Khalistani extremists using Canada to plan violence in India: Intel report

New Delhi: Politically motivated violent extremism threat in Canada since mid-1980s has manifested through Khalistani extremists seeking to use violent means to create an independent nation state called Khalistan within India's Punjab, a report by Ottawa's intelligence agency has said.
It said a small group of Khalistani extremists are continuing to use Canada as a base for fundraising and planning of violence primarily in India.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service's report for 2024 was released on Wednesday, a day after Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Canadian counterpart Mark Carney with a focus on rebuilding bilateral ties that plummeted to an all-time low following a diplomatic spat over the killing of a Khalistani separatist.
The report said ongoing involvement in violent activities by Canada-based Khalistani extremists continues to pose a national security threat to Canada and Canadian interests.
The report was also critical of New Delhi for what it called India's foreign interference activities in Canada.
'In particular, real and perceived Khalistani extremism emerging from Canada continues to drive Indian foreign interference activities in Canada,' it alleged.
The report appeared to clearly vindicate New Delhi's consistent position that pro-Khalistani elements in Canada have been carrying out anti-India activities with impunity.
'Since the mid-1980s, the PMVE (politically motivated violent extremism) threat in Canada has manifested primarily through Canada-based Khalistani extremists seeking to use and support violent means to create an independent nation state called Khalistan, largely within Punjab,' the report said.
Under its India section, the report alleged that 'Indian officials, including their Canada-based proxy agents, engage in a range of activities that seek to influence Canadian communities and politicians'.
'When these activities are deceptive, clandestine or threatening, they are deemed to be foreign interference,' it claimed.
New Delhi had previously trashed such charges levelled by Canadian authorities.
The report also said China poses the greatest intelligence threat to Canada, besides naming Pakistan, Russia and Iran.
The report also mentioned the case of killing of Sikh separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar.
The India-Canada relations hit rock bottom following then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's allegations in 2023 of a potential Indian link to the killing of Nijjar. India had rejected the charges.
In October last year, India recalled its high commissioner and five other diplomats after Ottawa attempted to link them to the Nijjar case. India also expelled an equal number of Canadian diplomats.
The report said Canada's investigation into the 2023 killing of Nijjar continued in 2024.
'Four individuals were arrested in May 2024 and charged with first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Criminal proceedings are ongoing,' it said.
'In mid-October, as part of ongoing RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) investigations, the RCMP announced that evidence pointed to a link between agents of the government of India and criminal networks to sow violent activity in South Asian communities in Canada,' the report alleged.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Wire

