madness in method:

Given the recent and very public diplomatic fallout between India and Canada, Decypher reached out to Canadian Security Expert Joe Adam George to gain a better understanding of the current situation.

The Evolution of Canada-India Relations

George began by tracing the evolution of India-Canada relations, highlighting the historical camaraderie and the turning points that led to the current tensions.
“Traditionally, India and Canada have enjoyed a cooperative relationship, especially in the early years of India’s independence when Canada contributed significantly to its development,” he explained. “The supply of nuclear reactors in the 1950s and ’60s underlined this trust, albeit it strained after India’s 1974 nuclear tests using Canadian-supplied technology, creating long-standing tensions.”

He emphasised the 1985 Air India bombing as a pivotal moment. “Planned on Canadian soil by Khalistani extremists, it was not just a tragedy for India but a failure of Canadian intelligence.”

George noted that although Indo-Canadian relations improved in the early 1990s and 2000s, it arguably experienced its best run during the Harper-Modi years. “Prime Minister Stephen Harper understood India’s concerns and prioritised economic and strategic collaboration. Modi’s initial outreach, particularly his visit to Canada in 2015, reinforced this goodwill.”

However, he pointed to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s tenure as a source of renewed discord. “Trudeau’s 2018 India visit was a disaster,” he stated. “From inviting a convicted Khalistani terrorist to dinner to the theatrics of his cultural displays, it signalled to India that Trudeau wasn’t serious. This distrust deepened with his comments during the farmers’ protests and perceived coddling of Khalistani extremists in Canada. The breaking point came when Trudeau publicly accused India of assassinating Hardeep Singh Nijjar—a matter that should have been addressed diplomatically behind closed doors.”

George was critical of Prime Minister Trudeau’s handling of the situation. “Grandstanding on such a sensitive issue has caused irreparable damage. This isn’t just about India-Canada ties; it’s about Canada’s global credibility. Who would trust a partner that airs such allegations publicly without proof?”

Electoral Calculations: Domestic Politics Over Diplomacy

George argued that domestic political challenges have reshaped Canada’s foreign policy under the Trudeau government, shifting priorities from strategic interests to electoral calculations.

“Canada’s foreign policy is often dictated by short-term political gains rather than long-term national interests,” he said, attributing this to the government’s declining popularity and overt reliance on voter blocs like the Sikh diaspora in key ridings.

He criticised this pandering for compromising national security, citing the Khalistan issue. “By refusing to confront a fringe group of extremist elements within the Sikh community, the Trudeau government has signalled that vote-bank politics outweighs terrorism threats or foreign policy coherence,” he remarked, adding that political appeasement has damaged Canada’s image as a nation of law and order.

George linked these policies to broader societal divisions. “Appeasement risks exacerbating communal fault lines, as seen in violent clashes between Hindu and Sikh communities. Trudeau’s vision of a ‘post-national state’ may sound progressive. However, it’s a recipe for cultural balkanisation and Canadian identity dilution, allowing identity politics to flourish at the expense of social cohesion,” he explained.

Beyond the Khalistan movement, George criticised the government’s weak stance on extremism and foreign interference, which he said fosters lawlessness and erodes public trust. “This isn’t just an India diplomacy issue—it’s a Canadian issue,” he warned.

While acknowledging these challenges predate Trudeau, George said identity politics has peaked under his leadership, leading to visible societal and diplomatic crises. Reflecting on a recent Ipsos poll where “only 28% of Canadians want to see Trudeau re-elected,” he expressed optimism for significant policy reforms to be implemented should the Pierre Poilievre-led Conservative Party overwhelmingly win the 2025 federal election as widely anticipated. “Even a 5% improvement would feel significant given how bad things are,” George concluded, emphasising Canadians’ desperation for change.

Multiculturalism at a Crossroads: Integration vs. Fragmentation

George critiqued Canada’s multiculturalism policies, highlighting that while multiculturalism could be beneficial to a certain degree, its excesses under Trudeau have undermined national unity and identity. “Multiculturalism, when done in a measured manner, for example, through sustainable immigration policies, fosters inclusivity and strengthens the social fabric,” he explained. “But treating it as a political tool rather than a unifying principle leads to fragmentation.”

He pointed to Trudeau’s “post-national state” vision as a key issue. “The idea of no mainstream Canadian identity may sound progressive, but in practice, it divides the country across multiple ideological fault lines. Multiculturalism as a policy must prioritise integration, not just coexistence, to be effective,” he said.

George criticised the government’s wilful blindness attitude, which he argued has allowed extremist groups like Khalistani elements to thrive. “This isn’t about the broader, mostly peace-loving Sikh community—it’s about failing to distinguish between cultural expression and extremism, jeopardising national security,” he stated. He linked this failure to real-world consequences, such as violent community clashes and the targeting of religious institutions. “These incidents are a consequence of policies that prioritise appeasement over unity.”

He stressed the broader societal risks. “When governments refuse to confront extremism, it breeds resentment among other communities, further dividing the nation. Trudeau’s post-national multiculturalism is pulling us apart,” he warned.
George called for replacing Canada’s ineffective multiculturalism policy with a healthy dose of patriotism and education of Canadian history to newcomers to encourage integration and adoption of shared values. “It’s not about abandoning diversity but creating a cohesive society where all backgrounds feel part of the same national project,” he proposed. He emphasised the government’s role in fostering unity, concluding, “Canada thrives on its differences, but only when united by shared values. Without this foundation, we risk losing what makes us unique.”

