India’s Critique on Canada’s Response to Trudeau Threats

India has criticized Canada for what it calls “double standards” in its approach to addressing threats against political leaders and diplomats. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) of India expressed dissatisfaction with Canada’s swift action in arresting two individuals for online threats against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau while allegedly being lenient towards Khalistani elements targeting Indian diplomats.

Introduction: In a recent media briefing, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal highlighted India’s concerns about Canada’s inconsistent approach to law enforcement and freedom of expression. He emphasized the need for Canada to take strong action against anti-India elements who have repeatedly threatened Indian leaders, institutions, airlines, and diplomats with violence.

Background: The bilateral relationship between India and Canada has been strained since last year when Prime Minister Trudeau accused Indian government agents of being involved in the killing of Khalistani activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar. India dismissed these allegations as baseless and motivated. The situation worsened when the BAPS Swaminarayan Temple in Edmonton, Alberta, was vandalized with anti-India graffiti. Canadian MP Chandra Arya, of Indian origin, expressed concern over the growing influence of Khalistani extremists in the country.

The Recent Incident: The recent arrests in Canada, involving two men from Alberta, were related to online threats against Canadian political leaders, including Trudeau, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, and New Democratic Party leader Jagmeet Singh. On June 6, a 23-year-old man was arrested for threatening to kill Trudeau. A week later, a 67-year-old man from Edmonton was arrested for making similar threats. India’s MEA has urged Canada to show the same urgency in addressing threats against Indian diplomats.

Analysis of Canada’s Response: India’s call for action highlights a perceived double standard in Canada’s handling of threats. While swift action was taken in the case of threats against Canadian leaders, India argues that similar urgency has not been shown in dealing with threats from Khalistani elements against Indian diplomats. This discrepancy raises questions about Canada’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and addressing extremism in a consistent manner.

The Role of Khalistani Elements: Khalistani elements in Canada have been a point of contention between the two countries. These groups advocate for the creation of an independent Sikh state, Khalistan, and have been involved in activities that India considers hostile. The vandalism of the BAPS Swaminarayan Temple is one example of the actions attributed to these groups. India’s call for action against such elements is rooted in concerns about their growing influence and the potential threat they pose to diplomatic relations.

Conclusion: India’s criticism of Canada underscores the complex and often contentious nature of international relations, particularly when domestic politics and extremist groups intersect. As both nations navigate these challenges, the call for consistent application of the rule of law remains a key point of contention. The resolution of these issues will require diplomatic engagement and a commitment to addressing extremism in all its forms.

Aakhir Tak Editor-in-Chief

See Full Bio