- India has reportedly carried out 20 covert assassinations in Pakistan using a “murder-for-hire” model through RAW and intermediaries.
- Pakistan has begun exposing India’s role with detailed evidence and can strengthen its position via transparent domestic trials.
- International avenues, including the ICJ and UN Security Council, offer Pakistan strategic platforms to challenge India’s actions.
- Strong cooperation with the U.S. and Canada—already investigating similar incidents—could enhance Pakistan’s global credibility and legal leverage.
Since Narendra Modi assumed office for the second time in 2019, India has escalated the notorious practice of transnational killings as part of a broader strategy to eliminate individuals arbitrarily labelled as terrorists residing abroad.
In the same year, India amended its antiterrorism law, granting itself unilateral authority to designate individuals and organisations as terrorists. Many of those listed have since been targeted or killed through covert operations conducted by its foreign intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW).
Target Killings In Pakistan
Indian intelligence operatives have justified these extraterritorial actions as a response to the 2019 Pulwama Attacks, framing them as preemptive strikes against foreign-based terrorists to advance India’s self-proclaimed national security interests.
Since 2020, India has reportedly been involved in at least 20 extraterritorial killings within Pakistan’s sovereign territory. These killings were not executed directly by Indian nationals but instead through a calculated “murder-for-hire” strategy.
Typically, UAE-based businessmen acted as intermediaries for RAW agents, shielding them from direct culpability. These intermediaries then engaged local operatives for roles such as surveillance, logistics, and financial transfers. The actual assassinations were often carried out by Pakistani criminals or economically vulnerable individuals.
This insight aims to scrutinise India’s transnational killings in Pakistan, establish their illegality under international law, and explore the legal avenues Pakistan can pursue.
Until 2023, Pakistan largely maintained silence regarding India’s alleged extraterritorial killings. However, the stance shifted significantly after the release of two dossiers that directly implicated Indian involvement.
More Read: Indian government ordered killings in Pakistan, intelligence officials claim
These dossiers linked the killings of Muhammad Riaz on 8 September 2023 and Shahid Latif on 11 October 2023 to Indian agents Yogesh Kumar and Ashok Kumar Anand. India’s response was inconsistent. Initially, it categorically denied the allegations, but later, Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh publicly acknowledged India’s role in such killings—a provocative admission that Pakistan strongly condemned.
Transitional Campaign Inside Pakistan:
India’s transnational campaign has extended beyond Pakistan’s borders into the Western world. In June 2023, senior Indian officials were implicated in the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Khalistani Sikh activist in Canada. The fallout led Canada to expel six Indian diplomats, including the High Commissioner.
Similarly, in the United States, an Indian government employee allegedly attempted to assassinate another Sikh activist, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun. Although the attempt was thwarted by U.S. authorities, it raised serious concerns about Indian state-sponsored extraterritorial violence.
India’s transnational actions in Pakistan constitute a grave breach of international law. The United Nations (UN) Charter explicitly prohibits the use or threat of force against the territorial integrity of any state. India’s extraterritorial assassinations directly violate this core principle.
Additionally, these actions infringe on the right to life and the right to a fair trial, as protected under human rights instruments like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Notably, the ICCPR applies extraterritorially—its provisions bind a state’s conduct even outside its territory. As a signatory, India is obliged to uphold these rights, and its failure enables Pakistan to seek redress through the UN Human Rights Committee.
In light of these violations, Pakistan has both domestic and international legal options. Domestically, its priority should be prosecuting the Pakistan-based individuals who participated in the killings.
Fair and timely trials will not only lead to justice but also yield critical evidence mapping the command structure linking the perpetrators to Indian intelligence. These trials should aim to expose India as a state actor disregarding international norms and accountability.
Parallel investigations are underway in Canada and the U.S. regarding India’s assassinations. Pakistan should consider extending formal invitations to these countries for intelligence and law enforcement collaboration. While such offers may not be immediately accepted, they would demonstrate Pakistan’s willingness to cooperate and could provide insight into Western responses.
If successful, this collaboration could enhance Pakistan’s credibility and help form a broader international consensus against India’s extraterritorial activities.
Once credible convictions are secured and links to Indian state actors are publicly established, Pakistan can initiate direct government-to-government communication with India. As part of this effort, it could formally request the extradition of those involved in transnational killings.
Though India is unlikely to comply, making the request would establish Pakistan’s bona fides and strengthen its diplomatic standing, paving the way for more assertive international action.
Pakistan To Initiate Legal Proceedings:
On the international front, Pakistan could bring legal proceedings against India at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Although initiating a case would require navigating India’s reservations under the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction, Pakistan can frame the issue around state sovereignty, prohibition of force, and human rights violations—areas less likely to be exempt under India’s security-related objections.
Pakistan could also seek reparations for these violations. Should India challenge the ICJ’s jurisdiction, Article 36(6) of the ICJ Statute empowers the court itself to rule on the matter, giving Pakistan a legal opening to proceed.
Pakistan’s recent election as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council (UNSC) for the 2025–2026 term provides a rare diplomatic advantage. Unlike India, which is not on the Council during this period, Pakistan could formally request the inclusion of “India’s transnational killings” as a discussion item.
If framed strategically, this could garner support from key UNSC members, especially the U.S., given its own security concerns after the Pannun assassination attempt.
Under the UN Charter, the Security Council can determine if India’s actions threaten international peace and security—potentially opening the door for sanctions or other measures. If blocked by a veto, Pakistan can pivot to the UN General Assembly to maintain diplomatic pressure.
India’s campaign of transnational killings is a serious violation of international law, breaching the norms of state sovereignty, prohibition on force, and basic human rights.
To counter this, Pakistan must pursue a transparent and effective domestic legal process, backed by international legal initiatives and diplomatic engagement. Strategic alignment with Western allies and assertive diplomacy at multilateral forums will be crucial.
Decisive action now will not only safeguard Pakistan’s sovereignty but also set a precedent that discourages future violations by other states.