Shocking claims: India accuses Canadian official of fostering terror amidst diplomatic feud

India has accused a Canadian official of links to terrorist activities, pushing an already tense diplomatic crisis between New Delhi and Ottawa into deeper waters. The Indian government claimed that Canada is sheltering extremists and terrorists, with a particular focus on supporters of the Khalistan movement, a separatist ideology that seeks an independent Sikh state. The accusations came as a response to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s recent assertion that India may have played a role in the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Sikh leader and a Canadian citizen, in June last year.

India blames Canada for fostering extremism

The tension between India and Canada is reaching new heights as India continues to accuse Canada of harboring individuals linked to terrorism. According to Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar, Canada has fostered a “climate of violence” and enabled the growth of extremist groups through a “permissive attitude.” He stated that freedom of speech in Canada has allowed individuals to openly threaten Indian diplomats and advocate violence. New Delhi considers these actions to be a direct threat to its national security.

Jaishankar also commented on Canada’s alleged failure to prevent extremist elements from gaining traction within its borders, linking this to Canada’s domestic political priorities. India claims that Canada has allowed supporters of the Khalistan movement, known for demanding an independent state carved out of India’s Punjab, to thrive under its protection. The Khalistan movement has long been considered a national security issue by India, which fears any revival of the separatist struggle that led to years of bloodshed in the 1980s and 1990s.

The assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar has become the focal point of this dispute. Nijjar was known to be an outspoken proponent of the Khalistan movement, and his killing in Surrey, British Columbia, sent shockwaves through both countries. Trudeau accused India of complicity in the assassination, claiming that the allegations were based on credible intelligence shared among its Five Eyes allies. India has dismissed these claims, labeling them “absurd” and motivated by Trudeau’s political goals of appealing to Canada’s large Sikh community.

International pressure mounts as Five Eyes allies weigh in

India has faced significant international pressure over these allegations, especially from its Five Eyes allies. The United States and New Zealand have both emphasized the seriousness of the claims made by Canada, urging India to cooperate in the investigation. U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller remarked that the allegations need to be treated with the utmost gravity, adding that it was concerning that India had chosen not to collaborate with Canada on the investigation.

New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters echoed similar sentiments, noting that the allegations, if proven, would be deeply troubling and require a thorough inquiry. However, Peters also stated that ongoing judicial processes must be respected, and New Zealand would not comment further until more concrete evidence was presented.

India has responded by calling back its High Commissioner from Canada and expelling six Canadian diplomats. Meanwhile, Trudeau has continued to stand by his accusations, insisting that credible evidence was shared with India “weeks ago” but no meaningful response has been forthcoming.

Expert opinion: Political implications of the row

Experts have suggested that this escalating diplomatic row may not just be about the allegations concerning Nijjar’s death but also reflects the broader geopolitical dynamics between the two nations. Political analyst Dr. Anil Mishra argued that Canada’s accusations could be linked to Trudeau’s attempts to solidify his position among the influential Sikh diaspora in Canada. “The Sikh community represents a significant vote bank in Canada, and Trudeau’s government seems keen on leveraging their support,” Mishra noted.

On the other hand, India’s hardline stance is seen as part of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s broader strategy to curb external interference in domestic affairs and showcase India’s tough stance against separatist elements. According to Mishra, India perceives the Khalistan issue as not only a historical wound but a potential present-day threat that must be countered firmly.

Diplomatic fallout and future implications

The accusations and counter-allegations have resulted in a sharp deterioration of India-Canada relations. Both countries have taken reciprocal actions by reducing diplomatic staff and issuing advisories for their citizens in each other’s countries. For over 1.4 million people of Indian descent living in Canada, this diplomatic standoff has brought uncertainty, particularly concerning travel and family connections.

India has remained open to discussions, provided Canada brings forth credible evidence to support its allegations. However, until then, New Delhi has vowed not to tolerate what it perceives as political grandstanding on Ottawa’s part. Trudeau, meanwhile, has reiterated his commitment to transparency and the rule of law, insisting that Canada’s actions are motivated solely by the need to protect its citizens and address security concerns.

The role of the Khalistan movement

The Khalistan movement remains the underlying tension point in India-Canada relations. Despite losing significant ground within India, the movement continues to have strong support among segments of the Sikh diaspora in Canada and the United Kingdom. This has been a major sticking point for New Delhi, which views the movement as a threat to its sovereignty. Indian officials have repeatedly criticized Canada for not cracking down on events like Khalistan referendums held on Canadian soil, which have further strained bilateral ties.

For India, the Khalistan issue is more than just about Nijjar or any one individual—it is a matter of national integrity. For Canada, it appears to be a matter of upholding freedom of speech and assembly, even for groups whose aims may be controversial. The competing narratives make it unlikely that either side will budge easily, and the ongoing diplomatic row could have long-lasting repercussions on trade, travel, and bilateral cooperation.