The situation became even more chaotic in the following months. In late November, reports emerged that the United States had thwarted a plot to kill Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a Sikh separatist, on American soil. Biden administration officials confirmed the incident, noting that they were discussing the issue with the Indian government. On November 29th, the Justice Department announced charges against Nikhil Gupta, an Indian national, alleging that he was directed by an Indian government employee to hire a hitman to assassinate Pannun. The unprecedented fallout between the three democratic countries has raised questions about India’s relationship with its diaspora and put a spotlight on the movement to establish a Sikh state. The history of the Khalistan movement, the support for Khalistan in the Sikh diaspora, and why the call for a Sikh homeland is louder overseas than among Indian Sikhs are all essential to understand in examining the current situation.

Nijjar and Pannun were leaders in the Khalistan movement, which calls for an independent state for Sikhs in the Punjab region. The movement and its history are long and bloody. The birthplace of several of the world’s major religions, India is one of the most religiously diverse countries in the world. Sikhism is a monotheistic religion founded in the Punjab region in the late 15th century and has about 25 million adherents worldwide, most of whom live in India. Calls for a Sikh homeland originated as the British Raj neared its end in the 1930s. During the partition of India in 1947, the British Punjab Province, where Sikhs were concentrated, was split between India and Pakistan. The result was a mass migration of Sikhs from the Pakistani Punjab to Indian Punjab.

The partition was a particularly painful time in South Asia as millions of Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs were displaced from their homes and hundreds of thousands were killed as violence erupted on both sides of the newly-drawn border. The tragedies of the partition inflamed religious tensions and led to concerns around Sikh identity, with many Sikhs lamenting their lack of autonomy within the new Hindu-majority India. Calls for an independent Sikh nation increased in the following decades and reached a deadly climax in the early 1980s. In 1982, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale emerged as a leading Sikh separatist leader and quickly gained thousands of supporters. Bhindranwale and his militant followers moved into the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the holiest site in Sikhism, in July of 1982. They then began stockpiling weapons and carried out a violent campaign that killed thousands. Tensions between the militants and the Indian government came to a head in June 1984, when Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi ordered the Indian Army to attack the Golden Temple complex in Operation Blue Star. After 4 days of intense fighting, the Indian Army regained control of the site. The operation left thousands dead, including Bhinranwale. Scores of civilians, mostly Sikh pilgrims, were also killed. 

The brutality of the incident angered the global Sikh community. Many viewed the operation as an attack on Sikhism. The fallout led to the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by two Sikh bodyguards four months later and subsequent anti-Sikh riots across India in which thousands were killed. Operation Blue Star also marked the start of a decade of unrest in Punjab as Khalistani insurgents undertook an armed campaign against the Indian government. The insurgency was eventually quelled by the mid-1990s through a combination of more effective Indian military operations and a collapse of support in the Sikh community. The violence stopped almost as quickly as it started, and Khalistani violence in Punjab is almost nonexistent today.

Since the 1990s, the Khalistan movement’s most vocal proponents have been a small minority of the Sikh diaspora. This is largely because of a divergence in experiences between Indian Sikhs and Sikhs who have emigrated from India. Large numbers of Sikhs left India in the 1980s and 1990s when armed conflict involving Sikh militants and communal violence against Sikhs was at its peak. Some Sikh immigrants view their journeys as an escape from persecution in India. These views have trickled down to future generations, leading to present support for Khalistan among a small number of diaspora Sikhs. Most Sikh immigrants settled in Europe or North America, with Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States hosting especially large communities. 

The 1980s saw a rise in extremism in the Sikh diaspora. In June of 1985, Canadian Sikh separatists planted a bomb on an Air India flight flying from Montreal to London. The explosion over the Atlantic Ocean killed all 329 people on board. To this day, the bombing is the deadliest terrorist attack in Canadian history and, until 9/11, was the worst terrorist attack in aviation history. Canadian officials suspect that the bombing was organized by Babbar Khalsa, a Sikh militant group that has a presence in South Asia and many western countries. Other pro-Khalistan groups such as the International Sikh Youth Federation and the Council of Khalistan, along with more peaceful Sikh groups such as the World Sikh Organization were founded by diaspora Sikhs in the early 1980s. In the 21st century, new Khalistani groups have been created, such as the US-based Sikhs for Justice (which Hardeep Singh Nijjar was associated with).

