The latest episode in the diplomatic fallout between India and Canada, sparked by allegations of Indian involvement in the assassination of separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in 2023, has pushed relations between the two nations to a breaking point. Both countries have expelled diplomats, accused each other of political motives, and escalated tensions in ways that threaten not only their bilateral ties but also broader global alliances.
For two democracies with much to gain from cooperation, the current trajectory benefits neither side. Instead, both nations must seek a way forward that emphasises diplomacy, mutual respect, and a clear understanding of shared interests.
This crisis has not only strained India-Canada relations but has also complicated matters for the United States, which finds itself balancing its partnerships with both countries. India is a vital partner in the West's Indo-Pacific strategy, an indispensable member of the QUAD, and a key counterbalance to China's growing influence in the region. Washington faces a difficult decision—how to navigate this diplomatic minefield without alienating either partner.
In this context, the solution requires a multi-pronged approach—one that acknowledges the legitimate concerns of both sides while fostering diplomatic dialogue and international mediation. Here's a roadmap for resolving the standoff.
Reframing Domestic Political Narratives
At the core of this crisis is the domestic political landscape in both countries. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is navigating the pressures of Canada’s large Sikh community, many of whom have strong opinions on the Khalistan movement. Prime Minister Modi, like his Canadian counterpart, is playing to domestic constituencies.
For Modi, the issue of Khalistan separatism, seen as an affront to India's territorial integrity, is deeply emotional and politically charged. By responding with such force, the Indian government is signalling its unwillingness to be undermined on the global stage.
To move forward, both leaders need to shift their political narratives away from catering to hardline constituencies and toward mutual respect and state sovereignty. Canada must address the concerns over its perceived leniency toward Khalistani separatist movements within its borders. While freedom of speech and assembly are core democratic values, Canada should ensure that these rights do not become a platform for violence or advocacy of terrorism.
India, on the other hand, needs to recognise that the expulsion of diplomats and combative rhetoric may fuel, rather than quell, separatist sentiments abroad. A more diplomatic approach that acknowledges Canada's legal processes while pressing for anti-terrorist cooperation (and potential joint operations with Canadian intelligence and special forces or legal routes against Canadians of Khalistan support ideology) would serve India's interests better.
However, it must be made clear by both that they value diversity, and that the Sikh community must neither be targeted nor labelled en masse.
Both governments should recalibrate their communication strategies, downplaying inflammatory rhetoric and instead framing the situation as one requiring mutual understanding and cooperation to resolve.
A 'Cooling Off' Period
Trudeau's decision to expel Indian diplomats and make the assassination a public issue suggests that domestic political concerns outweigh the potential diplomatic fallout with India.
The expulsions have inflamed the situation. It would be wise for both nations to engage in a “cooling-off” period, during which diplomatic personnel are allowed to return without preconditions.
During this time, a neutral, trusted, third-party partner such as the US, could call for a meeting in Washington that could potentially allow both nations to save face while addressing the root causes of the crisis, especially the hot allegations of state-sanctioned assassinations by India, and the support for extremists within Canada’s territory by the Canadian Government.
The US could either push for an impartial, evidence-based investigation or a papering over the differences and bury the hatchet such that both sides could trust each other through some measure of acknowledgement of each’s concerns, helping to restore confidence and pave the way for reconciliation.
Balancing Security and Freedom
The Khalistan movement has long been a thorn in India’s side, but Canada must recognise the potential for extremist elements to exploit its freedoms. To strike a balance, Canada could consider revisiting its policies on foreign extremist movements, much as other democracies have done when faced with transnational conflicts.
By working closely with India on intelligence-sharing and counterterrorism measures, Canada can demonstrate that it is committed to addressing India’s security concerns, without infringing on the legitimate rights of its Sikh citizens.
India, too, needs to understand that Canada’s stated commitment to freedom of speech and assembly is genuine and not a tacit endorsement of separatism. Indian officials should engage with Canadian authorities to find common ground on limiting the space for extremism without overstepping the bounds of liberal democratic principles.