15 minutes ago

• The Wire

Nationalism Is a Dishonourable Social Construct

Two thought-provoking pieces by Yogendra Yadav and Suhas Palshikar made for a fascinating debate on the texture and trajectory of Indian nationalism. Yadav argues that the rich legacy of Indian nationalism from our freedom movement which was about 'belonging without othering' and unity sans uniformity, has been overwhelmed in the last decade by a Nazi version that upholds national interest over individual freedom and identifies the government with the nation. But he also blames the liberal, secular elite for the regression in the pristine nationalist spirit, charging them with a 'deracinated cosmopolitism' that ignored the cultural and spiritual undertone, because of which they lost touch with the common man. Palshikar is emphatic that nothing can mitigate the virtual dismantling of nationalism by the current regime through practice and ideology which, he believes, is not backsliding 'but a resolute replacement of Indian nationalism'. He contends that excoriating the secular-liberal elite as abettors for the crisis in Indian nationalism, as Yadav has done, is to attach significance to a marginal force. Of much greater import were the deep fissures that were evolving in the late 19th and early 20th century between an inclusive Indian nationalism and its phoney alternative that was 'rooted in othering and instrumental unity without genuine belonging.' To add my twopenny bit, notwithstanding the toxic faith-based majoritarian nationalism germinating on the side, our nationalism was not in a bad place until the 1980s. Yogendra Yadav may turn up his nose at my lived experience of an that was pluralistic, inclusive and grounded in democratic values where we didn't need to prove our Indianness or be judged by the clothes we wore or the size of our eyes; nor did we feel the need to tamper with historical facts or denigrate our freedom fighters in order to craft an alternative Hindutva nationalist vision. I remember an unselfconscious nationalism, respectful of religion but not obsessed with it, a milieu where our patriotic instincts were fired up by the histrionics of 'Mr Bharat' Manoj Kumar and the dulcet tones of Mohammad Rafi and Lata Mangeshkar. There was no deliberate fostering of deep cultural and spiritual traditions but that 'shallow modernity and deracinated cosmopolitanism' worked very well for us. If only we could get back that nationalist spirit. In debating Indian nationalism – good and bad – these two public intellectuals have broached a subject of the greatest significance. It has turned the world upside-down, particularly in the last decade. The nationalism that we witness today is the depraved patriotism of the mob. In truth, nationalism has been commandeered to legitimise all forms of bigotry. In the crazy world that we live in, the insurrectionists who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, are released and hailed as nationalists whereas the protestors in Los Angeles fighting for justice against the authoritarian Trump regime are hounded as anti-nationals. It is necessary to draw a distinction between nationalism and patriotism in terms of the emotive quality of loyalty to the nation. Nationalism invokes blind support for everything the country does –a syndrome that incites aggressive assertion and a lust for power, whereas patriotism is tolerant, humane and critical of actions that are destructive of the values that the country cherishes. Is it any wonder then that the world's great minds were not enamoured of nationalism? H.G. Wells condemned nationalism as 'a monstrous can't that has darkened all human affairs.' He believed that our true nationality was mankind. Rabindranath Tagore was no devotee of the constrictive tendencies associated with attachment to the nation which he viewed as 'holding up gigantic selfishness as the one universal religion.' Dr B.R. Ambedkar was wary of a nationalism 'that is at once a feeling of fellowship for one's own kith and kin and an anti-fellowship feeling for those who are not one's own kith and kin.' He warned that loyalty to the nation was endangered by competitive loyalty to religion, to culture and to language. The iconic revolutionary Bhagat Singh represented a nationalism that was the very antithesis of what's being practised today. His nationalism was anchored in his atheism and signified much more than driving out the British. It meant ridding our society of the evils of casteism, untouchability and communalism. Sadly, today he is glorified but his revolutionary nationalism that was centred on the oppressed and the poor has been overwhelmed by one that is cruelly majoritarian and focussed entirely on the needs of the privileged. 'Where guns boom' Today's nationalism bears an eerie correspondence with the German experiment of the 1930s that played on the fears and prejudice of the majority. The most obvious similarity is between the Nazi doctrine of nationhood based on an exclusive ethnic German-Aryan homogeneity and rabid antisemitism vis-a-vis our indigenous fascist mobilisation constructed on a deviant interpretation of religion and morbid hatred of the Muslim. And just as Hitler expanded his enemy list of Jews to include communists, Catholics and liberals, the current regime has gone way beyond targeting Muslims and Christians as the archetypal 'Other', to branding all dissenters as the 'ant-national, tukde - tukde gang'. Prime minister Narendra Modi has been given the credit for bestowing the name 'Operation Sindoor' to the military operation post Pahalgam, so clearly his camp followers think it's a great appellation. But how blasphemous to bestow an offensive military campaign with the moniker of 'sindoor' which is so sacred to the institution of the Hindu marriage, especially for the woman. It is as inappropriate a name as the one given by the USA to its largest non-nuclear explosive weighing 9,800 kgs, labelled 'the mother of all bombs'. That great humanist, the late Pope Francis was outraged: 'A mother gives life and this one gives death…What's going on?' The fig leaf of national interest and security have been used by this Government as a pretext for the furtive secrecy surrounding the Pahalgam horror and the aftermath. The nation is still in the dark about the murderers, the intelligence failure, the number of our planes shot down and fate of the pilots, Jaishankar's self-defeating forewarning to Pakistan, Trump's alleged intervention, our suicidal foreign policy that has all our neighbours gunning for us and a lot more. The bizarre decision to keep Operation Sindoor alive is clearly intended to avoid owning up to failure on multiple fronts. Arthur Miller had observed that 'when the guns boom, the arts die', but with Operation Sindoor it is not the arts but truth that has got buried. The nationalist fervour gripping the country has confused and equated loyalty to the nation with fealty to the government, though crafty ones like Shashi Tharoor have used it for their own self-serving purposes. Nationalism is the subterfuge for officially sponsored propaganda, downright falsehoods, jingoism, moral grandstanding and for treating dissent as anti-national. Modi's flurry of ' goli khaao' speeches following the ceasefire, are testimony to this ugly manipulation of nationalism. Look at what nationalism has spawned across the world. The likes of Zionist nationalist Benjamin Netanyahu and MAGA white racist Donald Trump – post-modern versions of the Fuhrer and Duce – flaunt the badge of nationalism to wreak death and suffering. Let's all agree that Howard Zinn was spot on when he observed: 'Nationalism – that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder – is one of the great evils of our time along with racism and religious hatred.' Mathew John is a former civil servant. Views are personal. This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.