For Indian Sikhs, support for the Khalistan movement is remarkably low. In an interview with the CBC, one Punjabi Sikh stated, “There is a fierce anger here at the Indian government, in the sense that Punjab has been slighted and not given its due but also the sense that fighting for Khalistan isn’t the answer.” Another man served as a police officer in New Delhi in the 1980s. “There were dead bodies in the streets. Many don’t remember the dark days,” he said, describing the massacre of Sikhs in anti-Sikh riots. “Why would we want to return to that unrest?” he asked. 

In the Indian Sikh community, there is a widespread desire to maintain peace and most have integrated into the political mainstream. Many Indian Sikhs believe that support for the Khalistani movement has been greatly exaggerated. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has repeatedly chastised leaders of other countries for their lenient policies towards pro-Khalistan groups. He has argued that the Khalistan movement poses a significant threat to India’s national security. In reality, there is very little appetite for separatism among Sikhs in Punjab today. As a New York Times article put it, “Modi has amplified a separatist threat that in reality is largely a diaspora illusion.” These actions have benefitted him politically by projecting the image of a strongman leader who is willing to fight for his country. For Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party, using Khalistan as a political boogeyman carries a large political reward by energizing the BJP’s base, but the cost to India and especially the Sikh community has been considerable. Among Sikhs, there is the fear that this narrative of a Khalistani threat will heighten religious divisions, resurrecting violence from a painful period from which wounds are still fresh. There are also concerns in India that the dual crises in the United States and Canada will portray India as an irresponsible global power, threatening India’s quest to challenge China as leader of the Global South.

There have been considerable differences between the responses to the Nijjar assassination and the alleged plot to assassinate Pannun. The Indian governments’ reaction to accusations over Nijjar’s killing and the ensuing diplomatic battle were defined by a series of rebukes and mutual outrage, with the Indian press directing an inferno of criticism at Trudeau and questioning his allegations and personal character. The atmosphere in India after Trudeau’s announcement can be encapsulated in a tweet by Sushant Sareen, a Senior Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi: “If we did it, it was right; if we didn’t, you were wrong”. The United States and India have been more muted as they handle the fallout over Pannun. Part of the disparity can be attributed to the fact that, unlike Nijjar’s killing, the threat to Pannun never came to fruition. Nijjar was shot dead in June outside a Sikh temple in British Columbia. The Canadian government has yet to make any arrests in connection with the murder. Canada’s accusations also came to light in a far more dramatic fashion, by way of an address by PM Trudeau in Parliament. Canadian officials claimed that Trudeau chose this path after learning that the story was about to come out in the media.

In contrast, the revelations regarding Pannun were first reported by the British newspaper Financial Times before a White House spokesperson affirmed the account and stated that the U.S. had issued a diplomatic warning to India on account of the incident. The stifled reaction to the Pannun plot is likely due to the U.S. and India having far more to lose if their relationship sours. The Biden administration has made deepening ties with India as a counterweight to China a tenet of its foreign policy. For India, American investment is essential as the country seeks an economic miracle to rival China’s rise. The White House has drawn some criticism for not being more forceful in its condemnation and has focused on the investigation. Unlike the Canadian government, which claims that it cannot disclose its proof due to the necessity of protecting its intelligence sources, U.S. prosecutors decided to go to court with their evidence. The DOJ charged Nikhil Gupta a week after news of the plot emerged.

The allegations against India are especially surprising given that India had so little to gain from killing the Sikh separatists but would have risked so much. While Modi’s government might have viewed Canada as relatively insignificant on the world stage, numerous commentators pointed out that if India was caught lying about Nijjar’s killing, it would have done far greater damage to its international reputation than the Khalistani leader ever could have inflicted. Paradoxically, the accusations by the United States contributed to a de-escalation of the diplomatic standoff between India and Canada, with the Modi government choosing to proceed more carefully after the Pannun plot came into public view. 
Various actions will have to be taken for the three countries to weather the current crisis. As a small minority of India’s population, the Sikh community has long had to deal with feelings of alienation from the Indian state. However, the widespread desire among Sikhs in Punjab to put the separatist movement behind them means that Khalistan is no longer a major threat to India’s security. The members of the Sikh community who are the most supportive of an independent Sikh state are the furthest away from India. The ability of the Modi government to acknowledge this will play a pivotal role in whether India, Canada, and the U.S. will be able to move past the events of the past few months. Western nations have a role to play too. They need to protect free speech while also ensuring they don’t condone odious views. Many pro-Khalistan Sikhs have advocated peaceful change, but some, including Pannun, have been more forceful by threatening India and members of the Indian diaspora. Being more assertive in condemning this rhetoric could go a long way in assuaging Indian perceptions of dangers from abroad.

