Double Game: Canada Admits Khalistan Extremism, Accuses India of Meddling
Executive Summary
In a landmark shift, Canada’s top intelligence agency has formally acknowledged that Khalistani extremists are using Canadian soil to promote separatism and fund violence in India—validating India’s longstanding allegations. Yet in a diplomatic balancing act, the same report also accuses India of foreign interference, placing both nations in a deepening cycle of mutual distrust, espionage accusations, and domestic political consequences.
Analysis
For decades, India has decried Canada’s permissiveness toward Khalistani extremism, accusing Ottawa of harboring secessionist leaders and turning a blind eye to plots against India’s sovereignty. Now, Canada’s own Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) has publicly confirmed that Khalistani extremists use Canada as a base to raise funds and plan acts of violence—specifically targeting India.
This admission comes amid a fragile diplomatic thaw. Just days before, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Canadian counterpart Mark Carney met for the first time at the G7 Summit, agreeing to restore high commissioners and resume trade talks. But the timing of CSIS’s annual report may undercut the reconciliation efforts. While acknowledging Khalistani extremism, the report also accuses India of transnational repression and espionage—placing it in the same league as China, Russia, and Iran.
The fallout stems from the 2023 assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian citizen and vocal Khalistan advocate, outside a gurdwara in British Columbia. Then-Prime Minister Trudeau publicly implicated Indian agents in Nijjar’s killing, prompting tit-for-tat diplomatic expulsions and the freezing of trade talks. The relationship deteriorated to the point of near-collapse. India denied all allegations and demanded action against what it called “anti-India terrorists” given shelter in Canada.
The CSIS report reveals both the historical persistence and modern resurgence of the Khalistan movement in Canada. Since the 1980s, Canada-based Khalistani extremists (CBKEs) have been linked to violent separatist efforts, including the 1985 Air India bombing. Despite diminished relevance in India, the movement maintains symbolic and political traction among some segments of Canada’s 770,000-strong Sikh diaspora.
Notably, CSIS used the term “extremism” for the first time in this context, signaling a shift in official posture. However, it also accuses Indian agents of manipulating Sikh-Canadian communities, coercing individuals, and influencing Canadian politics—a reflection of Canada’s view that the issue is not just about external threats but sovereignty violations.
Amid this geopolitical complexity, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a U.S.-based Khalistani figure, attempted to leverage Modi’s G7 visit to provoke demonstrations. His efforts fizzled; protests attracted few participants and were overshadowed by renewed diplomatic overtures. Canadian security agencies had kept Pannun under close watch, and officials increasingly view him as an international liability.
Prime Minister Carney, who replaced Trudeau earlier this year, has opted for a pragmatic stance—emphasizing trade and cooperation over confrontation. His willingness to meet Modi and restore ties reflects a pivot away from Trudeau’s harder line, though the CSIS report signals that the intelligence community remains wary.
Internationally, Canada’s balancing act—condemning extremism while accusing India of repression—risks muddying its diplomatic credibility. Meanwhile, the conflict illustrates a broader normative clash: India defends its national security, while Canada defends its sovereignty. With both nations feeling justified, the diplomatic standoff raises uncomfortable questions about the limits of state conduct and the enforcement of global norms.
