Amid the corridors of global diplomacy, the Canadian government has ignited an unprecedented standoff with India, revealing a clash of narratives that transcends mere politics. At the heart of this discord lies a paradox that challenges the very fabric of Canadian governance: the protection and formalised advocacy for Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a designated terrorist.
As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s pursuit of political survival takes precedence, this confrontation raises profound questions about the Trudeau government’s integrity. Signalling not only a diplomatic crisis but a deeper reckoning—one that tests the credibility of the average Canadian citizen and the nation’s reputation on the global stage.
From the fog-shrouded streets of Surrey to the well-lit halls of power in Ottawa, the storyline has been crafted, voices muted, and loyalties recalibrated. Trudeau’s actions have not merely adjusted Canadian foreign policy but appear to have shifted it in a direction that hints at motivations far darker than mere political survival. This saga exposes a nation that has rapidly transformed from India’s diplomatic ally, with $9.36 billion in bilateral trade, to a potential rogue state—one that not only strains ties with India but risks its own standing on the global stage.
It began quietly, almost imperceptibly. In the early days of Trudeau’s administration, whispers of sympathies toward Khalistani extremists grew louder, accompanied by tacit acceptance of unlawful referendums, mockery of India’s national symbols, and open threats against its diplomats—all dismissed as mere political pandering.
Under the guise of free speech and expression, the administration also appeared indifferent to Punjabi movies and songs that often glorified the Khalistani narrative. Meanwhile, the influence of Khalistani-linked gangs operating in Canada’s underworld, including drug trafficking, human smuggling, and forgery, was met with deliberate inaction.
These criminal networks, deeply intertwined with Punjabi pop culture, were seen as crucial to securing the loyalty of a key voter base in British Columbia. But those whispers soon grew into a persistent murmur, hinting at something more ominous—a transformation that cast Canada as a sanctuary for anti-India elements. For years, the Indian government watched these developments with mounting unease, issuing stern cautions against Canada’s support of proscribed individuals and organisations with direct links to terrorism. Yet, Trudeau’s government appeared almost eager to brush off these warnings as exaggerated claims of the Indian state.
The unravelling reached a flashpoint when Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a self-proclaimed advocate for Khalistan—an independent Sikh state to be carved out of present-day Indian State of Punjab and neighbouring areas—was reportedly shot dead outside a Sikh temple in Surrey in an incident of gang war in June 2023. In India’s eyes, Nijjar was no hero but rather a proscribed terrorist implicated in numerous violent activities within and outside India’s borders. His death was not seen as an act of victimhood but rather as the culmination of a terror network that had spread across continents.
On the other hand, the Trudeau-led Canadian government and Khalistani extremists mourned his death in an unprecedented and almost taunting move. While India paid tributes to the innocent victims of the 1985 Air India Flight 182 bombing by Khalistani terrorists, the Parliament of Canada observed a moment of silence to mark the first anniversary of Nijjar’s death. A tribute, typically reserved for individuals of significant national importance, is a mark of respect and remembrance for their contributions. Ironically, the Trudeau-led Canadian government honoured Nijjar despite knowing very well that he was linked to terrorism and considered a threat to Canada.
An investigation by The Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper, has exposed a stunning contradiction in detail. According to the report, Nijjar’s entry into the Khalistani criminal syndicates was inspired by Anokh Singh Babbar, co-founder of Babbar Khalsa, the group responsible for the 1985 Air India Flight 182 bombing—the deadliest terror attack in Canadian history and the most lethal act of aviation terrorism before 9/11. The attack claimed 329 lives, including 268 Canadians.
The report further detailed Nijjar’s close association with Gurdeep Singh Deepa, a key figure in the Khalistan Commando Force, infamous for orchestrating violent attacks in Punjab that resulted in the deaths of over 125 Hindus, many of whom were children. Following the assassination of Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh in 1995, Nijjar fled India, citing torture as the reason for seeking refuge abroad. The report also suggests that Nijjar’s Canadian citizenship was fast-tracked under ambiguous circumstances, raising further questions about the Canadian government’s alarming connections to violent extremism.
In 2016, Indian authorities arrested Mandeep Singh Dhaliwal, a Canadian plumber, during a visit to Punjab in connection with a terror plot. Dhaliwal revealed that Nijjar had instructed him to target sect leaders, providing weapons and GPS training in British Columbia. That same year, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police questioned Nijjar about his training activities. The ensuing investigation, though hasty, resulted in the temporary freezing of his business and personal accounts. His bank even labelled him a national security risk, demanding immediate debt repayment, and he was subsequently placed on Canada’s no-fly list. These actions suggest that Canadian authorities were fully aware of the individual they were dealing with, yet chose a path that raises questions about their commitment to countering extremism.