Missteps in Diplomacy: Foreign Interference Allegations

George offered a sharp critique of the Trudeau government’s handling of foreign interference allegations, particularly regarding India and the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. “The way this crisis has unfolded is nothing short of a diplomatic debacle,” he remarked. “Sensitive allegations require finesse, not public posturing. Unfortunately, going public without hard evidence only escalated tensions.”

He contrasted Canada’s approach with the United States. “The U.S. engaged in backchannel diplomacy, discreetly sharing evidence while maintaining a working relationship with India. Conversely, Canada jumped the gun with bold accusations and no concrete proof, undermining trust and issue resolution.”

George highlighted the broader consequences of this misstep. “Accusing a major ally like India of state-sponsored assassination isn’t just a bilateral issue—it damages Canada’s credibility globally. Other nations are now questioning our ability to conduct diplomacy tactfully without annoying long-term, ideological allies.”

He criticised the public nature of Trudeau’s dealing with New Delhi. “Diplomacy isn’t about theatrics; it’s about solutions. Public accusations leave no room for compromise. A private, collaborative approach could have preserved the relationship while addressing concerns. Instead, we’ve entrenched both sides in a standoff.”

George also linked the public stance to domestic politics. “This wasn’t just about addressing the allegations—it was about appeasing certain voter bases. But diplomacy is about finding solutions, not scoring political points. Performative diplomacy only worsens the situation.”

When discussing alternatives, George outlined practical steps. “First, we should have provided irrefutable evidence to New Delhi and discussed measures to resolve the issue in a manner that is satisfactory to both parties. Second, we should have used backchannels and trusted intermediaries, including allies like the U.S. or U.K., to facilitate dialogue. This approach could have prevented the current impasse.”

He stressed the importance of trust-building. “To get India to cooperate, we must engage in good faith, focusing on shared priorities like trade, energy, and security. Letting one incident define the relationship was a strategic error.”

George noted that the fallout extended beyond India. “Other nations are watching and asking, ‘If this is how Canada treats an ally, what happens to us?’ This mishandling has implications for our broader diplomatic relationships, especially in Asia, where nuance is key.”

Furthermore, Trudeau’s unserious image and multiple gaffes on the global stage make it easier for India to ignore him. Reports that the U.S. President-elect Donald Trump had mocked him during his recent trip to Florida prove that world leaders do not take him seriously. Hence, it is no surprise that New Delhi is in no hurry to resolve the impasse and would rather wait to engage with a Poilievre government, that is expected to be far more competent, to improve ties.

George emphasised the broader lessons Canada must take from this episode. “Diplomacy requires tact, professionalism, mutual respect, discretion, and compromise. If Canada wants to reclaim its global standing, it must fundamentally rethink how it conducts diplomacy. A strategic, good faith approach fosters stronger, long-term relationships.”

Rebuilding Trust: A Path Forward

While the current diplomatic impasse between Canada and India poses significant challenges, it is far from insurmountable, George explained. “Diplomatic relationships are like any other partnership. They have highs and lows, but resilience comes from addressing challenges together. Canada and India share deep historical, cultural, and economic ties, which offer a solid foundation for rebuilding.”

He identified shared priorities as key to reconciliation. “Canada must recognise India as a rising global power and critical partner in trade and technology, while India would immensely benefit from collaborating with Canada in key areas such as energy, defence, and regional security to counter the growing China threat,” George stated. Trade, particularly amidst shifting global dynamics, is ripe for collaboration. “Finalising trade agreements and investing in areas like technology, energy, and infrastructure will strengthen economic ties and open channels for dialogue on sensitive issues.”

To rebuild trust, George emphasised the need for humility and discretion. “Canada must address perceptions that it acted impulsively with recent allegations. Backchannel diplomacy—quiet, constructive discussions—can help both sides save face and find common ground. Public posturing has done enough harm; it’s time to repair the relationship behind the scenes.”

George highlighted the importance of addressing mutual security concerns through balanced and transparent cooperation. “Both nations have legitimate concerns—India about separatist movements and extremism on Canadian soil, and Canada about foreign interference that undermines its democratic institutions,” he stated. However, he noted that two wrongs don’t make a right. “India’s grievances about Canada’s handling of the Khalistan movement are justified. Nonetheless, that doesn’t give New Delhi the right to conduct illicit activities that contravene a nation’s sovereignty, especially when that nation is an ally. Violating sovereignty or committing crimes abroad, even in pursuit of perceived justice, is uncalled for.”

He proposed collaborative measures like joint task forces on counterterrorism and intelligence-sharing agreements to foster trust. “By focusing on cooperative solutions that address both nations’ concerns, Canada and India can build a foundation for stronger ties.”

George also highlighted the importance of the Indian diaspora as a bridge between the two nations. “Empowering diaspora communities to play a positive role through cultural exchanges, academic collaborations, and community-led dialogues can foster mutual understanding. At the same time, Canada must ensure its domestic policies remain independent of foreign interference while reassuring India that its concerns are taken seriously.”

On India’s side, George urged New Delhi to maintain restraint and strategic diplomacy. “India is generally adept at navigating complex diplomatic challenges, even those involving sworn enemies like Pakistan. Maintaining stable relations with Canada is in its interest, given the opportunities in trade, technology, and energy.”

He warned of the broader geopolitical implications of their strained ties. “This rift only benefits adversaries like China. Whether countering influence in the Indo-Pacific or tackling global issues like climate change, Canada and India are stronger together.”

George concluded with optimism for the future. “Handled wisely, this could translate into a long-lasting, fruitful partnership. Leadership on both sides must rise above domestic politics to prioritise long-term benefits for their people and the world at large.”