‘What has been done?’: India’s High Commissioner challenges Canada over terrorism inaction

India challenges Canada over terrorism claims (File photo)

India’s High Commissioner to Canada, Dinesh Patnaik, on Wednesday sharply criticised Ottawa, accusing successive Canadian governments of failing for nearly four decades to curb terrorist activity on their soil and of allowing extremist networks to operate without restraint.

In a forceful interview with Canada’s public broadcaster CBC, Patnaik said years of inaction by Canadian authorities had fostered an atmosphere in which extremism and violence targeting India were able to grow.

His comments came at a delicate point in bilateral relations, as there are tentative signs of a reset, with British Columbia Premier David Eby currently leading a trade delegation to India and Ottawa indicating a willingness to repair strained ties with New Delhi.

The conversation soon moved beyond trade and economic cooperation to the most sensitive issue in India–Canada relations: allegations linked to the killing of Khalistani extremist Hardeep Singh Nijjar and Canada’s wider approach to separatist groups.

Patnaik categorically dismissed repeated assertions by the CBC anchor that Canadian intelligence agencies had “credible information” implicating Indian officials in Nijjar’s killing.

“Where is the evidence?” the High Commissioner asked, stressing that claims made against India had not been supported by proof.

He said allegations could not be treated as established facts unless they were backed by verifiable evidence.

Redirecting the focus towards Canada, Patnaik said India had been raising concerns about extremist activity in the country for decades, but without seeing concrete action from Canadian authorities.

“We have been talking about terrorism in Canada for the last 40 years. What has been done?” he asked, pointing out that no convictions had been secured in several major cases.

As an example, he referred to the 1985 Air India bombing, in which 329 people were killed, describing it as a stark illustration of the failure to deliver justice even after almost 40 years.

The Indian envoy also accused Canada of operating with double standards, arguing that while Ottawa set high evidentiary bars when India shared intelligence about suspected terrorists in Canada, it expected New Delhi to respond to unproven allegations against the Indian state.

“When you accuse us and we say there is not enough evidence, that principle should be accepted just as readily,” he said.

Patnaik unequivocally rejected any suggestion that the Indian government had authorised extrajudicial actions overseas.

“The Government of India does not do such things,” he said, adding that if any individual were ever found, on the basis of evidence, to be involved in wrongdoing, India would act on its own.

He also clarified that India’s objections were not to the holding of referendums as such, but to the involvement of individuals who are wanted in India for criminal or terrorist offences, or who are engaged in extremist activities abroad.

At one stage, Patnaik highlighted that the ongoing legal case in Surrey names four individuals and not the Indian state, questioning why no case had been brought against India if the allegations were credible.

The interview comes as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has indicated an interest in resetting relations with India, including accepting Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s invitation to visit and reviving negotiations on a comprehensive economic partnership agreement.

Patnaik said both countries were now “catching up” after a prolonged diplomatic freeze, but emphasised that any genuine reset would require a fundamental shift in Canada’s stance on security and terrorism.

“When we provide information about terrorists active in Canada, we are repeatedly told there is not enough evidence to act. We have heard this for 40 years,” he said, adding that the rule of law and the principle of innocent until proven guilty must be applied consistently.

Until such consistency is shown, Patnaik suggested, Canada’s record points not to vigilance but to a long-standing failure to confront terrorism within its own borders.