This approach is anything but new; it appears to be a direct adaptation of Pierre Trudeau’s political playbook. Justin Trudeau’s engagement with Khalistanis in Canada closely mirrors his father’s strategic appeasement during a similar era. The parallels are not coincidental; they suggest a deliberate continuity aimed at maintaining political favour, even at the risk of compromising the integrity of the Canadian state.
During his tenure as Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau navigated the rise of Khalistani extremists by favouring political expediency over a robust diplomatic response to terrorism. In a strikingly similar fashion, Justin Trudeau’s recent diplomatic gamble evoked this legacy. Just weeks after Nijjar’s death and his retun back to Canada from his failed participation in the G20 summit in New Delhi, he stood before the Canadian Parliament to make an extraordinary allegation: that ‘agents of India’ may have been responsible for Nijjar’s assassination on Canadian soil. With a solemn tone and more conviction than concrete evidence, Trudeau’s claim shocked the international community and provoked outrage in New Delhi.
This was no ordinary allegation; it was a declaration of diplomatic hostility, delivered without the support of concrete evidence. Trudeau’s statement risked not only fracturing Canada’s ties with India but also tarnishing its credibility on the global stage. It echoed his father’s political gambit—prioritising domestic survival over international stability, as Trudeau continued to solidify support from the Khalistani voter base in British Columbia. With India-Canada relations plummeting to their lowest point in decades, this move raises serious questions about the underlying intentions and shadowy influences steering Canada’s diplomatic course under Trudeau’s leadership.
India’s response was swift, decisive, and unyielding. “Trudeau’s claims are baseless,” declared External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, underscoring Bharat’s outright rejection of what was perceived as a blatant act of targeted disinformation. Within days, India expelled a senior Canadian diplomat, setting off a fierce diplomatic standoff. Trudeau, instead of backing down, chose to dig in his heels, escalating tensions further.
Amid intensifying diplomatic tensions between India and Canada, the killing of Khalistani Canadian terrorist Hardeep Nijjar has become a critical flashpoint, revealing deeper complications in their relations. The situation escalated as Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly hinted that sanctions against India could be on the table, accusing New Delhi of orchestrating Nijjar’s death—an allegation India has firmly refuted, dismissing it as baseless.
Despite Canada’s aggressive rhetoric, India’s Ministry of External Affairs offered a measured response. While recalling its diplomats from Ottawa, New Delhi has kept clear of incendiary rhetoric, signalling a preference for strategic diplomacy. As narrative battles intensified, even Canada—the self-proclaimed torchbearer of free expression—began circulating internal memos indicating concern over Indian media shaping negative narratives about Prime Minister Trudeau.
According to a dossier presented by Canada’s rapid response mechanism, the Canadian government has been actively tracking social media posts of Indian journalists. The dossier accuses Indian media of portraying Trudeau and Canadian institutions in an unfavourable light, suggesting potential diplomatic repercussions on Canada’s foreign policy and national security.
The narrative took an unexpected turn on October 16, 2024, when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, testifying before Canada’s foreign interference inquiry, admitted that his government had presented only “intelligence”, not “hard evidentiary proof”, linking Bharat’s agents to Nijjar’s murder. This admission vindicated India’s position, revealing that Trudeau’s accusations were more a product of political manoeuvring than concrete evidence.
Whether driven by calculated political risk, domestic pressures, or external actors, Trudeau’s diplomatic gamble exposed the extent of his miscalculation. Trudeau further admitted that initial intelligence pointed to Nijjar’s killing being “gang-related or criminal-related”. The situation became even murkier with the unexpected involvement of Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, founder of the US-based Khalistani group Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) and a designated terrorist in India.
In a startling interview on a Canadian news channel, Pannun claimed to have shared details of Nijjar’s murder with the Canadian Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). His assertions not only intensified suspicions about Trudeau’s ties with Khalistani elements but also deepened the ambiguity surrounding Canada’s accusations against India.
In turn, a potential US role in the escalating crisis cannot be dismissed, suggesting a broader geopolitical dimension at play. As a member of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, the United States recently alleged that an Indian national was involved in a plot to assassinate Pannun. India, while actively cooperating with the US in this probe, has firmly rejected Canada’s charges regarding Nijjar’s murder. The contrasting responses reveal a layered diplomatic landscape, suggesting that the crisis may be part of a larger strategic game involving intelligence alliances and geopolitical narratives.
