Khalistani Terrorist Pannun Demands 500% Tariff

Punjab Khalistani separatist and wanted terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun has once again made headlines with a controversial and provocative move—this time by writing a letter to the President of the United States. In his letter, Pannun called for the imposition of a staggering 500% tariff on all Indian goods, citing alleged human rights violations and suppression of dissent under the Modi government.

Pannun, the self-proclaimed leader of the banned organization “Sikhs for Justice,” is known for his inflammatory rhetoric and anti-India campaigns from overseas, particularly from North America. His latest move comes amid growing scrutiny of India’s domestic policies by some international human rights bodies. However, this letter has raised eyebrows, not just in political circles but also among Indian diaspora communities who have repeatedly distanced themselves from Pannun’s extremist ideology.

In the letter, Pannun alleged that India’s government, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is increasingly becoming authoritarian. He accused the administration of stifling free speech, targeting religious minorities—especially Sikhs—and curbing independent journalism. Going beyond criticism, Pannun called on the US government to take concrete economic action by imposing an exorbitant 500% tariff on Indian exports.

What’s more, he urged the US administration to bar India from participating in the global technology and innovation sector, claiming that India’s involvement in cutting-edge industries enables it to fund what he called “oppressive surveillance and control tactics.” He alleged that the government uses modern technology to suppress civil rights and monitor dissenters within and beyond its borders.

Pannun’s demands are unlikely to gain traction in US policymaking circles. Many experts and Indian-American leaders have condemned the letter as another stunt aimed at disrupting India-US relations, which have seen significant growth in strategic, technological, and economic cooperation in recent years. Most observers see Pannun’s actions as part of a broader campaign to internationalize the Khalistan issue, which finds little support within India.

Indian authorities, for their part, have long been pushing for Pannun’s extradition, labeling him a fugitive and accusing him of inciting violence and attempting to destabilize peace in Punjab. Indian intelligence agencies have reportedly submitted detailed dossiers to international partners about his role in promoting terrorism and secessionist activities.

The letter also comes at a time when India is working to deepen its technology partnerships with global powers, especially the United States, in areas like semiconductor development, artificial intelligence, defense innovation, and cybersecurity.

While Pannun’s demands may not carry legal weight, the letter has managed to stir yet another diplomatic ripple. However, the larger sentiment among Indian-Americans and policy experts remains firm: fringe elements like Pannun should not be allowed to dictate or derail global diplomatic engagements or misrepresent the sentiments of the Indian community.