In recent weeks, news cycles have featured stories surrounding the diplomatic relations between India and Canada, sparking debate worldwide as they weigh in on the current tensions. While historically being diplomatic and passive, the two countries are now on strained terms following the killing of British Columbia Sikh activist Hardeep  Singh Nijjar on June 18th in Surrey, BC. People were left astonished following an unprecedented declaration by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the House of Commons on Monday, September 18th, 2023, in which he publicly announced that the Canadian government had credible intelligence that agents of India’s BJP government were linked to the shooting of Nijjar on Canadian soil. It should be a shock to no one that this sparked tensions across much of Canada, if not the entire world. It remains to be discussed how this might affect future policy decisions between the two countries. 

Despite being small in numbers, the Sikh community makes up approximately 1.7% of India’s population. It has a strong presence in India’s political landscape, primarily concerning demands for an independent homeland in northern India: Khalistan. Over time, this argument lost momentum in India due to fierce opposition from the state. Despite this, many in the Canadian Sikh community have been fierce advocates for the cause, which may be largely attributed to Nijjar’s work. Nijjar, born in Northern India, moved to Canada in 1997 and quickly made a name for himself as a strong advocate for Sikhs in Canada and India. He was regarded as a leader for this cause, both domestically and internationally, flagging the attention of the Indian government on numerous different occasions. Both Niijar and the Canadian government have received sharp public criticism from the Indian government relating to their ties with the Khalistan movement. 

Generally speaking, India and Canada have had peaceful and productive diplomatic relations for much of history. Official statements from the Canadian government declare India as a key partner in trade. It details descriptions of their relationship as “longstanding bilateral relations built upon shared traditions of democracy, pluralism and strong interpersonal connections.” This is translated into Canadian investment in India, with India receiving around $76 million in international assistance in the fiscal year 2021-2022. It is clear that there is a stark contrast between past and present  Indo-Canadian relations, and the spiral that quickly unravelled them is an unprecedented disturbance to an otherwise prosperous relationship. 

This downward spiral resulted from conflicts surrounding Sikh separatist movements in Canada, ultimately leading to Niijar’s death. In late 2022, the Indian government began to publicly denounce what they perceived to be aggressive sentiments from Canada, issuing a statement advising Indian students of an increase in “sectarian violence and anti-India activities in Canada.” In early June, weeks before Nijjar’s death, Trudeau’s top national security advisor stated that India was one of Canada’s leading sources of foreign interference. Two weeks later, on June 18th 2023, Niijar was shot dead outside his gurdwara, a Sikh place of worship. 

Conversations between Indian and Canadian state officials occurred behind closed doors in the following months, including a meeting at the G-20 summit in New Delhi in early September, where Trudeau and Indian PM Narendra Modi had a divisive sideline meeting.  Four days later, an Indian state official confirmed that trade dialogue between the two countries was “paused to ensure that geopolitically and economically, we are all on the same page,” which implies that the sideline meeting likely discussed allegations of foreign interference. Shortly after this, the public became aware of the serious allegations facing the Indian government. In the meantime, it has become clear that India and Canada are not at all on the same page. 

Following Trudeau’s declaration in Parliament, India has suspended visa services to Canada while vehemently denying involvement in Nijjar’s death. Both countries, in a “tit-for-tat” diplomatic display, have announced the expulsion of diplomats. Canada has expelled India’s head of security services in Canada, and India returned the action, declaring that 41 of Canada’s 62 diplomats must leave. The Canadian government has since advised that Canadians in India should “exercise a high degree of caution,” citing a call for protests and the rise of anti-Canadian sentiments in India. Similarly, India has advised that students and nationals in Canada “are urged to exercise utmost caution,” referring explicitly to sections of the Indian community in Canada  who promote “pro-Indian” agendas, most likely meaning those who oppose Khalistani movements. This is understood to be a callout to the Sikh community. 

Neither country has publicly budged in their stance on the matter, suggesting that tensions between the two countries will not be short-lived. It is not bold to assume that this will be reflected in future policy decisions regarding diplomatic visits and limits of sovereignty. This will undoubtedly negatively affect the trade and commerce initiatives that were once in sight between the countries. Most notable is its effect on the Canada-India Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, or CEPA, as it is informally known, an agreement that has been in talks for over a decade. As of now, these talks have been officially halted. Economic policy initiatives have been but on the back-burner relative to the political issues at hand. 

These political issues are due to be addressed by policy changes. Policy initiatives in the form of protection for minorities and immigrants in Canada  may be expanded upon. They exist already in the form of institutions such as the Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act. However, little is written about relations regarding the Indian diaspora in Canada specifically. Policy could be written, perhaps bilaterally between the two countries, that outlines the definitions and terms when it comes to terrorism and sovereignty, allowing for clear recommendations regarding political movements. This is important because at the root of these tensions is the disagreement between the two states regarding speech and actions and the power the states have to influence them. While communities in Canada held Nijjar as a standard for peace and a promoter of human rights, much of India, including the government, denounced him publicly as a terrorist. Had there been a clear policy outlining actions to be taken in this situation, an agreement could have been reached that respected the sovereignty of both countries and saved Niijar’s life.