The US decision to indict jailed Indian gangster Lawrence Bishnoi and his alleged North American associate, Satinderjeet Singh (“Goldy Brar”), for allegedly masterminding the killing of Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada in 2023, is more than just another organized crime prosecution.
Unsealed as part of the multinational Operation Hard Ball, the indictments signal a broader shift in how Western governments are responding to criminal networks whose activities are increasingly intertwined with national security, foreign policy and international law enforcement.
Coordinated by authorities in the United States, Canada and Europe, the operation resulted in charges against 37 defendants allegedly linked to three transnational organized crime groups based in India.
Prosecutors allege the networks were involved in murder-for-hire, extortion, blackmail, drug trafficking, gun crimes and kidnappings while operating in India, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Investigators arrested 24 suspects, executed dozens of search warrants and seized approximately 1,000 kilograms of cocaine, 1 kilogram of heroin, firearms and cash; some suspects remain at large.
The charges will ultimately be tested in court. However, Operation Hard Ball already represents one of the largest coordinated Western law enforcement actions targeting transnational criminal organizations linked to India.
Beyond criminal charges, it raises broader questions about diaspora security, transnational oppression, and how states respond when domestic criminal networks take on an international dimension.
Killing gangs
The most important aspect of the indictments goes beyond the allegation that Bishnoi and Brar ordered the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar outside a Sikh gurdwara in Surrey, British Columbia. What matters most is what prosecutors allege about the organization’s operational sophistication and reach.
According to the federal indictment, Bishnoi allegedly ran the operations while imprisoned in India, communicating through smuggled cellphones. If these claims are proven in court, they will illustrate how organized crime groups can exploit institutional weaknesses to coordinate violence across jurisdictions despite the imprisonment of their leadership.
Equally important is the breadth of the alleged criminal enterprise. Prosecutors describe networks simultaneously involved in targeted killings, drug trafficking, extortion, firearms violations, money laundering and international logistics.
This reflects a wider trend identified by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), which has repeatedly warned that organized crime is becoming increasingly transnational, technologically enabled and deeply integrated into global financial and logistical networks.
As a result, democratic governments increasingly view organized crime through a national security lens rather than a conventional police challenge. Criminal organizations capable of terrorizing diaspora communities, financing violence, exploiting financial systems, and operating across multiple jurisdictions can simultaneously influence domestic security and foreign policy.
Canada’s designation of the Bishnoi gang as a terrorist entity in 2025 reflects this evolving approach. Similar debates have emerged over Latin American cartels operating across borders, Balkan criminal organizations active across Europe, and East Asian syndicates involved in cyber-enabled financial crime.
These comparisons are not intended to equate organizations, but to illustrate a broader policy shift: transnational organized crime is increasingly being treated as a strategic threat that requires intelligence coordination, international partnerships and whole-of-government responses rather than just traditional law enforcement measures.
The reputation test
For more than two decades, India has projected itself as a responsible security partner and an important contributor to regional stability.
This image has been reinforced through expanding defense cooperation with the United States, participation in the Quad, increased intelligence exchanges with Western partners, and an increasingly prominent role in the Indo-Pacific security architecture.
The Nijjar case has complicated this picture. Former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in 2023 that Canadian authorities were investigating credible allegations linking Indian government agents to the murder.
India has denied the allegations, and the newly unsealed US indictment does not accuse the Indian government of involvement. Instead, prosecutors are focusing specifically on members of the Bishnoi criminal organization.
New Delhi is therefore likely to argue that the case is about organized crime rather than state behavior and should not be interpreted as a reflection of India’s wider security institutions or strategic partnerships. This position is reinforced by the fact that the US indictment does not allege official state involvement.
However, the indictments raise broader institutional questions, regardless of where legal responsibility ultimately lies. Prosecutors allege that the organization maintained operational capabilities despite the imprisonment of its leader and that some defendants allegedly used relationships with corrupt local officials to facilitate criminal activity.
If sustained at trial, such claims would require closer scrutiny of prison administration, institutional oversight, and the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies in disrupting sophisticated criminal organizations.
India’s international reputation increasingly depends on trust in its institutions, alongside economic growth and military prowess. For governments investing in long-term Indo-Pacific security partnerships, effective governance, accountability and the rule of law are integral to strategic trust.
Although the indictments target suspected criminal actors and not the Indian state, the case is nonetheless likely to heighten congressional and policy scrutiny in Washington regarding transnational repression, law enforcement cooperation and institutional accountability within one of America’s most important Indo-Pacific partners.
Transnational response
Operation Hard Ball illustrates how democratic states are adapting to increasingly interconnected security threats.
The investigation brought together the FBI, the US Department of Justice, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and European law enforcement agencies through intelligence sharing, synchronized arrests and parallel prosecutions.
It reflects a growing recognition that organized crime, illicit finance, transnational oppression and foreign interference increasingly overlap and therefore require coordinated international responses.
In recent years, policymakers and scholars have paid increasing attention to transnational repression—the use of intimidation, coercion, or violence against diaspora communities across national borders.
While the allegations in the Bishnoi case should not be confused with broader theories of state-led repression, the investigation shows why democratic governments are paying more attention to cross-border intimidation and the vulnerabilities created by globally connected criminal networks.
Whether the actors emerge from Latin America, Eastern Europe, South Asia, or elsewhere, the underlying challenge is strikingly similar: criminal organizations have globalized much faster than many national law enforcement systems.
Operation Hard Ball suggests that governments are beginning to close this gap through deeper intelligence sharing, joint investigations and coordinated prosecutions.
For India, the wider implications extend beyond the outcome of a single criminal case. As strategic cooperation with the United States, Canada, Europe, and other Indo-Pacific partners continues to deepen, expectations regarding institutional accountability, intelligence cooperation, and criminal justice are also likely to increase.
Demonstrating the ability to investigate sophisticated criminal organizations and strengthen institutional safeguards will remain an important element in maintaining international trust.
Ultimately, the significance of Operation Hardball lies less in the fate of each individual defendant than in what it reveals about the changing character of international security. The indictments neither resolve any political controversy surrounding the Nijjar case nor draw conclusions beyond the allegations before the court.
However, they underscore a broader reality: in an age of globalized criminal networks, states are judged as much by the institutions they build to prevent transnational violence, protect diaspora communities, and cooperate with international partners as by the threats they face.
Saima Afzal is a scholar specializing in South Asian security, counter-terrorism and wider geopolitical dynamics in the Middle East, Afghanistan and the Indo-Pacific. She is currently a research scholar at the Justus Liebig University, Germany.
