Diplomatic relations between India and Canada have been under intense scrutiny in recent years, especially as both nations grapple with the thorny issue of Sikh separatism and the Khalistan movement. On October 21, 2025, the debate took on new urgency after a former official from Canada’s National Security Intelligence Agency (NSIA) revealed that India had never provided its own evidence regarding concerns about Sikh separatists operating in Canada. This revelation, reported by CTV News, has added fuel to an already smoldering fire, with both countries trading barbs and seeking to defend their national interests.
At the heart of the matter is the Khalistan movement, a campaign advocating for an independent Sikh state in India’s Punjab region. While the movement has a long and complicated history, its international dimension—particularly in the Canadian context—has become a major sticking point in bilateral relations. India has repeatedly expressed frustration that Canada has not done enough to suppress pro-Khalistan activity on its soil, while Canadian officials have maintained that their country’s laws and values protect freedom of expression, even for controversial or unpopular causes.
India’s new High Commissioner to Canada, Dinesh Patnaik, has been especially vocal on the issue. In a recent interview with CTV, Patnaik categorically rejected allegations that Indian diplomats had been involved in criminal acts within Canada. He called such accusations “preposterous and absurd,” underscoring New Delhi’s official stance. According to Patnaik, “Canada cannot look at this situation as an Indian problem. It’s a Canadian problem. There are Canadians who are creating this problem... I find it strange that a high commissioner here has to be under protection. I’m under protection. I should not be under protection in a country like this.”
Patnaik’s remarks reflect a broader Indian frustration with what it sees as Ottawa’s reluctance to address the law-and-order implications of Sikh separatism domestically. He argued that the threats posed by Khalistan supporters in Canada are not for New Delhi to handle, but rather a challenge for Canadian authorities themselves. “What we are talking about now are the different security scenarios that are happening in this country... Security scenarios where there is a group of people who are actually terrorising, keeping the relationship under hostage... How do we deal with them? How do we deal with the law-and-order situation?” Patnaik asked, making clear his view that the onus is on Canada to act.
The diplomatic spat escalated dramatically last year when then-Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau alleged that Indian agents were involved in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Sikh separatist leader, on Canadian soil. The claim, which reverberated internationally, was met with swift and unequivocal denial from India. Patnaik reiterated this position, saying the allegations were “without any substantial evidence.” He went further, stating, “We are still waiting for any evidence to be given,” and insisted that “any extra-territorial action by India is never done.”
Meanwhile, the Canadian side has struggled to produce compelling evidence to substantiate its claims. According to the former NSIA official cited by CTV News, India never provided its own evidence regarding Sikh separatist activities in Canada, complicating efforts to reach a diplomatic resolution. This lack of tangible proof has allowed both sides to dig in their heels, with each accusing the other of failing to act in good faith.
Despite the tensions, there have been recent signs of a thaw in India-Canada relations. Much of the credit for this improvement, according to Patnaik, goes to Canada’s new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. Patnaik was quick to praise Carney’s leadership, noting, “We might have been here a little earlier or later. You can’t keep two large countries apart for long. Donald Trump played a role, but I think it’s your new Prime Minister Mark Carney who played a very big role in getting things back to normal.” Patnaik’s comments suggest that while normalization was likely inevitable, Carney’s approach has helped accelerate the process.
Carney’s government has made overtures to New Delhi in an effort to reset the bilateral relationship. According to Patnaik, the renewed talks between India and Canada have focused on “the entire security situation,” including the contentious issue of the Khalistan movement. Both sides appear to recognize that their economic and strategic interests are too significant to be held hostage by a single dispute, no matter how emotionally charged.
Yet the question remains: how can Canada and India move forward when deep-seated mistrust persists? The lack of evidence-sharing, as highlighted by the former NSIA official, has become a major stumbling block. Without transparency and cooperation, it’s hard to see how allegations—however serious—can be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.
For India, the issue is as much about sovereignty as it is about security. New Delhi has long condemned the Khalistan movement, viewing it as a threat to national unity and stability. The presence of pro-Khalistan activists in Canada is seen as a direct challenge, and Indian officials have not been shy about expressing their displeasure. On the other hand, Canada’s legal framework and multicultural ethos make it difficult for Ottawa to crack down on political activism, even when it ruffles diplomatic feathers.
Patnaik’s insistence that the problem of Sikh separatism is “created by Canadians and must be treated as a Canadian law-and-order challenge” underscores this fundamental difference in perspective. For Indian officials, the expectation is clear: Canada must take responsibility for what happens within its borders, just as India would.
As both countries strive to put their relationship on a more stable footing, the challenge will be to find common ground without compromising core values. The role of evidence—its collection, sharing, and evaluation—will be critical. Without it, accusations will continue to fly, and suspicions will linger.
In the meantime, the diplomatic dance continues. Both sides appear committed to dialogue, even as they maintain their respective positions. As Patnaik noted, “You can’t keep two large countries apart for long.” Whether that optimism is justified will depend on the willingness of both governments to address the root causes of mistrust—and to do so in a manner that respects each other’s sovereignty and legal norms.
For now, at least, the world is watching as India and Canada navigate one of their most challenging chapters in recent memory—hoping that dialogue and diplomacy will ultimately prevail over suspicion and division.