Regular dialogue through joint counterterrorism task forces and intelligence-sharing agreements could reduce tensions by fostering mutual trust on this sensitive issue.
Strengthening Bilateral Institutions and Mechanisms
India and Canada share deep economic ties, particularly in areas like trade, technology, and education.
Both nations would benefit from institutionalising these relationships to prevent future diplomatic crises from overshadowing the broader bilateral relationship. Creating an India-Canada Bilateral Council, akin to the US-India Strategic Dialogue, would ensure continuous communication on all levels of diplomacy, trade, and security, fostering resilience in the relationship.
Such a council could establish working groups focused on the most contentious issues—counterterrorism, human rights, and diaspora relations—while promoting positive engagement in sectors like renewable energy, technology, and education.
By institutionalising dialogue, India and Canada can create mechanisms to prevent tensions from boiling over and ensure that future issues are resolved before they escalate into crises.
Reaffirming Commitment to Shared Global Interests
Both India and Canada are key players in the global liberal order. As democracies, they share many values, including respect for human rights, international law, and multilateralism. The current spat has overshadowed their potential for cooperation in global governance, climate change, and international trade.
By emphasising these shared interests, both countries can begin to de-escalate their current conflict.
Canada should reaffirm its commitment to India’s strategic importance in the Indo-Pacific region, recognising India as a critical partner in countering China’s rise. For its part, India could reaffirm its commitment to the principles of diplomacy and international law, sending a clear message that it is willing to resolve disputes through dialogue and respect for due process.
The United States, as a close ally of both nations, can play a constructive role here. Washington should encourage both Canada and India to refocus on their shared interests, particularly in multilateral forums like the G20 and the United Nations. By taking a more active role in brokering dialogue, the US can help both countries see the bigger picture—that cooperation, not conflict, serves their mutual interests.
US Role
As a member of NATO and the “Five Eyes,” Canada is more than just a neighbour—it is a security partner with which the US shares critical intelligence and defence strategies. Ignoring Canadian concerns or failing to support its accusations could create friction, albeit of a less severe kind than with India. For the US, therefore, the India-Canada dispute presents a delicate balancing act.
While Canada is a longstanding ally, the strategic importance of India in countering China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific cannot be ignored. Washington must use its influence to urge restraint on both sides, emphasising the need for a pragmatic, measured response that keeps broader geopolitical considerations in mind.
The US should quietly support the resumption of diplomatic talks between the two countries, perhaps offering its own good offices to facilitate dialogue if necessary. At the same time, Washington can engage in back-channel diplomacy to ensure that Canada’s concerns over extremism are addressed, while India’s security interests are respected. The US can also highlight the long-term benefits of India and Canada working together, not only in economic terms but also in promoting global stability.
India's role as a bulwark against authoritarian regimes like China, Russia, and Iran makes its partnership essential. While US-Canada ties are grounded in longstanding security and economic alliances, the strategic value of maintaining a strong relationship with India cannot be overstated. For Washington, the loss of India as a trusted partner in Asia would outweigh any short-term gains from siding with Canada on this issue.
Final Thoughts
The diplomatic rupture between India and Canada is a reminder that international relations are often vulnerable to the pressures of domestic politics and historical grievances. However, both countries have much to gain from resolving this crisis peacefully and constructively, and conversely, much to lose by letting it simmer and getting it worse as they have done so in the last few years.
By taking steps toward reframing political narratives, cooling tensions, and engaging in sustained, institutionalised dialogue, India and Canada can turn this moment of crisis into an opportunity for greater cooperation. The key to success lies in diplomacy, mutual respect, and a recognition of the larger global challenges and infinite possibilities for growth that both countries must come together for.
[Ambassador Manav Sachdeva is the Global Ambassador for President Zelenskyy’s Grain from Ukraine program. An academic with 25 years of experience leading initiatives in various countries such as Afghanistan, India, Lebanon, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Guyana, Liberia, Kosovo, he has held senior positions at the UN Headquarters in New York and in US institutions in Washington, DC. Views are personal.]
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)