At the core of Trudeau’s political insecurity lies a complex web of influence involving Jagmeet Singh, leader of the New Democratic Party, whose coalition support is crucial to maintaining Trudeau’s minority government. Singh, an outspoken supporter of Khalistani extremism, has openly championed the Khalistan movement, making him indispensable to Trudeau’s political survival. His influence over Trudeau is substantial, suggesting that Canada’s foreign policy toward India may be shaped less by diplomatic imperatives and more by the dynamics of domestic politics.
Just as troubling is the evolving role of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, which includes Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Originally focused on intelligence sharing, the alliance has increasingly shifted toward shaping global narratives—often under the guise of promoting democratic transparency. India views this shift with growing scepticism, particularly as the alliance appears to lend credibility to Trudeau’s unverified claims against India. From New Delhi’s perspective, this approach is not grounded in credible intelligence but is instead driven by political motivations.
In recent years, Khalistani extremist activities have surged across all Five Eyes nations, revealing a concerning pattern of emboldened actions targeting India’s sovereignty and its diaspora. The wave of violence has spanned continents, manifesting a growing threat that undermines international diplomatic norms and community safety. In Australia, the BAPS Swaminarayan Mandir in Melbourne was vandalised by Khalistani elements in January 2023, with graffiti glorifying separatist figures and denouncing India’s unity.
Similar attacks extended to Hindu temples in Brisbane and Sydney, where slogans advocating for Khalistan were scrawled across walls, signalling an alarming spread of extremism against the Hindu community. The United States also witnessed a brazen display of aggression in March 2023, when Khalistani extremists stormed the Indian Consulate in San Francisco, smashing windows, vandalising property, and hoisting separatist flags on the premises.
Shockingly, the attackers remained undeterred by local law enforcement and used social media to boast about the assault, raising serious questions about the US’ commitment to safeguarding diplomatic missions under international law. In the UK, a similar pattern of hostility was evident. In March 2023, extremists dismembered the Indian flag from the High Commission building in London and replaced it with separatist banners, despite the presence of local police.
The incident drew significant diplomatic backlash, prompting India to summon the British deputy high commissioner and demand stronger measures to protect its diplomats and property. The interplay of these developments with the Five Eyes intelligence alliance reveals a broader, coordinated effort to leverage the freedoms of Western democracies in promoting separatist agendas against India. The unchecked rise of Khalistani extremism across these nations points to a significant gap in diplomatic strategy and a failure to enforce legal measures designed to protect the Indian diaspora and uphold India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. This leniency not only undermines bilateral relations but also signals deeper systemic flaws within Western democracies’ approach to countering transnational radicalisation and extremism.
Canada’s actions, or lack thereof, themselves represent a troubling violation of international law, particularly in ensuring the safety and security of foreign diplomats. Sanjay Kumar Verma, the High Commissioner of India to Canada, has been subjected to direct threats, while pro-Khalistan rallies have openly called for violence against Indian officials. The gravity of these threats has forced Indian diplomats to curtail public engagements, underscoring the risks posed by Khalistani extremism operating with apparent impunity.
Further exacerbating the issue are illegal Khalistan referendums, organised brazenly in cities like Brampton and Surrey, which have drawn significant media attention and a strong turnout from separatist sympathisers. Despite these alarming developments, the Canadian government has remained largely silent or issued only tepid responses, failing to uphold its international obligations under the Vienna convention to safeguard diplomats and prevent activities that threaten the sovereignty of another nation.
An intriguing dimension of this diplomatic crisis is Trudeau’s complex and often opaque relationship with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), whose strategic alliance with Pakistan and its ex-military-heavy diaspora in Canada adds further layers of complexity to Canada’s foreign policy manoeuvres. Allegations of CCP interference in Canadian elections and the quiet integration of Huawei’s technology into Canada’s infrastructure have repeatedly brought Trudeau’s ties with Beijing under scrutiny. This relationship has roots in a legacy that dates back to Pierre Trudeau, who, in 1970, became the first Western leader to establish diplomatic relations with Communist China, laying the groundwork for the CCP’s enduring influence within Canadian politics.
This influence has become more evident in recent years. In 2016, the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, named after Trudeau’s father, accepted a $200,000 donation from Chinese businessman Zhang Bin. The donation was pledged to support Montreal University, Pierre Trudeau’s alma mater, but was linked to a broader effort by Beijing to cultivate influence within Canada’s academic and political circles.
