Has the recent summoning of India’s National Security Advisor, Ajit Doval, by a US court over an alleged assassination plot exposed a darker side of India’s covert operations? Are the methods employed by the Indian government, particularly through its intelligence agency RAW, reaching a point where dissenters are targeted beyond borders? Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a lawyer and prominent Khalistan advocate, has accused Doval of orchestrating a plot to assassinate him. This raises the inevitable question: how far is India willing to go to silence those who challenge its authority? Is this merely an exaggeration, or does it reflect a more calculated strategy of oppression? Pannun’s push for a referendum on Khalistan, calling for self-determination for Sikhs, has undoubtedly angered the Indian administration. However, does such political advocacy justify the extreme measures he claims India is employing against him? Given the US court’s decision to summon Doval, it seems the accusations hold some weight, warranting a deeper examination of India’s actions. Furthermore, does this case signal a broader concern about India’s growing international reach and its readiness to employ covert tactics? Under Prime Minister Modi’s government, accusations of human rights violations and suppression of minority voices have become more frequent. If Doval’s role in these alleged operations is confirmed, it could be a stark indicator of how far India’s influence stretches in quashing dissent globally, presenting a serious challenge to international democratic norms. Pannun’s push for a referendum on Khalistan, calling for self-determination for Sikhs, has undoubtedly angered the Indian administration. Ajit Doval’s reputation as a strategic mastermind within India has long been revered, yet his actions on the global stage, particularly towards Pakistan, paint a far more contentious picture. Doval has been implicated in a series of aggressive operations aimed at destabilising Pakistan, with claims from Islamabad that he is directly responsible for funding terror organisations and inciting unrest. Central to these allegations is Doval’s so-called “offensive defence” doctrine, which is not merely a defensive strategy but an active effort to undermine Pakistan’s internal stability. His alleged involvement in supporting militant groups and insurgencies raises fundamental questions about the ethical boundaries of statecraft. One of the most damning accusations against Doval is his alleged funding and support of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a banned organisation responsible for numerous terror attacks in Pakistan. Under Doval’s leadership, India is accused of funnelling resources to keep the TTP operational, ensuring that each time Pakistan approaches peace, a fresh wave of violence derails the progress. Such allegations suggest that Doval’s strategy is not merely a reaction to threats but a calculated effort to perpetuate instability in Pakistan. Similarly, the unrest in Balochistan, Pakistan’s most troubled province, has long been a point of contention, and Doval’s name is frequently linked to the support of separatist movements within the region. Pakistan has presented what it describes as irrefutable evidence, accusing India of using covert tactics to destabilise Balochistan, all allegedly under Doval’s direct supervision. If true, these actions amount to state-sponsored terrorism, with India covertly fuelling insurgency under the guise of strategic defence. The case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, an alleged Indian spy captured in Pakistan, has further cemented suspicions surrounding Doval’s involvement in terror operations. Jadhav’s arrest brought to light the broader intelligence strategies allegedly orchestrated by Doval, aimed at disrupting Pakistan’s security infrastructure. Accusations that Jadhav was part of a larger effort to destabilise key regions like Balochistan and Karachi only reinforce the narrative of India’s covert interference under Doval’s guidance. Moreover, Doval’s alleged interference is not limited to terrorism. Claims have surfaced accusing him of orchestrating attempts to sabotage the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a vital infrastructure project for Pakistan’s economic future. By funding militant attacks on key development sites, Doval’s alleged strategy seems focused on undermining Pakistan’s partnership with China, effectively halting its economic growth. Such actions, if proven, would represent a calculated move to weaken Pakistan not just politically but economically. The international community must scrutinise the actions of Ajit Doval and the Indian government under his influence. If the allegations are proven true, they constitute a direct violation of international law and present a serious threat to regional stability. Doval’s strategies, which allegedly involve the use of extremist groups and covert operations, go beyond the realm of conventional statecraft and into the dangerous territory of fostering global unrest. If left unchecked, Doval’s tactics could set a precedent for how nations might use terrorism as a political tool under the guise of national defence. His involvement in funding banned outfits, igniting separatist movements, and undermining key economic initiatives must be taken seriously by global leaders. Ignoring these claims could allow state-sponsored terrorism to become an accepted part of international relations, a reality far too dangerous to contemplate. The time for decisive international action is now, before these covert operations escalate further. The writer is a freelance columnist.