Business Standard

18 minutes ago

• Business Standard

Netanyahu vows to eliminate Iran's nuclear threat as conflict escalates

As the Israel-Iran conflict entered its seventh day, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared that Israel is ready to dismantle Tehran's nuclear and missile capabilities—with or without international support. Speaking to Israel's public broadcaster Kan on Thursday, Netanyahu said, 'Israel is capable of striking all of Iran's nuclear facilities. All help is welcome, but we will act independently if we must.' His comments came amid ongoing Israeli air raids on Iranian sites under the banner of Operation Rising Lion, launched last Friday. Trump will do what is best for US: Netanyahu The prime minister also addressed the possibility of direct US involvement, saying the decision rested with President Donald Trump. 'Trump will do what is good for the United States, and I will do what is good for Israel,' he stated, signalling coordination but also strategic autonomy. During a tour of Soroka Medical Centre in Beersheba, a southern Israeli city struck by Iranian missiles earlier that morning, Netanyahu stressed that 'no one is immune' from Israeli retaliation, once again suggesting that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be considered a legitimate target. 'I gave instructions that no one is immune,' he said, adding, 'It's best to let actions speak for themselves.' The Israeli leader reiterated that the offensive was aimed squarely at Iran's nuclear ambitions and ballistic arsenal, which he described as existential threats. 'We are targeting weapons of mass destruction. They are targeting civilians,' he said. 'They fire at hospitals. That's the difference between a functioning democracy and murderous regimes.' אני כאן בבית החולים סורוקה בבאר שבע יחד עם שר הבריאות וסגן השר אלמוג כהן, איש הדרום, ולא בפעם הראשונה עם מנהל בית החולים סורוקה. אנחנו רואים כאן את כל ההבדל. אנחנו פוגעים במדויק במטרות גרעין ומטרות טילים, והם פוגעים בבית חולים, שאנשים לא יכולים לקום ולברוח אפילו. הם פוגעים לא… — Benjamin Netanyahu - בנימין נתניהו (@netanyahu) June 19, 2025 Katz compares Khamenei to 'modern Hitler' The Defence Minister, Israel Katz, echoed this sentiment in more severe terms during a visit to missile-hit Holon. Calling Ayatollah Khamenei 'the modern Hitler', Katz said one of Israel's objectives was to 'prevent his continued existence.' He accused Iran's supreme leader of orchestrating attacks on civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, as part of a broader ideological campaign against Israel. Heavy casualties and destruction reported on both sides According to a Washington-based Iranian human rights organisation, at least 639 people have died in Iran so far, including 263 civilians. Over 1,300 have been injured. Iran has retaliated with more than 400 ballistic missiles and over 1,000 drones, targeting cities such as Ramat Gan, Holon and Beersheba, killing at least 24 people in Israel and injuring hundreds more. Among the injured are at least 240 people following missile strikes on residential areas near Tel Aviv and Soroka Medical Centre, 80 of them patients and medical staff. Much of the hospital had been evacuated in anticipation of the attack, limiting the extent of casualties. As tensions escalate, Israel claims to have destroyed over half of Iran's missile launchers. Netanyahu declared that the operation was 'changing the face of the Middle East—and now, the world.' Netanyahu clarifies Iran war goals Despite speculation about regime change in Iran, Netanyahu clarified that toppling the government in Tehran was not an explicit objective. 'That's a matter for the Iranian people,' he said. 'It could be a result, but it is not a stated or formal goal.' Due to the ongoing conflict, the Israeli military has imposed strict censorship on media coverage. These wartime restrictions limit reporting on operational details, target selection, and any damage to critical infrastructure or military capabilities. Netanyahu vowed that Israel would see the operation through to its conclusion. 'At the end of this mission,' he said, 'there will be no nuclear threat on Israel, and there won't be a ballistic threat either.'

