In a bold move signaling growing tension, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) of India informed Parliament about a formal protest lodged against Canada. This follows revelations of audio and video surveillance targeting Indian consulate officials in Vancouver. India has condemned the act as a blatant violation of diplomatic conventions, specifically the Vienna Conventions of 1961 and 1963, which guarantee the immunity and security of diplomatic and consular personnel.
The MEA emphasized that such actions are incompatible with established international norms and the diplomatic commitments between the two nations. Adding to the distress, Indian consular staff in Canada have recently faced physical threats and violence, primarily from pro-Khalistan groups. These developments have placed bilateral relations at a precarious juncture.
Surveillance Amid Escalating Extremism
During a panel discussion on NewsX hosted by, NewsX Executive Editor Megha Sharma, Ambassador Mahesh Sachdev remarked on the deteriorating conditions for Indian diplomats in Canada. He highlighted that the diplomatic immunity outlined in the Vienna Conventions mandates host nations to ensure the safety and freedom of foreign diplomatic staff. Yet, India’s consular officials are increasingly finding themselves vulnerable to intimidation and attacks, often in the wake of anti-India protests by Khalistani elements.
Sachdev expressed shock over Canada’s admission of intercepting private communications, stating, “It is quite contrary to Canada’s commitment to the Vienna Convention of 1963 for consular agents.” He described the surveillance as an alarming escalation, reflecting a lack of regard for international protocols.
A Broader Pattern of Neglect
Professor Madhav Nalapat, another panelist, criticized Canada’s disregard for diplomatic norms. “The Vienna Convention has been thrown into the dustbin by Canada,” he asserted, arguing that such actions suggest a deliberate attempt to protect extremist groups operating within Canadian borders. Nalapat called for India to adopt a policy of reciprocity, including increased scrutiny of Canadian diplomatic staff in India.
He also raised concerns about the potential misuse of intercepted communications, noting, “This is not just a violation of diplomatic immunity but of basic norms of decency.”
Judicial Intervention Highlights Governance Gap
Adding to the debate, political analyst Soind Singh Lalli pointed out that Canada’s judiciary had to intervene to ensure the safety of Indian consular camps. The intervention mandated law enforcement to provide adequate security for camps held at temples and other community centers, barring protesters within 100 meters of such premises.
“It is shocking that the judiciary had to step in because law enforcement agencies outright refused to protect Indian consular officials,” Lalli said, emphasizing the deepening failure of governance under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s administration.
Strategic Implications of Trudeau’s Policies
The panelists on NewsX further discussed the geopolitical undertones influencing Canada’s stance. Lalli suggested that Trudeau’s approach might be influenced by external pressures, particularly from the United States. “There seems to be a grand plan to corner India,” he argued, citing India’s independent stance on global issues, including its relations with Russia and its refusal to align fully with G7 priorities.
Meanwhile, Vicky Nanjappa criticized Trudeau’s domestic strategy, asserting that his pandering to extremist elements is driven by political survival rather than national interest. “He is leaving behind a legacy of chaos, undermining Canada’s global standing and damaging its ties with India,” Nanjappa observed.
What Lies Ahead for India-Canada Relations?
As diplomatic relations hit a new low, the question arises: How should India respond? Panelists recommended stronger measures, including recalling diplomats and reducing engagement with Canada until conditions improve.
Nanjappa concluded, “India needs to treat Canada the same way it deals with Pakistan when it comes to threats against its diplomats. There’s no room for a softer approach.”
