When denials stop working

EDITORIAL: States that conduct covert operations beyond their own borders generally rely on one assumption: plausible deniability will outlast the evidence. That assumption becomes increasingly difficult to sustain once investigators, prosecutors and lawmakers begin piecing together patterns that extend beyond isolated incidents. The latest bipartisan legislation introduced in the United States to criminalise transnational repression reflects precisely such a shift. Washington is no longer treating allegations of foreign intimidation as disconnected episodes. It is beginning to view them as part of a broader challenge to its own sovereignty and the rule of law. The proposed Stop Transnational Repression Act of 2026 would, for the first time, make such conduct a distinct federal crime, strengthening the powers of American law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute foreign governments or their agents who seek to intimidate, threaten or eliminate critics living in the United States. Although the legislation applies universally, its immediate political context is difficult to ignore. Congressional scrutiny has intensified following allegations that individuals linked to the Indian state were involved in plots targeting Sikh activists in North America, including criminal charges brought by the US Department of Justice and parallel investigations in Canada. India has denied the allegations and announced its own inquiry. Whether those judicial proceedings ultimately establish criminal liability remains a matter for the courts. The larger political significance, however, already stands out. For years, India has cultivated an international image as a responsible democratic power committed to the rule of law. Allegations that its state apparatus may have pursued opponents beyond its borders therefore carry consequences extending well beyond individual criminal cases. They invite broader questions about the methods increasingly being employed in pursuit of national security objectives and the extent to which governments believe those objectives justify actions on foreign soil. Pakistan has long argued that such conduct forms part of a wider pattern. Islamabad has repeatedly accused Indian intelligence agencies of sponsoring and financing militant networks, supporting subversive activities and seeking to destabilise Pakistan through covert means. Those allegations have frequently been dismissed internationally through the familiar prism of regional rivalry, with many observers reluctant to examine them beyond the immediate context of Indo-Pakistani tensions. However, recent developments suggest that approach may no longer be sufficient. When the United States and Canada themselves begin investigating alleged operations attributed to Indian state-linked actors; the conversation inevitably changes. The issue ceases to be merely a bilateral dispute between neighbours. It becomes a matter engaging the legal systems, security institutions and sovereignty of countries that have traditionally maintained close strategic relations with New Delhi. That distinction matters because it broadens international scrutiny beyond South Asia. Modern international relations depend upon mutual respect for sovereignty. States cannot credibly champion a rules-based international order while simultaneously tolerating covert operations designed to intimidate or eliminate political opponents abroad. If such practices become normalised, every country risks becoming a theatre for foreign intelligence rivalries conducted outside established legal frameworks. The same principle applies wherever states choose similar methods. Whether undertaken by India, Israel or any other country, transnational repression undermines international law, weakens diplomatic trust and places innocent individuals at risk. Democratic societies cannot permit foreign governments to export political coercion onto their territory without eroding the very legal protections that distinguish constitutional governance from arbitrary power. The proposed American legislation therefore represents more than another criminal statute. It signals that governments previously willing to overlook such allegations in the interests of broader strategic relationships may now be reassessing where the limits of acceptable state conduct should lie. Pakistan should continue presenting its concerns through evidence, diplomacy and established international forums. Serious allegations require serious proof, and international credibility ultimately depends upon demonstrating facts rather than merely asserting them. If the emerging scrutiny encourages a more objective examination of transnational repression wherever it occurs, that will strengthen both international law and the principle that no state, regardless of its size or strategic importance, stands above the rules it expects others to respect. Copyright Business Recorder, 2026

Read full story on Business Recorder