could be more lucky, complete coincidences for Modi, except for the fact that over the years, multiple politicians who opposed the BJP have found themselves facing charges of fraud or financial malfeasance, only for those charges to suddenly stall or be dropped when they switch parties and join the BJP instead,” Oliver said. “In general, to put it mildly: it is good to be on Modi’s good side, and very, very bad to be on his bad side.”

    That’s particularly true for the nearly 200 million Muslims in India, as Modi espouses the once fringe idea of Hindu supremacy in India, leading to an increase in anti-Muslim violence and destruction of Muslim sites and property colloquially referred to as “bulldozer justice”.

    “With anti-Muslim hate speech and violence on the rise, it is no wonder many are feeling increasingly targeted, in incredibly grim ways,” Oliver said before a clip of a police officer kicking Muslim men as they knelt in prayer; another officer was arrested for killing three Muslims on a train, and praising Modi while standing over their bodies. “It’s worth remembering: that is not a bug of Modi’s leadership, it is a feature,” Oliver noted.

  • Riaz Haq

    John Oliver on Narendra Modi: ‘India seems to be sliding toward authoritarianism’

    “But as an international community, it seems past time to stop the uncritical, fawning praise of a man who is, to put it mildly, a deeply complicated figure,” he concluded. “So maybe we could at least stop comparing him to Bruce Springsteen.”

    “And when you talk about what he’s done for India, at least acknowledge that yes, he’s responsible for giving bags of grain to people, he’s also responsible for some getting sent bulldozers,” he added. “It should be possible to acknowledge the good things that Modi has managed to do for India, while also acknowledging that many Indians live in active fear of what he seems more than happy to represent.”


    John Oliver on Modi:

    This video is banned in India. Please don’t share coz it will embarrass everyone from the govt to the Media