By- Ms. Rutuja Surve
Introduction
Diplomatic ties between India and Canada are currently at one of their lowest points, largely due to Canada’s tolerance—and, at times, even perceived support—of Khalistani separatist activities within its borders. While Canada portrays itself as a champion of peace, inclusivity, and justice, its failure to address growing threats against Indian interests and the Indian diaspora raises troubling questions about its commitment to these principles. India now faces the dual challenge of safeguarding its citizens and countering narratives that Canada may be tacitly endorsing state-sponsored extremism. As anti-India elements disrupt Indian consular events, vandalize Hindu temples, and openly promote separatism, a strong and dignified response from India is not only justified but necessary.
This article examines Canada’s approach to Khalistani extremism, its double standards on terrorism, and the strategies India can adopt to highlight these issues on the global stage.
Canada’s Double Standards on Terrorism
1. Lack of Preventive Security Measures: The Brampton Temple Attack
Recent events, such as the violent disruption of a consular camp near the Hindu Sabha Mandir in Brampton, underscore Canada’s failure to ensure basic security for Indian diplomatic missions. Despite India’s formal requests for heightened security, local authorities were unable to prevent the assault, placing Indian nationals and Hindu-Canadian devotees in harm’s way. Such negligence is part of a broader trend: Canada’s disregard for its responsibility to secure foreign consular activities. The absence of proactive measures exposes a deep gap in Canada’s approach, leading many to question whether these actions go beyond incompetence to tolerance of extremist activity on Canadian soil.
2. A Troubling Legacy of Inaction: The Air India Bombing
The 1985 bombing of Air India Flight 182, one of the worst terrorist attacks in Canadian history, highlights a decades-long pattern of negligence. Despite overwhelming evidence implicating Canadian-based Khalistani extremists in this heinous crime, the case languished, and key perpetrators continue to reside freely in Canada. Many Canadians and Indians alike see this as a grievous failure to hold terrorists accountable. This failure to fully investigate and bring to justice those responsible suggests that Canada’s stance on terrorism is selective, and that it is unwilling to confront extremist networks when they do not pose a direct threat to Canadian society.
3. Politicians’ Sympathetic Rhetoric: The Case of Justin Trudeau’s 2018 India Visit
The 2018 visit of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to India exposed an uncomfortable reality about Canada’s political climate. During the visit, Jaspal Atwal, a convicted Khalistani terrorist, was invited to official events, causing outrage in both countries. Trudeau’s seeming leniency towards pro-Khalistan supporters, driven in part by domestic political interests and a sizable Sikh vote bank, has only emboldened extremists. This incident symbolized a broader issue: Canada’s political leaders appear more concerned with appeasing certain domestic factions than addressing the concerns of their largest democratic ally, India. It also raised questions about whether Canada’s selective treatment of terrorism is dictated by convenience rather than principle.
4. Weak Law Enforcement Responses to Anti-India Violence
Canadian law enforcement’s inability to hold perpetrators accountable after anti-India incidents speaks volumes. The Peel Regional Police’s failure to make arrests following the Brampton temple attack, despite video evidence, is emblematic of Canada’s weak response to extremism against India and its diaspora. By failing to arrest or charge those responsible, Canada appears to indirectly condone such actions, undermining its position as a country committed to justice and peace.
5. Inconsistent Condemnation of Hate Crimes
While the Canadian government has condemned the Brampton attack, its response was markedly delayed and lacks substantive follow-up. Canada has consistently taken swift, decisive action in response to hate crimes affecting other communities. However, it has often downplayed incidents involving anti-India extremism, displaying an inconsistent approach. This inconsistency suggests a troubling bias that allows extremism against Indians to be trivialized, reinforcing perceptions that Canada’s support for inclusivity and diversity does not extend to all groups equally.
6. Ignoring India’s Repeated Security Concerns
India has repeatedly expressed concerns to Canadian authorities regarding Khalistani groups, which openly incite violence, raise funds, and recruit members for separatist causes. Canada’s lack of response to these concerns shows a disregard for diplomatic obligations and undermines trust. In cases where India has requested extradition for individuals involved in terrorist activities, Canada has been slow to act, weakening the international stance against terrorism. This inaction signals a lack of respect for India’s security priorities, harming diplomatic relations and compromising global counterterrorism efforts.