Featured/Headline Image Caption and Citation: Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken speaks with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the G20 Summit in Rome on October 31, 2021; photograph by Ron Przysucha | Image sourced from Flickr

Written by: Justin J. Lee, Trinity College, University of Toronto

The parallels between Louis St. Laurent’s 1947 speech on “The Foundations of Canadian Policy in World Affairs” (often known as the Gray Lecture) and Chrystia Freeland’s 2017 address in the House of Commons on the priorities of Global Affairs Canada make it seem that history repeats itself. St. Laurent, who at the time served as Secretary of State for External Affairs and later as Prime Minister, used the Gray Lecture to codify the principles that would guide Canada’s international relations through the post-war international order. Presently, at a time when countries like the United States are retreating from their international commitments, Freeland, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, calls for the renewal and strengthening of the post-war multilateral order. In fact, the minister signalled that Canada would take a greater role in the world by identifying the fight against climate change and the promotion of the rights of women and girls among the “new shared human imperatives.” Later in 2018, during her acceptance speech for the Washington-based Foreign Policy magazine’s diplomat of the year award, the minister focused on defending the idea of the rules-based international order. The justification and expansion of Canada’s international priorities in Freeland’s speeches indicate that the government recognizes that major geopolitical changes have occurred since 1947. Given such changes, it is interesting to consider whether Freeland’s parliamentary address and Washington speech are useful guides for present day foreign relations in the same way that the Gray Lecture was during the “golden era” of Canadian foreign relations. While the minister’s speeches contain a familiar message that Canadians have long supported, they demonstrate an unawareness of how to manage a strained relationship with the United States and deal with the changes that took place in the rest of the world.

The Gray Lecture came at a time of significant international change. The reordering of the world order in the period following the end of the Second World War neatly divided the East and the West by geography and ideology. It was, in retrospect, a predictable world in which there was a broad consensus at home and abroad that an international system of rules was required to avoid the conditions that led to war. St. Laurent did not propose any radical departures from the direction that the world was already headed towards. Instead, he formally committed Canada to upholding the rule of law in international affairs and declared the country’s “willingness to accept international responsibilities.” The Canadian government had the ability to act on its responsibilities because its ideological position aligned with that of the hegemonic United States. At the time, the US was willing to enforce a rules-based international order and has for decades been a reliable political, economic, and military ally. Despite occasional disagreements that arose between successive Canadian and American governments, the two countries maintained cooperation and served as a model for neighbor states. It is perhaps because of the long history of the strong Canada-US alliance that it was easy to forget the importance of having a partner in the White House. Today, Canadians are reminded of the importance of having a friendly, or at the very least, functional relationship with the US. In the past, the strategic, geographical, and economic interests the two countries shared made it necessary and possible to resolve matters despite differences in foreign policy. For example, although Canada refused to officially support US efforts in wars in Vietnam and Iraq, the neighboring countries maintained a robust relationship. This was in part because the conditions that allowed for the Gray Lecture to be effective remained in place for much of the latter half of the twentieth century. However, in just the past few years, the world has experienced major geopolitical changes. To that end, it is worth considering if the principles introduced by St. Laurent 70 years ago are still relevant today. With the world currently divided along complex axes, and with the American abandonment of the established international order, the minister’s idyllic message on the upholding of the rules-based international order seems outdated.

