UPSC CURRENT AFFAIRS – 23rd March 2025

Home UPSC Current Affairs Terror Group Branding – The Case of Sikhs for Justice (SFJ)

Terror Group Branding – The Case of Sikhs for Justice (SFJ)

Why in news?

India has urged the U.S. and New Zealand to designate the separatist group Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) as a terrorist organisation, coinciding with SFJ’s “referendum” in Los Angeles promoting a Khalistan secessionist agenda. The move comes amidst diplomatic concerns following the 2023 U.S.-Canada trials alleging Indian links to plots against SFJ leaders.

What is SFJ and Why Is India Concerned?

SFJ, founded by Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, is a U.S.-based pro-Khalistan group banned in India under the UAPA in 2019.
Accused of glorifying terrorists (e.g. Talwinder Singh Parmar), issuing violent threats against Indian institutions, and engaging in subversive activities linked to Pakistan’s ISI.
SFJ has held referendums in Western cities exploiting freedom of expression laws, but with unverifiable voter data.

India’s Demands and Diplomatic Outreach

Raised with New Zealand PM Christopher Luxon and U.S. DNI Tulsi Gabbard during Raisina Dialogue 2025.
India argues that SFJ’s activities are incendiary, not merely provocative, and urges global partners to not repeat the mistakes of 1980s Canadian inaction, which led to the 1985 Kanishka bombing (Air India Flight 182).

What Would Terror Designation Involve?

U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) listing: Implies asset freezes, visa bans, prosecution, and diplomatic sanctions.
U.K. Terrorism Act and Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act: Allow governments to ban groups, restrict operations, and criminalize support.
Success in any Five Eyes country (U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, NZ) may trigger wider bans due to intelligence-sharing agreements.
Potential for UNSC Resolution 1373 listing → compels global compliance under FATF obligations.

Why Western Democracies Have Not Acted

Western countries argue SFJ’s actions fall under protected speech, despite India’s evidence of threats, glorification of terror, and incitement.
G.S. Pannun is viewed by some foreign agencies as a non-serious provocateur, despite growing digital threats.

Key Highlights

Sikhs for Justice (SFJ): U.S.-based pro-Khalistan group, banned in India for inciting separatism and violence; alleged ties to Pakistan’s ISI.
UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act): India’s anti-terror law allowing designation of individuals/groups as terrorists; enables asset seizure, travel bans, prosecution.
UNSC Resolution 1373: Post-9/11 resolution mandating all member states to criminalize terror financing, deny safe havens, and cooperate globally against terrorism.
FATF (Financial Action Task Force): Global watchdog that mandates anti-terror financing laws; UNSC listings like 1373 invoke legal obligations for member states.
Five Eyes Alliance: Intelligence-sharing network among U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand; a ban by one often leads to collective action.
G.S. Pannun: SFJ leader and lawyer accused of threats against Indian embassies, airlines, and Parliament; glorifies figures behind political assassinations and terror attacks.
Kanishka Bombing (1985): Deadliest aviation terror attack on Air India Flight 182 by Canada-based Khalistani terrorists; India cites this as a precedent of ignored diaspora radicalism.
Free Speech vs National Security: Highlights the diplomatic tension where liberal democracies’ free speech laws hinder India’s efforts to combat diaspora extremism.

Conclusion

The SFJ case reveals the complex intersection of terrorism, diaspora politics, international law, and free speech. India’s push for global terror designation is not just about rhetoric—it reflects a preventive strategy grounded in past tragedies and current threats. As India aspires to global leadership, effective diplomatic engagement and strong legal evidence will be essential to align allies on countering transnational extremist groups.