Canada’s Frosty Relations with India
Rohan Rajesh
As tensions between China and the West continue to rise, India has been viewed as a democratic Asian alternative to help contain Chinese expansionism. While India has had comfortable relations with most western powers, one exception remains – Canada. Relations between Canada and India have faced many frictions for the past forty years or so over one issue. Most recently, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made comments expressing concern over the farmers’ protests in India. The protests, the most significant challenge to Modi since the anti-CAA protests last year, have been concentrated in the Punjab state, the majority of whose population is Sikh. India was furious, and one word hung like a cloud in the minds of Indian policymakers, which has poisoned relations between India and Canada for decades: Khalistan.
Khalistan is a separatist ideology that calls for an independent state for the Sikhs of the Punjab region of northwest India. During the Partition of India, the Punjab region was divided between India and Pakistan, with Muslims fleeing west and Hindus and Sikhs fleeing east. For much of India’s post-independence history, the idea of Khalistan had always been a fringe ideology. Sikhs formed a substantial part of the Indian independence movement, military, and government, and the Punjab region has been India’s breadbasket since the Green Revolution. At the same time, in the overall Punjab region (which includes the states of Punjab, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh), Hindus form the majority. In the Punjab state, in particular, Sikhs comprise the majority but with a substantial Hindu minority. So, the feasibility of a landlocked Sikh state with a significant Hindu minority has always been a question mark.
Still, the Khalistan movement gained significant momentum in the 1980s, mainly over concerns about the diversion of river water. Violence against Hindus, moderates, and government officials increased. In 1984, Sikh extremists fleeing Indian security forces hid in the Golden Temple. The Golden Temple is to Sikhism what Mecca is to Islam. So, when the Indian government stormed and fired bullets and artillery at the temple to flush out the extremists, there was a predictably negative reaction from the Sikh community. Although most Sikhs did not support the terrorists, many were furious with the government for using excessive force and damaging their holy site. Then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her two Sikh bodyguards over the issue. That led to a horrific anti-Sikh pogrom in North India (particularly in Delhi), mostly stoked by Gandhi’s Indian National Congress party, and the actors responsible were not prosecuted.
From there, the insurgency in Punjab gained significant momentum, and the killings continued. It was widely suspected that Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI, was supporting the insurgents, leading New Delhi to crack down harshly. The strategic importance for New Delhi of containing the insurgency is hard to understate. The region borders Pakistan and is close to the national capital, Sikhs form a significant part of the military, and the region is critical to India’s food security.
The situation continued to worsen through the eighties and the nineties. Eventually, the Indian government managed to force the movement underground, many Sikhs became disillusioned with the Khalistan movement, and since 1995 the insurgency in Punjab has mostly been a non-issue. That said, India still looks apprehensively at any perceived threats to its territorial integrity, which brings us to its tense relations with Canada.
The Sikh diaspora in Canada is extremely influential. Even though they only form 1% of Canada’s population, their effective organization, and a particular quirk in Canada’s electoral system magnify their importance. Unlike in the US, Canadian candidates for Parliament for each party are selected based on the number of signatures they get from party members and voters rather than by a general primary vote. This “pay-to-play” system rewards organized interests who can get more signatures. This explains why, despite their small numbers, there are more Sikhs in Canada’s House of Commons and cabinet than in the equivalents in India. It also explains why even a minority within a minority (like Canadian Sikh supporters of Khalistan) can gain so much influence.
In the 1980s, members of the Sikh diaspora in Canada and other western countries provided significant support to the Khalistan movement. In 1985, the deadliest act of aviation terrorism before 9/11 and the worst terrorist attack in Canadian history occurred when Canadian Sikh extremists placed a bomb on an Air India flight traveling from Montreal to Delhi. All 329 people on board, including 268 Canadian citizens, 27 British citizens, and 24 Indian citizens, were killed. Although the Khalistan movement may have died down in India, in the West, a minority within the Sikh minority has played a visible role in supporting Khalistan.
This dynamic has led to awkward situations in India-Canada relations. In 2018, Trudeau made an official trip to India. Unfortunately, Trudeau’s office sent an invitation to a Sikh extremist convicted of attempted murder. The extremist in question, Jaspreet Atwal, was found guilty of trying to murder an Indian minister in 1986 and was blamed for an assault on British Columbia’s then-premier Ujjal Dosanjh, a moderate Sikh who vociferously opposes Khalistan and violent extremism. The invitation was rescinded, but not before Atwal had taken pictures with Mr. Trudeau’s wife. The Indian government was understandably miffed, and that incident set the tone for the rest of the disastrous trip.
Many commentators have pointed to the incident as one of many where Khalistanis have been able to penetrate Canadian politics and Trudeau’s Liberal Party, in particular. In 2017, Trudeau attended a parade for Khalsa Day (the Sikh New Year). That parade included floats glorifying Khalistani militants. There are several other incidents you can find quite easily on the internet. The bottom line is that these issues are undermining Canada’s relationship with India at a time when Canada wants to diversify its portfolio on issues ranging from trade to defense.
Obviously, the Canadian government cannot and should not try to stop peaceful demonstrations just to placate India. Doing so would undermine Canadian democracy no matter how disagreeable the speech is. However, there are obvious steps the Canadian government can take to avoid awkward situations with India. For one, it should recognize that there are bigger human rights issues elsewhere that involve Canada more directly than the farmers’ protests. Criticizing Indian police tactics while selling weapons to Saudi Arabia (whose actions in Yemen have created the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis) does not demonstrate Canada’s commitment to unequivocally standing up for human rights. Ideally, the pay-to-play system should be reformed in favor of a primary system where all voters get to decide on the candidates.
At the same time, the Indian government should stop overreacting to the public musings of foreign politicians. Only insecure countries worry about what others think of their internal affairs. What the Prime Minister of Canada says about protests in India is not going to reignite the Khalistan movement. Increased Canadian sensitivity to Indian security concerns and decreased Indian reactivity to these statements will enable the two countries to focus on more important issues like trade, climate change, and upholding a rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific.