Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has significantly strained his country’s relations with India, basing his accusations on intelligence rather than verified evidence, according to Sanjay Kumar Verma, India’s High Commissioner to Canada, who shared his perspective before departing from Ottawa. The diplomatic row emerged after Trudeau accused India of involvement in the killing of Khalistani separatist leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar. These accusations were firmly denied by India, with Verma openly expressing the “mistrust” directed towards Trudeau’s administration and the perception that pro-Khalistan elements were being consistently encouraged by the Canadian government.
Sanjay Kumar Verma, in an interview aired on a news channel, emphasised that Indian authorities have not received any concrete evidence regarding the allegations, describing the accusations as politically motivated. He questioned the political independence of the Canadian police, suggesting that Trudeau had “destroyed” the relationship with India based on intelligence without pursuing judicial due process. Despite the diplomatic challenges, Verma affirmed that Canada would continue to be a friend of India and noted that non-political ties would likely remain unaffected.
Verma questioned why, if Trudeau and his team truly had evidence of India’s involvement in Nijjar’s murder, no legal charges had been filed. He pointed out the absence of any formal judicial process and raised questions regarding the credibility of the accusations. He also noted the growing concern over the pro-Khalistani movement in Canada, which, according to him, represented a core issue for India. He stated, “That’s my national interest. That’s my core concern with Canada, which is trying to tear up Indian territory.”
When asked if anything illegal had been done by the Indian side, Verma denied any covert actions, stating that India’s interest was solely in monitoring the activities of Khalistani elements, all of which were done overtly. Verma maintained that, as India’s High Commissioner, he had not engaged in any illegal actions and reiterated the commitment of India to act responsibly, stating, “Never, with full responsibility,” when questioned about targeting individuals.
Verma also condemned the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, saying that any murder is wrong, and called for thorough investigations based on shared evidence. He stressed the need for evidence sharing, similar to procedures followed in extradition cases, and reiterated India’s willingness to cooperate in getting to the truth. He highlighted the importance of avoiding double standards and remarked on the existence of extrajudicial killings by some G7 countries, emphasising that India, as the world’s largest democracy, refrains from such actions.
He said, “It should not happen anywhere in the world. I know the countries which have done it, and some of them are G7 countries. By the way, let’s not talk about it. There should not be double standards. So, as far as we are concerned, the largest democracy in the world, we are committed not to do extrajudicial killings on any territory.”
Commenting on the U.S. indictment related to an alleged plot against pro-Khalistan figure Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, Verma underscored that an indictment is not equivalent to a conviction. He indicated that India was ready to follow the judicial process, even establishing a high-level committee to assist the Americans. However, Verma pointed out that his mandate was focused on India-Canada relations, not India-U.S. relations, and therefore could not comment extensively on the matter.
On the alleged connection between Nijjar’s murder and the Pannun case, Verma refuted the idea, stating that Canada did not follow proper protocols, such as sharing evidence with India before Trudeau’s public statements. Verma expressed dismay at Trudeau’s decision to address the allegations in the Canadian parliament, particularly without presenting any substantial evidence, which further soured the bilateral relationship. “The day on which he did that, since then, he has made sure that bilateral relations with India only go downwards, spiralling down,” he remarked.
Verma also cast doubt on the political independence of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), questioning how truly independent they were from political influence. He pointed out the inconsistency of their statements, noting that only days before Trudeau’s public accusations, the RCMP stated that they had no evidence to share. He suggested that no institution could remain completely isolated from political dynamics, hinting at the possibility of political motivation behind the accusations.
Verma criticised Trudeau for relying on intelligence reports to undermine a bilateral relationship, implying that such actions lacked diplomatic maturity. He also discussed the changing behaviours of individuals linked to the Khalistan movement, many of whom arrived in Canada as international students and later became involved in separatist activities. Verma expressed his uncertainty about what influenced these individuals and how they transitioned into becoming criminals.
Verma characterized the supposed evidence collected by Canadian authorities as hearsay, mentioning that individuals linked to the Khalistan movement were primarily involved in spreading anti-India rhetoric. He expressed scepticism about the reliability of the intelligence, as much of it was derived from sources with a clear anti-India bias. “Most of them are those who are pro-Khalistan elements, anti-India elements, anti-India-Canada elements, and then they take that as evidence,” he remarked.
He voiced deep mistrust towards Trudeau’s government, accusing them of encouraging Khalistani extremists and alleging that some of these individuals were even “deep assets” of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). He highlighted his concerns that these extremists were consistently receiving support, which was damaging to India-Canada relations.
Regarding the diplomatic personnel exchange between India and Canada, Verma mentioned that the replacement of diplomats is a matter between the two governments. Despite the significant diplomatic strain, he reiterated that the overall relationship between the two countries remained broad and multifaceted. He emphasised that while there may be political tensions, Canada had been and would continue to be a friend of India. He expressed hope that the Canadian government would eventually acknowledge India’s concerns and take necessary steps to address the situation, particularly with regard to individuals threatening India’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Verma further underscored the significant Sikh population within India, noting that they participate actively in the democratic process, with voter turnout often surpassing that of Canadian elections. He made a strong statement that the fate of India would be decided by Indians, emphasising that those who were promoting the Khalistan movement in Canada were Canadian citizens, not Indians. Verma criticised the Canadian government’s stance, insisting that no government should permit or encourage their citizens to attack the sovereignty and territorial integrity of another country.
Finally, Verma indicated that people-to-people relations between India and Canada, as well as trade, cultural, educational, and scientific exchanges, would not be significantly impacted by the current diplomatic row. He stressed that the broader relationship was unaffected by the political tension and remained hopeful that collaboration in non-political areas would continue without major disruptions. He concluded by expressing a desire for the Canadian government to genuinely understand and respect India’s core concerns, rather than align with forces that aim to challenge India’s sovereignty.
The recent spat between Canada and India underscores the complex dynamics between intelligence, politics, and diplomacy. While both nations maintain numerous shared interests and a longstanding history of collaboration, the allegations concerning Nijjar’s murder have put unprecedented strain on their diplomatic relations. As both governments navigate this challenging period, the emphasis on maintaining an open dialogue, evidence-based discussions, and mutual respect remains crucial for ensuring that political disagreements do not entirely overshadow the multifaceted and historic relationship between the two nations.