Did Canada Jump the Gun in Announcing Allegations against India?
On September 18th, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced in the House of Commons that there were ‘credible allegations’ that Indian government agents were involved in the murder of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil. The victim, Hardeep Singh Nijar, was an Indian-born Sikh separatist leader who strongly advocated for the creation of Khalistan, a separate homeland for Sikhs in India’s Punjab region. His enthusiastic involvement in the movement caught the attention of the Indian government, who labelled him a terrorist in 2020. Nijar was the president of Guru Nanak Sikh Gurdwara, a place of worship for Sikhs in Surrey, British Columbia. He was shot just outside its doors by two masked gunmen on June 18th.
The Indian government has called Trudeau’s claims ‘absurd’ and has accused Canada of being a ‘safe haven for terrorists’. Soon after the initial allegations, Canada expelled a top Indian diplomat, and India responded by expelling a Canadian diplomat. Since then, the issue has snowballed. India announced a warning to its citizens living in Canada to ‘exercise extreme caution’ due to ‘growing anti-India activities and politically condoned hate crimes’ and has suspended all visa applications for Canadians. Canada-India relations have continued to deteriorate, with India instructing the Canadian government to remove 41 of its 62 diplomats from Delhi’s embassy by October 10th.
Given India’s growing international influence, many are questioning whether Trudeau made the right decision in announcing allegations against the Indian government before they were confirmed. In an interview on CBC’s radio show As it Happens, Canada’s minister of emergency preparedness, Harjit Sajjan, claimed that Trudeau addressed the public before the Canadian government’s investigation had concluded to pre-empt the media who were allegedly about to leak the issue. Sajjan explained that the Prime Minister wanted to provide Canadians with ‘accurate information’ before it reached headlines. Given that Canada is home to the largest Sikh population outside India, Sajjan’s argument as to Trudeau’s reasoning has some merit. Had the media announced the potential involvement of Indian agents in the shooting of Nijar before Trudeau, it may have sparked speculation regarding the Canadian government’s capacity and willingness to protect its Sikh population and prevent foreign covert intervention. By formally addressing the matter, Trudeau has lent legitimacy to claims that otherwise could have been written off as rumours until more conclusive evidence came to light.
Alternately, had the media leaked the story first, Canada could have appeared to be purposefully avoiding the issue, giving the impression that it considers its government to be too weak to stand up for itself in the international system. In Trudeau’s initial statement detailing the allegations against India, he made it clear that Canada would not roll over when threatened by external forces, stating that ‘any involvement of a foreign government in the killing of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil is an unacceptable violation of [Canada’s] sovereignty’. Here, Trudeau is attempting to convey a message of Canada’s strength in demonstrating the country’s determination to defend its sovereignty. However, all Canada has done to punish India thus far is publicly accuse its government agents of orchestrating a murder that is still undergoing investigation and expel one Indian diplomat. In neglecting to take any substantive action to hold India accountable, Canada is broadcasting to foreign governments that the country will do little more than publicly shame their adversaries. Therefore, in rushing to accusation before obtaining conclusive evidence and creating a cohesive response, the Canadian government has inadvertently portrayed itself to foreign states as impulsive and disorganised rather than strategic and powerful.
In addition to displaying its poor planning skills on the international stage, the Canadian government's short-sighted efforts to appease Canada’s Sikh population and protect Canadian sovereignty have significantly harmed its relationship with India. Canada’s actions have resulted in economic ramifications and a hindered ability to implement its Indo-Pacific Strategy.
Before their dispute, the Canadian and Indian governments were working towards the creation of an India-Canada Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA). This agreement intended to strengthen economic cooperation between the two countries by boosting trade and investment flows. However, negotiations towards an Early Progress Trade Agreement (EPTA), a transitional step towards the CEPA, have been put on hold in light of the souring relations. On top of facing deteriorating trade relations with one of the world’s fastest growing economies, tensions between Canada and India could lead to a significant reduction in Canada’s immigration rates, as almost one in five of all recent immigrants to Canada were born in India. Furthermore, 40% of all international students studying in Canada in 2022 came from India, making Indian students a critical source of revenue for Canadian academic institutions. Because the largest share of post-graduate work permit holders in Canada in 2018 were Indian graduates from Canadian university programs, if the flow of international students from India decreases, Canada’s labour force will be directly impacted.
Launched at the end of 2022, Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy was designed to foster a sustainable, conscientious, and engaged Canadian presence in the broader Indo-Pacific. The decision to pause negotiations on the EPTA has thrown a wrench in Canada’s plans, as the CEPA is central to its strategy. Furthermore, as a rising global power, the United States and other democratic countries consider India to be a crucial ally, providing a regional counterweight to China. This perception of India has granted it significant influence over the Indo-Pacific region, meaning that faltering relations will likely interfere with Canada’s ability to implement its foreign policy goals. For instance, if strained relations persist between the two nations, Canada may face exclusion from Indo-Pacific organisations it has been trying to join, such as the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity. Exclusion could occur both because India’s regional allies are wary of upsetting the Indian government and because India itself could block Canadian membership. Not having a seat at the table in discussions surrounding the future of the Indo-Pacific will leave Canada with fewer opportunities to advocate for its national interests in the development of the region.
Had Trudeau held off on announcing the allegations until more conclusive evidence was available, the Canadian government may have had enough time to fully consider the challenges entering a dispute with India would present. In failing to do so, Trudeau has not only cast doubt on Canada's strategic planning abilities but has also damaged its relationship with India on multiple fronts. The direct repercussions of the fallout between Canada and India, including disrupted trade relations and potential declines in immigration and international student enrolments from India, pose substantial challenges for Canada's economy. Furthermore, the conflict has hindered Canada's ability to implement its Indo-Pacific Strategy, a vital foreign policy initiative. The pause in negotiations for the EPTA and the risk of exclusion from Indo-Pacific organisations underscore the strategic missteps made in handling this issue.
In a world where India's influence is on the rise, Canada's response to this crisis demonstrates the importance of careful diplomacy, thorough investigation, and considered strategy. The repercussions of this crisis serve as a reminder of the complexities of international relations in an interconnected global landscape, where hasty actions can have lasting effects. It is crucial for Canada to navigate these challenges carefully and rebuild its relationship with India to secure its interests in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.
Image courtesy of the Prime Minister's Office (India) via Wikipedia, ©2018. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