In an alternative universe, if perhaps anyone other than Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, Freeland’s message would have likely been useful in guiding relations with the US. However, a speech heralding integrity, facts, and the rule of law is at odds with a president who is known to be impulsive and unreliable. The absence of a cooperative partner in the White House particularly jeopardizes the all-important economic relationship that Canada has with the United States. Trump’s infamous jab toward Freeland during the long and tense NAFTA re-negotiation worried Canadians as it indicated that the traditionally strong relationship between the countries appeared to be at serious risk. It is worth noting that disagreements between Ottawa and Washington are not new and that tensions have risen to a boiling point in the past. The Nixon shock in 1971 that dismantled the Bretton Woods system alarmed Canadians and led to the idea of the Third Option, which were a set of policies meant to lessen the US economic and cultural influence on Canada. Despite the initial reaction, the Third Option did not materialize as designed and relations between the two countries normalized. The skilled foreign service officials of both Canada and the US have been recognized for steering the countries through contentious times and maintaining continental unity. It is therefore especially worrying that the US State Department has been commandeered and significantly downsized by Trump. Though it is true that previous American administrations have had intermittent relationships with the foreign service bureaucracy, they have not been liable for events like Trump’s exodus of officials that are vital to the preservation of the Canada-US alliance. But though it is clear that the relationship between the two countries has deteriorated, the NAFTA renegotiations eventually produced the USMCA. Canadians were relieved to know that an agreement that did not fundamentally compromise Canadian interests was reached. That said, future outcomes for Canada in the face of the current US administration remain uncertain. Petitions made by Freeland in her speeches have clearly been ignored. Therefore, the inclusion of practical approaches to dealing with the strained relationship with the US would have made the minister’s speeches more effective.

Louis St. Laurent inspired generations of Canadians to take greater responsibility in world affairs. Since 1947, Canada has been an active and influential member of the international institutions it has helped to create and regularly identifies with. It got what it wanted—a seat at the table—but can it bear the burden of defending decades-old international principles when the rest of the world does not share its views? In the years after the end of WWII, once Western Europe had rebuilt itself, and the world was being shaped by the powerful effects of globalization, the saliency of the Gray Lecture diminished. There is a recognition of this fact in Chrystia Freeland’s 2018 speech in Washington. The references to the assaults on liberal democracies, due on one hand to the hollowed middle class and stagnating wages, and authoritarianism on the other, make it clear that it is increasingly difficult to fervently stand for a rules-based international order. Still, repeating the plea from almost exactly one year prior, the minister doubles down on the insistence that the United States and Canada must “reform and renew the rules-based international order” that the countries have built together. However noble Canada’s intentions are, it is difficult to preach on the rule of law when it remains involved, without remorse, in a 15 billion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia—a country denounced for its record on human rights by Freeland herself, Canadian legislators, and human rights groups. Canada’s desire to expand its foreign policy has entangled the country in a web of competing interests that has required it to compromise on its stances. When Freeland rebuked Saudi Arabia for the jailing of dissidents in August 2018, Canada’s ambassador, Dennis Horak, was declared persona non grata—a status shared by Freeland in Russia. As explained by Lawrence Herman in The Globe and Mail, the severed relationship with Saudi Arabia presents a serious issue for Canadian foreign policy, because since Canada has had no political relationship with Iran since 2012, it is now “frozen out of the two most influential nations in the Middle East, seriously weakening its entire regional policy.” Even more concerning is its recently damaged relationship with China following its decision to detain the Chinese tech executive, Meng Wanzhou at the request of the US government for violating sanctions against Iran. Canada has found itself playing a dangerous game of diplomatic chicken with a hostile China without the support of the United States. Quoted in the National Post, Robert Bothwell highlights the tough reality of being a middle power by noting that Canada, having no “serious allies” has “never been this alone.” Canada contradicts its rule of law rhetoric as it remains involved in the Saudi arms deal and contradicts itself again as it applies US laws in Canada by carrying out an extradition request on the basis of sanctions violations though it has no sanctions of its own against Iran. The government’s recent actions show that it is not following its own guide to foreign relations.

So, in this unfamiliar world, what is Canada to do? The country’s relations with the US and the world were also imperfect after 1947. Can it therefore hope that things will get better over time? Sitting idly by however, seems naïve and hazardous as the challenges the country face are ones it has never encountered before. The framers of the new playbook for Canadian foreign relations need to balance the country’s national and international interests like St. Laurent had done so when he was mindful of the domestic concern of national unity while declaring a new role for Canada in the world. In 2019, the international concern of an unstable world order should be front of mind. The noticeable differences in the two speeches made by Freeland are evidence of the Canadian government’s recognition of today’s grim reality. Absent from the Washington speech are mentions of the environment and the rights of women. Instead, the speech returns focus to the familiar message of defending the rules-based international order. In comparing the two statements made by Freeland, it can be concluded that each one is not a guide to Canadian foreign relations per se, but rather iterations of the government’s developing ideas on how to position itself in today’s world.

