Indian Envoy Alleges Khalistani Extremists Influence Canadian Leadership: Diplomatic Tensions Rise

The diplomatic tensions between India and Canada continue to escalate following recent statements by Sanjay Verma, India’s recalled High Commissioner to Canada. In an interview, Verma alleged that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is surrounded by individuals sympathetic to Khalistani extremism, a contentious accusation that underscores the strain in relations between the two nations.

Verma’s comments come at a time when the two countries are at odds over the alleged involvement of Indian operatives in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Khalistani activist and Canadian citizen, in British Columbia. Trudeau’s administration has cited “credible allegations” linking Indian officials to Nijjar’s death, though the Canadian government has not yet provided substantive evidence. In response, India has denied these accusations, expelling six Canadian diplomats from India and recalling its own representatives.

Allegations of Political Support for Khalistani Extremism

Verma claimed that certain individuals within Trudeau’s close circle support anti-India elements and Khalistani sympathizers, adding that Canada has failed to address the growing influence of these groups. He pointed to Trudeau’s 2018 visit to India, during which Jaspal Atwal, a known Khalistani sympathizer, was invited to official events. The incident sparked outrage and controversy, highlighting the diplomatic challenges Canada faces in balancing domestic political considerations with international relations.

According to Verma, the Khalistani movement in Canada has led to increased harassment and intimidation of Indian diplomats. He recounted instances of hooliganism, intimidation, and personal threats directed at him and his team, allegedly perpetuated by extremists associated with the movement. Verma expressed frustration with Canada’s response to these incidents, noting a lack of follow-up by Canadian authorities despite several complaints.

"There were continuous threats to us, and anyone could have been harmed," Verma said. “The Canadian government provided some security, but it was insufficient given the hostility from these groups,” he added.

India-Canada Relations Decline Over Nijjar’s Killing

The diplomatic strain worsened after Trudeau's statements in Parliament, alleging India's involvement in Nijjar's assassination. India responded firmly, labeling the allegations as unfounded and politically motivated. The Vienna Convention, which outlines the rights of diplomats, has become a focal point in this dispute. India asserts that its actions are consistent with international law and maintains that Canada’s accusations lack evidentiary support.

Trudeau later acknowledged in interviews that Canada has “intelligence” but lacks “concrete proof” connecting Indian officials to Nijjar’s murder. India has insisted on substantial evidence, emphasizing that the accusations are based on unverified intelligence, which does not justify diplomatic action.

In a statement, Verma echoed India’s stance: “We have not seen any hard evidence that legally justifies the accusations. We were simply performing our duties as mandated by the Vienna Convention.”

Criticism from Former Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh

Former Punjab Chief Minister and senior BJP leader Amarinder Singh has been outspoken in his criticism of Trudeau’s approach, alleging that the Canadian leader is compromising India-Canada relations for political advantage. Singh accused Trudeau of aligning with Khalistani elements to secure votes from Sikh-Canadian constituents, whom he views as an influential demographic in Canadian politics.

“Trudeau has ruined the relationship between India and Canada,” Singh stated, adding that the Prime Minister “only cares about votes.” Singh also claimed that Trudeau’s prior visits to India demonstrated his support for Khalistani sympathizers, which Singh finds “unacceptable.”

During Trudeau’s 2018 trip to India, Singh initially refused to meet with him, citing concerns over his alleged Khalistani ties. Singh later agreed to meet with Trudeau at the request of the Indian government, although the interaction underscored the mutual distrust between Indian and Canadian leaders.

Rising Influence of Khalistani Groups in Canada

The Khalistani movement, which seeks to establish a separate Sikh state, remains a divisive issue within Canada’s large Sikh diaspora. Verma expressed concern over Canada’s perceived leniency toward these groups, which he believes harms India’s national interests. He urged Canadian authorities to take stronger action against extremists and questioned Canada’s commitment to controlling groups that, in his view, promote separatism and violence.

“If Canada is so concerned about the small percentage of Canadian Sikhs supporting Khalistan, they should create space for them within Canada. India will not allow its sovereignty to be challenged by external elements,” Verma said.

Canada’s Commitment to Protecting Indian Diplomats Questioned

In addition to the accusations of political alliances, Verma highlighted what he considers insufficient protective measures by Canadian authorities. He described a series of incidents, including an attack in Alberta, where extremists allegedly wielded weapons and posed a direct threat to him. Although the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) intervened, Verma conveyed disappointment over the level of support provided by Canadian authorities to protect Indian diplomats.

Despite facing constant threats, Verma stated that the Canadian police assigned to his security were “professional and respectful,” and he acknowledged their efforts to protect him. However, Verma expressed disappointment at the RCMP’s recent press briefing, which, he felt, preempted the investigation’s findings and failed to address the broader diplomatic crisis effectively.

Internal and External Implications of Canada’s Stance

The conflict between India and Canada has implications not only for bilateral relations but also for international diplomatic protocols. As both nations navigate this high-stakes standoff, analysts warn that Canada’s stance could affect its relationships with other countries facing domestic extremist challenges. Additionally, India’s response to perceived extremism highlights its firm stance against separatism and underscores the importance it places on national sovereignty.

In the coming months, Canada and India’s ability to negotiate a resolution to this conflict may set a precedent for how countries address the complex interplay of domestic political considerations and international diplomacy. Although Trudeau and Verma have made strong public statements, both governments must now work to de-escalate the situation to restore mutual trust.