The controversy deepened when it was revealed that the Chinese government was likely to reimburse this donation, sparking concerns over foreign interference and the potential shaping of Canadian policy. The backlash prompted the Trudeau Foundation to return a significant portion of the donation, but it did little to alleviate suspicions.
In fact, it underscored the CCP’s attempts to exert influence within Canada’s political fabric through academic and philanthropic channels. This controversy led to mass resignations at the foundation, with board members calling for an independent forensic audit, believing the donation might have been part of a broader CCP strategy to curry favour with Canadian political figures, including Trudeau.
Adding to the complexity is Trudeau’s alleged ties with the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the mastermind behind the Khalistani separatist agenda under dictator General Zia-ul-Haq’s “Kashmir and Khalistan policy” in the 1970s—a strategy aimed at bleeding India through a ‘thousand cuts’. As a principal sponsor of Khalistani extremism, the ISI wields considerable influence over the movement.
Canada’s perceived leniency towards ISI-linked Khalistani elements within its borders raises critical questions about Trudeau priorities. This bias is exemplified by the absence of a thorough investigation into the suspicious death of Baloch activist Karima Baloch in Toronto in 2020. While her death was officially ruled as suicide, many activists and human rights groups allege ISI involvement, citing Pakistan’s history of targeting Baloch dissidents abroad. This lack of scrutiny stands in stark contrast to Trudeau’s motivated stance on the Nijjar case, suggesting a selective approach to addressing incidents of foreign-linked violence on Canadian soil.
Trudeau’s response to these allegations has mostly drawn criticism for its lack of transparency and urgency, further underscoring his government’s vulnerability to influences from both the CCP and ISI. Analysts suggest that Trudeau’s support for a proscribed terrorist like Nijjar may not simply reflect domestic political pandering; rather, it could be part of a broader CCP-ISI agenda aimed at undermining Bharat’s global position. Some speculate that Trudeau’s sudden accusations against Bharat regarding Nijjar’s killing were intended, at least in part, to divert attention from ongoing investigations into CCP interference in Canada. While the timing of Trudeau’s announcement raises suspicions, attributing it solely to CCP-related deflection risks oversimplifying the issue.
This diplomatic unravelling likely arises from a confluence of factors, including domestic political dynamics, intelligence alliances, and broader geopolitical rivalries. Bharat’s emergence as a key player in the Indo-Pacific—particularly amid the Russia-Ukraine conflict—has intensified global strategic interests. This suggests that while various actors, such as the Five Eyes alliance, the US, the CCP, and Pakistan, may have differing objectives, their paths to influence Bharat’s ascent appear to converge.
At the heart of this situation lies Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s quest for political survival. His reliance on the Khalistani vote bank has significantly influenced his foreign policy decisions. Originally established as an intelligence-sharing network, the Five Eyes alliance has seemingly transformed into a geopolitical force capable of shaping international discourse.
Complicating this narrative further is the prominent role of the US as a leading member of the Five Eyes. Recent allegations regarding a plot to assassinate Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a known Khalistani extremist in the US who claims to have been in contact with the Canadian Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), add another layer of intrigue. Trudeau’s alleged connections with both the CCP and ISI further deepen this unfolding crisis, particularly in light of accusations surrounding CCP interference in Canadian elections and ISI control over Khalistani extremists.
This divergence in responses highlights a complex geopolitical collaboration, suggesting that Trudeau’s allegations against India may be part of a broader, coordinated manoeuvre involving multiple stakeholders with varying strategic interests—each potentially at the expense of the average Canadian taxpayer.
To conclude, the India-Canada standoff is more than a mere diplomatic rift; it is a reflection of an evolving geopolitical reality where domestic politics, intelligence alliances, and foreign influences converge. In this broader scheme, Khalistani extremists are usable pawns in a high-stakes geopolitical chess game. Used to serve wider international agendas, they exemplify how domestic separatist movements can be leveraged by global powers to destabilise rising nations. As Canada’s domestic politics intersect with strategic imperatives of global players, the crisis between India and Canada reveals the shifting sands of 21st-century diplomacy—where covert agendas drive public narratives and old alliances are redefined by new realities. The implications of this situation are profound, extending beyond India-Canada relations to the broader global order, where diplomacy is increasingly shaped by intricate layers of geopolitical interests—often revealing more than meets the eye.
Rahul Pawa is an international criminal lawyer and director of research at New Delhi based think tank Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Firstpost.
Content retrieved from: https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/how-trudeaus-khalistan-bet-reflects-new-era-of-diplomatic-war-13829090.html.
