The Canada-India diplomatic row: Analyzing sovereignty, separatism, and global implications
By Our Foreign Affairs Analyst
The diplomatic row between Canada and India suddenly escalated to a new level due to the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian Sikh who was an active supporter of the separatist land movement of Khalistan. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused the Indian government of orchestrating the lethal assault to assassinate Sikh separatists on Canadian soil. India perceived it as a violation of its sovereignty and diplomatic immunity and has dismissed Trudeau’s accusations that linked India to Nijjar’s murder. Shockwaves went around the global community after the Canadian Prime Minister’s harsh comments, while the Indian government firmly repudiated the accusations.
India’s stance has been unequivocal: The country stands against Khalistani separatist operations, which have regularly taken place in the country. In India, the law categorizes these movements as terrorist groups. The Indian authorities have not hidden their displeasure with what they regard as Canadian permissiveness towards such factions. Some perceived this as an extending problem rather than an event. It optically accuses India of meddling in its domestic affairs when, in fact, Trudeau’s party and government have a problem with Canadian Sikh extremism.
India feels that Canada has not respected its sovereignty and security interests while handling the Sikh separatist issue. Certain groups within the Sikh community in Canada have for years supported the Khalistani agenda, and the vast Sikh community in Canada has been continuously involved in political mobilization for the past many decades. India considers their advocacy for Khalistan as a security threat and has demanded that the Canadian government tackle the evolving trends several times in the past.
On this ground, Indian officials argue that the Canadian government has failed to respect India’s territorial integrity within the context of the Sikh separatist problem. Some scholars argue that such a policy weakens India’s internal stability. India is now accusing Canada of engaging separatist Sikhs in order to make political capital and, therefore, escalate tensions. Many within India perceived this not only as a security problem but also as a diplomatic humiliation. This means that Canada is not serious about supporting India in its fight against what the latter considers as acts of terrorism.
One of the main problems of this conflict is that Canada demands India to provide “substantive evidence” that proves India’s non-guilty in Nijjar’s case. The intelligence assessment from Canada has not been made public, and other Western allies have responded cautiously so far. Regarding India, this argument appears to be conjectural and blatantly political. On the other hand, some critics believe that since the Trudeau administration is struggling domestically, it uses this incident to build support from the Sikh diaspora in Canada and increase the vote bank. From this, it appears to be a local sympathy-seeking process rather than a seeking process, even if that was at the expense of contradicting diplomatic methods of the international society. This is the view held by the Indian government. Some of the things Canada has said make one think that this is an effort to shift focus away from internal issues and get the backing of a prominent political bloc.
Canada’s allies, like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, have not openly supported Canadian claims and accusations. They have decided to protect the right to disclosures and proper investigation. Despite a friendly relationship with Canada, these states understand India as an actor in the Indo-Pacific region, mainly as an opponent to China. This prudent disposition presents an exciting picture of the complex balance now in the process of being achieved.
This lack of clear support from Canada’s allies can be attributed to this practicality; Canada cannot emphasize its relations with India for fear of straining its relations with this strategic associate in the realms of economy, military, and counterterrorism. The results presented by these nations show the difficulty of partnering with Canada without jeopardizing its strategic and commercial relations with India.
The present conditions have again awakened India’s age-old fears concerning the attitude of the Western countries towards the post-colonial states. Most people in India believe that the attitude adopted by Canada is more consistent with colonial mentality when it is linked to the issue of Sikh separatists. This perspective is characterized by the view that the Canadian leadership is preoccupied with its political agenda rather than obeying the diplomatic norms. India’s perception of the Canadian approach to this is considered imperialistic, impinging on Indian territory and the country’s security.
Canada may, in effect, be forcing India to adopt a more strident and proactive foreign policy and move away from Western values. This is perhaps an indication that Canada did not appreciate India’s position. The leadership in India must assert India’s sovereign freedom to protect its territory and interests internally and in relation to relations with other countries.
In the later years, India adopted a more balanced foreign policy goal of mediating between the East and the West to afford its strategic independence. This tendency is supported by the fact that the country participated in the BRICS summit, had a well-developed relationship with other emerging nations, and aimed at building partnerships with nations that are not affiliated with the Western powers. India is slowly waking up to its eastern power and has shown more interest in interacting with those states who accept Indian sovereignty and are ready to embrace the concept of multi-polarity.
This is contrary to the traditional policy of ‘bloc’ alignment, as was seen during the Cold War. Instead, it is much closer to what is tried to be understood as the global South – an approach that establishes relationships based on mutual recognition and non-violation. India intends to develop a policy that will rhetorically balance South Asian identity with Western affiliations due to its recent participation in Eastern organizations, including the SCO and the BRICS. Moreover, the growing bilateral cooperation between India and the countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America aligns with this desire.
The Canada-India Diplomatic Dispute is the best example of the multifaceted nature of contemporary interstate relations with particular references to the modern emerging powers. This episode has shown that India is dissatisfied with what it considers the global West’s indifference to its own problems, especially on sovereignty and security. Many individuals in India have perceived Canadians’ position as politically inspired and insensitive to India’s continuing security concerns regarding Khalistani militants.
This event has helped to clarify the details of India-West relations, based on which, having chosen affiliations with Western countries as its priorities, India will not jeopardize its objectives. It has published the understanding of intergovernmental relations in the ever-broadly linked world that is difficult for governments to manage. This is so because Canada’s allies have largely refrained from taking a policy of authoritarianism.
The protracted standstill of Canada-India diplomatic relations may turn out to be a critical juncture in Indian foreign policy: guaranteeing India’s sovereignty and promotion of fair relations between the eastern and the western countries. India aims to lay the foundation for a country that recognizes international partnerships yet expects its counterpart to respect India’s commitments and vice versa for established and aspiring trade partners. This forms relationships with both existing partners and new reforming emerging economies. This paradigm might affect how the International System manages diplomatic crises, especially when emerging powers try to assert their interest internationally.
