Transnational Repression (TNR) refers to actions by governments to silence, intimidate, or harm critics and dissidents who reside abroad. The UN defines it to include online harassment, surveillance, enforced disappearances, targeting of relatives, and physical attacks like assassinations. It’s a concern because it undermines civil liberties, disrupts diaspora engagement, and erodes the rights and cultural identity of communities living outside their home countries, often equating democratic nations with authoritarian regimes that employ such tactics. The HinduPACT report argues that the TNR narrative is being “weaponized” against India and Hindu diaspora communities.
The HinduPACT report asserts that the TNR narrative against India is not organic but is a “global weaponization of transnational narrative” propagated by a coalition of ideologically motivated NGOs, advocacy networks, and certain state actors, particularly Pakistani intelligence and advocacy networks. It claims these groups aim to delegitimize India’s global standing, disrupt its diplomatic and economic relationships, create obstacles for Indian and Hindu organizations abroad, and sever cultural ties of the Hindu diaspora with India. The report concludes that allegations of TNR against India are largely unsupported by verifiable evidence and often rely on anecdotal claims or misinterpretations of lawful administrative actions.
HinduPACT systematically refutes the TNR narrative by arguing that India’s overseas actions are legally authorized, procedurally proper, and are measured responses to violent extremism, secessionism, and transnational militancy. They highlight that India’s legal system, including the Citizenship Act, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and Passports Act, provides for judicial oversight and due process. The report emphasizes that actions like visa denials or OCI revocations are consistent with practices in other democracies and are subject to judicial review, fundamentally differing from the extrajudicial and covert methods of authoritarian regimes. They also state that India has not recorded any confirmed instances of state-sponsored extraterritorial assassinations or poisonings of diaspora critics.
HinduPACT identifies several organizations and individuals as proponents of the TNR narrative against India. These include advocacy groups like the Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC), Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR), Sikh Coalition, and SALDEF. International organizations such as Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) are also cited. Individuals named for promoting this narrative include academics like Nitasha Kaul and Ashok Swain, and journalists such as Rana Ayyub and Anand Teltumbde, among others. The report suggests some of these groups have ideological or geopolitical motivations, with links to separatist movements and foreign intelligence services, particularly from Pakistan.
The HinduPACT report predicts profound negative impacts on Indian and Hindu diaspora communities across social, cultural, political, legal, economic, and psychological dimensions. These include increased suspicion, hostility, and profiling, leading to a chilling effect on civic participation and religious expression. The report also forecasts a rise in hate crimes, vandalism, and targeted assaults on Hindu temples and leaders. Politically and legally, there’s a risk of institutionalizing discrimination through legislative initiatives like California’s SB-509, leading to exclusion from public forums and increased legal scrutiny. Economically, barriers to advancement in sensitive sectors, decreased investment, and self-censorship are anticipated. Psychologically, it could lead to community fragmentation and identity conflict, especially among youth.
HinduPACT strongly opposes California’s proposed legislation, SB-509, viewing it as a prime example of “legislative capture” rooted in advocacy rather than evidence. The report argues that SB-509 explicitly identifies India alongside authoritarian regimes like China and Russia, thereby “equating a constitutional democracy with governments notorious for abductions, assassinations, and media blackouts.” HinduPACT contends that the bill relies on unverified foreign assertions and biased advocacy narratives, posing a significant risk of profiling, criminalizing, and suppressing the lawful cultural, religious, and political engagement of Indian-American and American Hindu communities in California. It also raises concerns about First Amendment violations, equal protection, vagueness, and jurisdictional overlap with federal foreign affairs.
According to HinduPACT, India’s engagement with its diaspora is a transparent and constitutionally sanctioned dimension of its foreign policy, not a clandestine operation of control or coercion. This outreach is based on a “4Cs” strategy: Care, Connect, Celebrate, and Contribute. Initiatives like Pravasi Bharatiya Divas (PBD), the Vande Bharat Mission for repatriating citizens, and digital platforms like the Global Indian Knowledge Diaspora Network are highlighted as examples. India’s diaspora policy is presented as aligning with practices in other democratic nations, systematically structured for economic cooperation, cultural diplomacy, and consular support, with all programs being transparent and subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
HinduPACT’s policy recommendations emphasize the need for rigorous evidentiary standards in labeling TNR, defining it as state-sponsored extrajudicial coercion verified by independent judicial or credible intelligence findings. They advocate for integrating TNR response into international human rights bodies and upholding legal reciprocity and equal treatment among democracies. HinduPACT urges avoiding politicized or selective oversight in hearings and implementing TNR policies at a federal level to ensure consistency and protect against undue lobbying. They also recommend regulating surveillance technologies while preserving legitimate counter-terrorism tools and implementing targeted sanctions based on credible evidence. Finally, transparency in funding for organizations promoting TNR narratives and research is strongly advised.