While India has dismissed Trudeau’s charges as “absurd” and “motivated”, the presence of Khalistani separatist groups in Canada has long been a concern for New Delhi.

What made India issue such a strong response to Canada?

On Monday, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) confirmed receiving diplomatic communication from Canada on Sunday indicating that the Indian High Commissioner and other diplomats were “persons of interest” in a matter “related to an investigation in that country”.

While the specific case linked to this classification was not mentioned in the MEA release, it could be in connection to the killing of Nijjar, a 45-year-old Canadian citizen and Khalistani separatist who was shot dead as he left the Guru Nanak Sikh Gurdwara in Surrey, British Columbia, on June 18, 2023.

Nijjar had been designated as a terrorist by the National Investigation Agency in 2020. His killing is being investigated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), with Canada having arrested four Indian nationals in May 2024 in connection with the Nijjar case.

In response to Sunday’s communication from Canada, the MEA’s strongly worded response said, “The Government of India strongly rejects these preposterous imputations and ascribes them to the political agenda of the Trudeau Government that is centered around vote bank politics.”

Reiterating India’s past stance on the matter, the MEA added that since PM Trudeau’s allegations in September 2023, “the Canadian Government has not shared a shred of evidence with the Government of India, despite many requests from our side”.

The MEA statement went on to say that this latest step by Canada “follows interactions that have again witnessed assertions without any facts”, adding that “this leaves little doubt that on the pretext of an investigation, there is a deliberate strategy of smearing India for political gains”.

This flare up in tensions also comes shortly after Prime Minister Narendra Modi met Trudeau on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit in Laos, although New Delhi later clarified that no “substantive discussion” had taken place between the two leaders.

Categorically dismissing Canada’s latest allegations against Indian High Commissioner Sanjay Verma and other diplomats, the MEA statement said, “High Commissioner Sanjay Kumar Verma is India’s senior-most serving diplomat with a distinguished career spanning 36 years. He has been Ambassador in Japan and Sudan, while also serving in Italy, Turkiye, Vietnam and China. The aspersions cast on him by the Government of Canada are ludicrous and deserve to be treated with contempt.”

The statement added that New Delhi “has taken cognizance of the activities of the Canadian High Commission in India that serve the political agenda of the current (Canadian) regime”, and went on to note that this had led to “the implementation of the principle of reciprocity in regard to diplomatic representation”.

This was in reference to when New Delhi last year called on Canada to reduce its diplomatic staff in India to ensure “mutual parity” in representation, following Trudeau’s initial accusations in the Nijjar case. The Indian government had also accused some Canadian diplomats of interfering in its internal affairs. In response, Canada withdrew 41 diplomats from India.

“Mutual parity” in diplomatic representation means that both countries should have an equivalent number of diplomats stationed in each other’s capitals, with such a move serving as a countermeasure to address any perceived imbalances or as a form of protest in international diplomacy, especially during times of strained relations.

What did MEA say India could do next?

“India now reserves the right to take further steps in response to these latest efforts of the Canadian Government to concoct allegations against Indian diplomats,” the MEA statement said, in what appeared to be a clear warning to Ottawa.

How this might play out on the ground is not known yet, however, the warning came right after the MEA statement took note of the past instance of “implementation of the principle of reciprocity”.

What did MEA say about Trudeau?

The MEA’s Monday statement accused Prime Minister Trudeau of using this matter to serve a political agenda, alleging that he harboured long-standing “hostility” towards India.

Claiming that Prime Minister Trudeau’s “hostility to India has long been in evidence”, the MEA statement said that in 2018, his visit to India, “which was aimed at currying favour with a vote bank, rebounded to his discomfort”.

The statement went on to say that Trudeau’s Cabinet has “included individuals who have openly associated with an extremist and separatist agenda regarding India”.

Not stopping there, the MEA said Trudeau’s “naked interference in Indian internal politics in December 2020 showed how far he was willing to go in this regard.” It added, “That his Government was dependent on a political party, whose leader openly espouses a separatist ideology vis-à-vis India, only aggravated matters.”

In December 2020, Trudeau’s remarks on the then ongoing farmers’ protests, which were demanding the scrapping of controversial agriculture laws, had been dubbed as “unwarranted” and “pertaining to the internal affairs of a democratic country” by New Delhi. Speaking at an online event to mark the 551st birth anniversary of Guru Nanak, Trudeau had said that the news coming out of India was “concerning” and that Canada would “always be there to defend the rights of peaceful protest”.

The leader being referred to in the MEA statement as the one who “openly espouses a separatist ideology” is most likely to be Jagmeet Singh, the leader of Canada’s New Democratic Party (NDP), who has been associated with supporting the Khalistan movement. In September 2024, Singh officially ended an agreement under which his party had been supporting Trudeau’s minority government since 2022.

The deal, which helped keep Trudeau’s minority government in power, was called a “supply and confidence” agreement, under which the NDP supported Trudeau’s Liberals in confidence votes. While the announcement does not automatically mean a federal election is imminent, it could lead to Canadians having to go to the polls before the election scheduled for October 2025. As explained by Singh after the NDP’s pullout, a non-confidence vote would be “on the table” with every confidence measure going forward. And, losing a confidence vote in parliament in Canada can trigger a general election.

What does India think about the timing of Canada’s latest allegations?

According to Monday’s MEA statement, under criticism for “turning a blind eye to foreign interference in Canadian politics”, Trudeau’s government “has deliberately brought in India in an attempt to mitigate the damage”.

“This latest development targeting Indian diplomats is now the next step in that direction. It is no coincidence that it takes place as Prime Minister Trudeau is to depose before a Commission on foreign interference,” said the MEA statement, adding, “It also serves the anti-India separatist agenda that the Trudeau Government has constantly pandered to for narrow political gains.”

In September 2023, Canada established the “Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions”. The first phase of the Commission’s work focused on alleged interference that China, Russia and other foreign actors may have engaged in, and any impact this could have had on the 2019 and 2021 federal Canadian elections.

While the first phase concluded with the release of the Commissioner’s Initial Report in May 2024, the second phase is now underway, in which the Commission will examine the Government of Canada’s capacity to “detect, deter and counter such interference”. Public hearings were slated to be held on these issues in September and October 2024. The Commission is required to submit a final report by December 31, 2024.

What did MEA say about India’s long-standing concerns?

Accusing the Trudeau government of “consciously” providing space to “violent extremists and terrorists to harass, threaten and intimidate Indian diplomats and community leaders in Canada”, including “death threats” against them, the MEA statement said that all these activities “have been justified in the name of freedom of speech”.

“Some individuals who have entered Canada illegally have been fast-tracked for citizenship.” said the statement, adding, “Multiple extradition requests from the Government of India in respect of terrorists and organised crime leaders living in Canada have been disregarded.”

A few days before the recent flare up, Trudeau had a brief encounter with Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the East Asia Summit in Laos.

Regarding the brief interaction in Laos on October 11, sources in New Delhi told The Indian Express that there had been “no substantive discussion” between the two leaders.

However, the sources told the national daily that New Delhi continued to expect that anti-India Khalistani activities would not be allowed on Canadian soil. The sources added that India expects that firm action, which has been lacking so far, would be taken against those “promoting violence, extremism, and terrorism against India from Canadian territory”.