Why in news?

Amid discussions at the Raisina Dialogue, the Indian government reiterated its demand for a ban on the separatist Khalistani group Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) in the U.S. and New Zealand.

Meanwhile, SFJ plans to hold a "referendum" in Los Angeles on March 23, 2025, seeking support from the Sikh diaspora for its secessionist agenda.

What’s in today’s article?

• India’s Push for SFJ Ban Gains Momentum
• Implications of a Ban on SFJ
• Reasons Behind Non-Compliance by Other Countries

India’s Push for SFJ Ban Gains Momentum

• During talks with New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, PM Modi raised concerns over "illegal activities by anti-India elements," particularly the pro-Khalistan group Sikhs for Justice (SFJ).
• Defence Minister Rajnath Singh echoed the demand in a conversation with U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, urging the U.S. to designate SFJ as a terror organization.
• SFJ’s Referendums and Their Legitimacy
  • Since 2021, SFJ has been organizing "referendums" in Western democracies with large Indian diaspora populations, exploiting their strong free speech laws.
  • The legitimacy of these votes is questionable due to unverifiable voter identities.
  • Another such referendum is scheduled for March 23, 2025, in Los Angeles.
• Challenges in Securing a Ban
  • Despite India's repeated requests, no country has agreed to ban SFJ.
  • New Zealand's PM emphasized his country’s commitment to free speech, while the U.S. and Canada remain cautious, especially since their investigations in 2023 implicated Indian agents in plots targeting Khalistan activists.
• India’s Strategic Perspective
  • India believes that banning SFJ would not only curb its influence but also strengthen its position in ongoing diplomatic disputes related to alleged assassination plots.
  • The government continues to push for international action to counter the group's separatist agenda.

Implications of a Ban on SFJ

• If any country from the “Five Eyes” intelligence network (U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) bans SFJ, others are likely to follow due to their shared intelligence framework.
• Legal Consequences in Different Countries
  • United States: The Secretary of State can designate SFJ as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), leading to asset freezes, travel restrictions, and prosecution of key figures like SFJ founder G.S. Pannun.
  • United Kingdom: The Home Secretary can outlaw SFJ under the Terrorism Act.
  • Canada: SFJ can be listed under the Anti-Terrorism Act, enforcing strict legal actions.
• Potential UNSC and FATF Actions
  • A successful ban in any of these countries could pave the way for SFJ’s designation under UN Security Council Resolution 1373.
  • This would further compel member states to take legal action against the group in accordance with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) regulations.

Reasons Behind Non-Compliance by Other Countries

• SFJ’s Activities: Incendiary but Not Illegal
  • Despite India’s concerns, many Western countries consider SFJ’s actions provocative but within legal bounds.
  • Strategic partners like the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand allow the group to operate freely, frustrating India.
• Perception of G.S. Pannun
  • Foreign governments often view him as a non-serious figure, despite his incendiary speeches, threats against Indian institutions, and allegations of human rights violations against India.
• India’s Security Concerns and Historical Parallels
  • India warns that ignoring SFJ could lead to serious consequences, citing Canada’s apathy in the 1980s.
  • This allowed extremists to carry out the 1985 Air India Kanishka bombing, killing 329 people.
  • SFJ glorifies individuals like Talwinder Singh Parmar, the mastermind behind the Kanishka bombing, and others involved in terrorism.
• India’s Legal Actions Against SFJ
  • Since 2018, India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) and state police have registered 122 cases against SFJ, leading to 105 arrests.
  • The government renewed SFJ’s ban under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), citing links to violence, sabotage, and alleged ties with Pakistan’s ISI to incite Indian Army soldiers.