In a sharp diplomatic rebuttal, India on July 31 categorically rejected a British parliamentary report that accused it of engaging in “transnational repression” on UK soil. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) dismissed the claims as “baseless,” asserting that the report relied on unverified and discredited sources, including banned and extremist-linked organisations.
The report, titled ‘Transnational Repression in the UK,’ was released by the UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights on July 30. It listed India alongside countries like China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia — nations often flagged in the West for targeting dissidents abroad — raising diplomatic eyebrows in New Delhi.
What was India’s strong rebuttal?
MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal stated, “We have seen the references to India in the report and categorically reject these baseless allegations.” He emphasised that the claims were sourced predominantly from “proscribed entities and individuals with a clear, documented history of anti-India hostility,” including Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), a US-based pro-Khalistan outfit banned in India under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Jaiswal further said the “deliberate reliance on discredited sources” undermines the credibility of the entire report, pointing to what he described as a prejudiced and politically motivated narrative.
What were the UK’s allegations and their sources?
The UK parliamentary report alleges that foreign states are targeting dissidents, activists, and critics who have taken refuge in the UK. In India’s case, the report references instances flagged by pro-Khalistan groups such as SFJ and other UK-based Sikh diaspora organisations, who accuse Indian agencies of surveillance, intimidation, and cyber interference.
However, India maintains that these groups push separatist agendas and incite violence in Punjab and abroad, and that their claims are neither credible nor objective. New Delhi has previously raised concerns with the UK government over the platform given to such entities, especially after violent protests outside the Indian High Commission in London in March 2023.
What is the larger diplomatic, geopolitical context to the row?
The timing and tone of the UK report are likely to strain Indo-British relations, which have otherwise shown strong momentum in trade, investment, and defence cooperation. The UK has recently signed a long-pending Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with India, and both countries have elevated ties under the ‘2030 Roadmap’ for a strategic partnership.
However, the report taps into deeper tensions around freedom of expression versus national security, especially in the context of diaspora politics and the activities of fringe separatist movements abroad. The Khalistan issue continues to be a sensitive faultline in India’s domestic and foreign policy, particularly as New Delhi seeks stricter international curbs on extremist groups.
Additionally, India’s inclusion in a list that features authoritarian regimes known for systematic crackdowns raises concerns in New Delhi about reputational harm and political equivalence with countries with vastly different governance and rights records.
What will be the long-term impact of the UK report on India ties?
India’s outright rejection of the UK parliamentary report signals its unwillingness to accept what it sees as a narrative built on “dubious” and hostile sources.
While the MEA has sought to push back firmly on the allegations, the issue underscores the complex intersection of human rights advocacy, diaspora politics, and national sovereignty in global diplomacy.
For now, it remains to be seen how the UK government officially responds to India’s objections and whether this friction will impact broader strategic ties.