7. Disruptions to Indian Consular Events Across Canada
The attack in Brampton is part of a disturbing trend, with similar disruptions at Indian consular events in Vancouver, Surrey, and Toronto. Such incidents show a pattern of organized disruption rather than isolated acts of violence. When extremists disrupt Indian consular services with impunity, it points to Canada’s failure to uphold international diplomatic norms and obligations, as well as its tolerance of a hostile environment for foreign nationals on Canadian soil.
8. Refusal to Act on Intelligence and Evidence
India has provided substantial evidence about Khalistani networks operating in Canada, including intelligence on their funding and recruitment strategies. However, Canadian authorities have not acted on this evidence, further allowing extremist networks to flourish. Canada’s refusal to take this information seriously is a significant impediment to fighting global terrorism, especially when threats are so clearly outlined by a partner nation. Ignoring intelligence puts both Canada’s citizens and the international community at risk.
9. A Hostile Environment for Indian Nationals
Canada’s permissive stance on anti-India groups has fostered a climate of hostility for Indian nationals and Indo-Canadians. Events such as Independence Day celebrations have been targeted by pro-Khalistan groups, who disrupt gatherings and intimidate attendees. This has led to a situation where Indians in Canada feel increasingly unsafe and marginalized, a scenario incongruent with Canada’s professed values of tolerance and inclusivity.
10. Hindrance to Diplomatic Operations
The disruption of Indian consular activities has forced India to consider suspending some services due to safety concerns. For Indian nationals, this has created an obstacle in accessing essential services abroad. When Canada fails to safeguard diplomatic activities, it risks losing credibility in the international arena and emboldening extremists who seek to intimidate the Indian community.
India’s Dignified yet Firm Response
Given the pattern of Canadian inaction and permissiveness, India must adopt a dignified yet assertive approach that holds Canada accountable while reinforcing India’s stance against terrorism.
1. Utilize International Platforms
India should raise its concerns at forums like the United Nations and G20, emphasizing Canada’s inaction as tacit support for extremism. Framing the issue in a global context underscores that terrorism anywhere affects peace everywhere. This approach would also reinforce India’s commitment to global anti-terrorism efforts, making Canada’s negligence a point of international scrutiny.
2. Public Outreach within Canada
India could engage directly with the Canadian public, raising awareness about the dangers of unchecked extremism and its impact on diplomatic ties. By organizing community events and leveraging media channels, India can counteract extremist narratives and encourage Canadian citizens to push for action.
3. Request Thorough Investigations
India should formally request investigations into violent incidents targeting the Indian diaspora. Investigations would make clear that India expects accountability and highlight the depth of extremism that has gone unchecked in Canada.
4. Publish a White Paper
A white paper documenting Canada’s tolerance of anti-India extremism, backed by evidence, would bring greater transparency to the issue. Detailing incidents, financial networks, and political ties would give the international community a comprehensive view of Canada’s failure to address these threats.
5. Collaborate with Allied Nations
India should coordinate with countries similarly affected by extremism, building a coalition to pressure Canada into taking stronger action. This approach would show that India’s concerns are not isolated and that Canada’s leniency has broader implications for international security.
6. Prioritize the Safety of Indian Nationals
India must work with local authorities to secure its nationals and, if necessary, suspend consular activities until adequate safety is ensured. Such steps would demonstrate India’s dedication to protecting its citizens, even if it means limiting services temporarily.
7. Limit Diplomatic Engagements
By selectively reducing high-level engagements, India could signal its disapproval without cutting ties entirely. This measured response would show Canada that India will not ignore aggression against its citizens and values.
8. Highlight Canada’s Inconsistency on Terrorism
During G20 and upcoming meetings, India should emphasize Canada’s double standards on terrorism. By calling out this inconsistency publicly, India can pressure Canada to uphold its anti-terrorism commitments.
9. Counter Propaganda in Canadian Media
India must actively counter anti-India narratives by clarifying its stance through press releases, interviews, and community outreach. This proactive approach would help to combat misinformation and prevent extremist voices from dominating the conversation.
10. Call for International Accountability
India should advocate for global accountability mechanisms to address state negligence in countering extremism. By calling for a standardized approach to anti-terrorism obligations, India would reinforce that Canada’s leniency has no place in the fight against extremism.
Conclusion
India’s response to the rising extremism in Canada must be firm, dignified, and globally resonant. As Canada’s approach increasingly appears to accommodate extremist elements, India is justified in its calls for accountability. By raising awareness of Canada’s double standards on terrorism.
Author
Ms. Rutuja Surve, Intern @ TATT @ Kawach