A string of recent allegations against Justin Trudeau have left his government in turmoil and his political future in doubt.

The scandal revolves around a criminal case involving SNC Lavalin, an engineering company based in Quebec.^[1] SNC Lavalin was accused of bribing Libyan officials to secure defense contracts for the company, and was charged with corruption in 2018.^[2] Trudeau is said to have attempted to coerce the Ministry of Justice into dropping the criminal charges, allegedly fearful that a guilty verdict would eliminate thousands of Canadian jobs.^[3] This constitutes obstructing the rule of law. Trudeau is said to have repeatedly pressured his former Attorney General, Jody Wilson-Raybould, to discontinue her ministry’s prosecution of the case.^[4] Trudeau has denied any wrongdoing and has maintained that the allegations are false.

Wilson-Raybould resigned this February following her demotion from Attorney General to Minister of Veterans Affairs. Her resignation was what first broke the scandal. She claimed to be resigning in protest of the moral degradation of the Trudeau government. Jane Philpott, the President of the Treasury Board, resigned last week in an act of solidarity with Ms. Wilson-Raybould. She, too, publicly stated her moral opposition to Trudeau’s actions and insisted that she could no longer work within his Cabinet.^[5] Philpott held near-universal admiration within Mr. Trudeau’s Cabinet, and her resignation further destabilizes any semblance of a moral high ground for Mr. Trudeau.^[6]

Mr. Trudeau’s situation is further complicated by his feminist political brand. Trudeau has been regarded throughout his tenure as perhaps the prominent feminist leader not just in Canada, but across the globe.^[7] In attempting to undermine Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s authority, Mr. Trudeau had damaged, perhaps irreconcilably, this brand. Regardless of his intents, the lasting image is of a powerful man attempting to force his will upon a subordinate female.

Trudeau was originally elected in 2015 on a message of hope, transparency, and a promise to do politics the “right way.”^[8] This scandal is suggestive of anything but transparency and rightness. Mr. Trudeau has also long presented himself as a solution to the Indigenous-rights issues that have plagued Canada’s history. Ms. Wilson-Raybould is, herself, Indigenous.^[9] Indigenous leaders across Canada have seen Mr. Trudeau’s actions as a “stab in the back” that disproves his stated position as an advocate of Indigenous rights.^[10]

Only time will tell if Mr. Trudeau can survive this political crisis. What is clear, however, is that a Trudeau government once so built upon hope and promise has, perhaps forever, lost its innocence.

^[1] Tara Law, “Canada’s Justin Trudeau is Facing a Divisive Political Scandal. Can He Survive?” Time, March 8, 2019, http://time.com/5547518/trudeau-wilson-raybould-canada-scandal/ .

^[2] Joe Sterling and Tony Marco, “A Political Scandal Surrounds Canadian PM Justin Trudeau. What’s Going On?,” CNN, March 8, 2019, https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/06/americas/canada-politics-explainer/index.html

^[3] Tara Law, “Canada’s Justin Trudeau is Facing a Divisive Political Scandal. Can He Survive?” Time, March 8, 2019, http://time.com/5547518/trudeau-wilson-raybould-canada-scandal/ .

^[4] Ibid.

^[5] Peter Donolo, “This is how Justin Trudeau survives the political firestorm surrounding SNC-Lavalin,” The Globe and Mail, March 8, 2019, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-how-does-justin-trudeau-weather-the-political-firestorm-surrounding/

^[6] Ibid.

^[7] Ian Austen, “The World Turns Its Gaze on Canada’s Political Turmoil,” The New York Times, March 8, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/world/canada/trudeau-snc-lavalin.html

^[8] Susan Delacourt, “When did Trudeau and his Liberals lose their way?” The Toronto Star, March 8, 2019, https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/03/08/when-did-trudeau-and-his-liberals-lose-their-way.html

^[9] Peter Donolo, “This is how Justin Trudeau survives the political firestorm surrounding SNC-Lavalin,” The Globe and Mail, March 8, 2019, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-how-does-justin-trudeau-weather-the-political-firestorm-surrounding/

^[10] Ibid.