The political and diplomatic landscape between India and Canada has undergone an extraordinary shift over the past year, reaching what many now describe as an unprecedented low. At the heart of this conflict lies the issue of Khalistan, a controversial separatist movement that seeks an independent Sikh homeland and which finds support within some segments of the Sikh diaspora in Canada. As the movement and its supporters have grown more vocal, they have drawn both global scrutiny and diplomatic strain, with each new development intensifying the rift between two major democracies.
Khalistan Movement
The Khalistan movement finds its roots in India of the 1970s and 1980s, when a segment of Sikhs, primarily in the Indian state of Punjab, started a campaign for a separate Sikh state in India.
The movement reached its peak with the storming of the Golden Temple in Amritsar in 1984 by the Indian Army and the subsequent assassination of the then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards, sparking anti-Sikh riots that claimed thousands of lives.
The aftermath of these events led to a sense of displacement and unrest among Sikhs, including those in the diaspora, who sought refuge and new lives abroad. While the movement largely subsided in India over the past few decades, it has found refuge and resurgence within Sikh communities abroad, particularly in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The demand for an independent Khalistan largely lost traction within India over the decades, but it continued to gain ideological support in Sikh communities in countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, where pro-Khalistani sentiment still find space to grow.
The demand for an independent Khalistan largely lost traction within India over the decades, but it continued to gain ideological support in Sikh communities in countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, where pro-Khalistani sentiment still find space to grow
Canada’s Unique Position: A Longstanding Home for the Sikh Diaspora
Canada is home to one of the largest Sikh populations outside of India. This diaspora, which includes prominent businesspeople, politicians, and community leaders, has an influential role in the Canadian society. Canada’s multicultural policies and freedom of expression have allowed Sikh Canadians to voice political concerns and even support movements like Khalistan, which would be unthinkable within India’s own borders.
The right to free speech, including advocacy for controversial or unpopular causes, is one that Canada has consistently upheld. However, India views any support for Khalistan as a direct challenge to its sovereignty. This divergence in perspectives has long been a point of contention between Canada and India, but the situation reached a boiling point following the death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a vocal pro-Khalistan activist who was shot outside a Sikh temple in Surrey, British Columbia, in June 2023.
Canada has accused India of orchestrating his assassination, pointing to intelligence that allegedly implicates Indian agents, a claim India has strongly denied, dismissing it as “absurd and motivated”. This allegation has led to a major diplomatic spat, with each country expelling the other’s diplomats and casting doubts on the future of their once-cordial relations.
Canada has accused India of orchestrating his assassination, pointing to intelligence that allegedly implicates Indian agents, a claim India has strongly denied, dismissing it as “absurd and motivated”
Hardeep Singh Nijjar: A Catalyst for Conflict
Hardeep Singh Nijjar’s murder was the catalyst that brought longstanding tensions to the forefront. A Canadian citizen and an outspoken supporter of the Khalistan movement, Nijjar was labelled as a terrorist by the Indian government, which accused him of leading violent actions within and beyond India’s borders.
His death sparked outrage within the Sikh community in Canada, prompting protests and demands for accountability. When Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly alleged Indian involvement in Nijjar’s murder, it marked a dramatic escalation in the dispute.
Trudeau’s statement set off a cascade of diplomatic repercussions, including mutual expulsions of diplomats and intense media scrutiny. Canada’s accusations against India raised an ethical and political quandary that has left the world watching closely.
Many in the international community, particularly Canada’s allies, were caught off guard by the boldness of Trudeau’s statement, which effectively implicated a major democracy and economic partner in a potentially extrajudicial killing on Canadian soil.
The Five Eyes Alliance
As Canada’s relationship with India deteriorated, it sought backing from its allies within the Five Eyes alliance. Trudeau reportedly shared intelligence findings with these partners, hoping for a show of solidarity that could pressure India to cooperate with an investigation.
While the United States and the United Kingdom issued measured statements calling for transparency and respecting sovereignty, they refrained from direct criticism of India, reflecting the geopolitical delicacies involved. The Five Eyes’ responses highlighted the delicate balance they must strike in this situation.
As Canada’s relationship with India deteriorated, it sought backing from its allies within the Five Eyes alliance. Trudeau reportedly shared intelligence findings with these partners, hoping for a show of solidarity that could pressure India to cooperate with an investigation
India is a pivotal player in the Indo-Pacific, a region where the Five Eyes countries have intensified focus to counterbalance China’s influence. Thus, while the US, UK, and other members have called for an investigation, their reluctance to openly support Canada’s accusations against India underscores a pragmatic approach driven by economic and security considerations.
While Trudeau’s government may hope for a stronger international response, the reality is that strategic alliances often impose limits on how far partners are willing to go in support of one another.
Indian Response So Far
For India, the Khalistan issue has always been viewed as a threat to its national unity and sovereignty. Indian officials argue that Canada has allowed a dangerous platform to flourish, giving space for separatist rhetoric and even incitement to violence.
India has repeatedly urged Canada to take stricter measures against pro-Khalistan organisations, accusing Canada of being too permissive with groups it deems extremist.
In response to Trudeau’s allegations, India has denied involvement in Nijjar’s death, calling the accusation a violation of diplomatic norms and accusing Canada of harbouring individuals associated with terrorism. India’s stance reflects not only its refusal to tolerate separatist movements but also its long-standing concern about the role of the Sikh diaspora in Canada, which it perceives as being overly sympathetic to Khalistan.
For India, the issue is not about free speech but about safeguarding its territorial integrity and national security. India has hinted that if Canada does not act against what it sees as pro-Khalistani extremism, it will have no choice but to re-evaluate bilateral relations.
While Trudeau’s government may hope for a stronger international response, the reality is that strategic alliances often impose limits on how far partners are willing to go in support of one another
The International Impact: A Diplomatic Ripple Effect
The diplomatic rupture between Canada and India also impacts the broader international community. With growing Indian influence in the Global South and increased engagement with Western nations, countries around the world are observing how the situation unfolds.
Canada’s allies within the Five Eyes alliance may be sympathetic to its concerns, but their hesitation to directly confront India indicates the pragmatic realities of diplomacy, where economic interests and security concerns often take precedence.
The US, in particular, has encouraged dialogue and investigation but has refrained from taking sides. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has emphasised that sovereignty and international norms are essential, and that a transparent investigation should be conducted.
Australia and the UK have also encouraged Canada and India to work toward a resolution, but like the US, they are wary of jeopardising their own growing relations with India.
While Canada has received verbal assurances of an investigation from Five Eyes allies, other countries within the alliance are proceeding with caution, aware of the significant economic and geopolitical consequences of taking a hard stance against India.
The challenge for these two democracies will be to find a way to preserve their hard-earned reputations and serve the broader interests of global stability, all the while navigating the delicate landscape of ideological differences and geopolitical interests
India is a key player in the Indo-Pacific, where the Five Eyes nations have increasingly focused their attention to counterbalance China’s influence. The United States and other Five Eyes nations have emphasised the importance of a rules-based order and democratic values, their hesitance to make stronger statements may reflect the desire to avoid jeopardising their relationship with India, particularly at a time when they are seeking to strengthen partnerships in the Indo-Pacific.
This cautious approach underscores the complexity of global alliances, where competing strategic interests often result in diplomatic ambiguity.
Lastly, the challenge for these two democracies will be to find a way to preserve their hard-earned reputations and serve the broader interests of global stability, all the while navigating the delicate landscape of ideological differences and geopolitical interests.
The writer is a Political Science postgraduate from the University of Mumbai and holds a Postgraduate Diploma in International Relations from University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom. The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily carry the views of Raksha Anirveda
