Bilateral ties between New Delhi and Ottawa plunged to new lows after Canada blocked access to an Australian news outlet that aired a press conference featuring India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong. In the conference, held in Canberra, Jaishankar had issued strong remarks regarding the India-Canada standoff, specifically criticizing Canada’s tolerance towards Khalistani extremism within its borders.
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in New Delhi expressed “surprise” and “disappointment” at Canada’s action, labeling it as “strange” and accusing Canada of “hypocrisy on free speech.” MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal stated that Canada’s move highlights a “blatant inconsistency” in its stance on freedom of expression. Canada’s blocking of the news outlet, The Australia Today, has raised questions about its commitment to democratic principles, particularly free speech, especially since the restriction occurred shortly after Jaishankar’s critical comments on Canada’s handling of extremist activities.
This incident highlights the complex relationship between India and Canada, both of whom are also partners with Australia in the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance. Although this partnership was designed to foster trust and collaboration, recent events have strained India-Canada relations. Canada previously raised allegations, without evidence, suggesting India’s involvement in the death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a known Khalistani activist. In Canberra, Jaishankar firmly rejected these claims, reiterating India’s position that such accusations are “unacceptable” without substantiation. He also emphasized that India considers the surveillance of its diplomats as an infringement of its sovereignty.
Several Canadians reported that The Australia Today’s social media pages and accounts became inaccessible soon after the outlet aired Jaishankar’s remarks. This platform, popular within the Indian diaspora, covers multicultural news and commentary on South Asia, including the Indian subcontinent. Jaiswal remarked on the timing, noting that the outlet’s blocking closely followed the publication of Jaishankar’s statements and related content on his Australian visit, including an interview with him. The MEA expressed concern over the “coincidental” timing, interpreting it as an act aimed at suppressing coverage of India’s stance on its strained relations with Canada. According to Jaiswal, this move “yet again highlights Canada’s double standards on freedom of speech.”
India also announced the cancellation of several scheduled consular camps in Canada due to security concerns raised by Canadian authorities. According to MEA sources, Canadian security agencies had informed Indian officials that they could not provide adequate security for the camp organizers. As a result, many Indians in Canada, who depend on these camps for essential documentation, particularly at the end of the year, now face the inconvenience of rescheduling or missing these services. These consular camps help members of the diaspora complete paperwork for pensions and other official documentation in India. However, recent disruptions, including a violent incident at an event organized by the Hindu Sabha temple in Brampton, have added to the MEA’s security concerns.
The cancellation of these camps is disappointing for the Indian-Canadian community, which relies on them for important administrative tasks. Still, the Indian government clarified that it would continue similar camps in other areas of Canada, such as Vancouver, where local authorities can provide adequate security. According to Jaiswal, these consular camps are typically held at the request of community groups, with security assurances as a prerequisite. “Where the community organization is comfortable, we will go ahead with these consular camps,” Jaiswal said, adding that safety remains a priority.
Jaishankar’s remarks in Canberra addressed these issues directly. In his statement, he criticized Canada’s lenient stance on Khalistani activities, highlighting Ottawa’s failure to control the anti-India activities taking place within its borders. He reiterated that India finds it unacceptable for Canada to surveil Indian diplomats and emphasized that New Delhi is deeply concerned about recent attacks on Hindu temples. Jaishankar argued that the increasing visibility of separatist groups in Canada reflects an “undesirable” political space given to extremism. Standing alongside Foreign Minister Wong, he stressed that India values freedom but draws the line when it is used as a pretext for divisive ideologies.
Jaishankar went on to underscore India’s position that Canada should restrict political space for those promoting extremism. His comments mirror New Delhi’s view that Canada’s approach to free speech is lenient to a fault. From India’s perspective, Canada’s policies on freedom of speech have facilitated the growth of a movement that threatens India’s security, while Ottawa frames its approach as adherence to democratic values. This gap in understanding has contributed to ongoing diplomatic tension, with New Delhi viewing the issue as one of national security and Canada treating it as a matter of civil liberty.
The current incident involving The Australia Today is emblematic of these tensions, with India condemning Canada’s selective censorship of an outlet reporting on India’s perspectives. India’s position is that Canada’s handling of such sensitive issues reflects a troubling inconsistency in its democratic values. For Canada, meanwhile, upholding free speech—even when it encompasses separatist sentiments—is viewed as an essential aspect of its societal fabric. India’s message to Canada, however, is clear: allowing separatist narratives in the name of free expression creates an environment where extremism is emboldened.
This latest diplomatic rift is expected to heighten the need for deeper discussions between the two countries. Both sides are likely to continue addressing these differences, especially as they impact their respective diaspora communities. As of now, many Indian-Canadians are feeling the impact of this strained relationship, especially those requiring consular assistance. India’s vocal response on Canada’s free speech stance serves as a reminder of the complex dynamics involved in diaspora politics and international security, especially within global alliances like the Five Eyes.
India’s insistence on consistency and accountability in matters of free speech and security highlights the depth of these diplomatic tensions. As both countries navigate their responses, their relationship remains marked by deep-seated differences in interpreting democratic freedoms. India’s criticism of Canada’s selective censorship, combined with its pointed remarks on the Khalistani issue, underscores a growing gap in diplomatic philosophy. This incident may compel both nations to reflect on their respective approaches to free speech and national security, and to reassess the principles that underlie their diplomatic ties.