Business Standard

18 minutes ago

• Business Standard

Canada not just a passport stop: 95% Indian migrants stay post-citizenship

Do Indians treat Canada as a mere stepping stone to secure a powerful passport before leaving for better opportunities elsewhere? A new report by Statistics Canada suggests otherwise. The study, titled An Analysis of Immigrants' 'Active Presence' in Canada, tracked the long-term presence of immigrants based on their tax filing behaviour—a key indicator that they are still residing in or closely tied to Canada. What counts as active presence? 'Active presence' refers to immigrants who continue to file income taxes in Canada. While not a definitive proof of residency, it is widely used as a practical measure of engagement in the country's economy and social systems. According to the data, 63.8% of Indian immigrants become Canadian citizens within ten years of arriving. Of those, 94.6% continued to file taxes after naturalisation—an indicator of strong ongoing ties. By contrast, only 65% of Indian immigrants who did not take up citizenship remained active, meaning 35% either left the country or stopped participating in the formal economy. Even three years after gaining citizenship, 93% of Indian immigrants were still filing taxes. That's only a slight drop from the 97.1% seen in the three years before naturalisation. Citizenship boosts long-term presence: Among immigrants aged 25–54 who arrived between 2008 and 2012, 93% of those who became citizens were still actively present ten years later, compared to 67% of those who didn't. Retention improving over time: For those who arrived between 2003 and 2007, 91% of citizens remained active, while only 58% of non-citizens did—a wider gap than in newer cohorts. Origin matters: Immigrants from the Philippines showed a 97% active presence rate, higher than those from developed countries like the US and France, where retention hovered around 87%. Education and mobility affect retention: Highly educated immigrants who didn't pursue citizenship were more likely to leave, reflecting greater international mobility. Citizenship matters: The data directly challenges the notion of 'Canadians of convenience,' often used to question immigrants' loyalty. Why some stay, and others don't The Statistics Canada study also looked into factors shaping whether immigrants remained in Canada after gaining citizenship. Country of origin: Immigrants from countries like Pakistan and Colombia also had high retention, while Americans, Britons and the French were more likely to leave. Education: Those with graduate degrees were more likely to leave if they didn't obtain citizenship. The global demand for high-skilled workers plays a role here. Economic class: Skilled immigrants selected for their abilities were more likely to leave if they did not commit to Canadian citizenship. Time taken to naturalise: The longer an immigrant waited to become a citizen, the more likely they were to leave post-citizenship, suggesting weaker ties to Canada at the outset. Daniel Bernhard, CEO of the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, said, 'Highly skilled immigrants have global options. If Canada can't offer a better life—affordable housing, career growth—they'll take their talents elsewhere.' Breaking the 'Canadian of convenience' myth The term 'Canadian of convenience' has often been used in political debate to describe immigrants who obtain citizenship for benefits and then leave. The Statistics Canada report directly addresses that concern: Citizenship isn't hollow: 93% of naturalised immigrants were still filing taxes ten years later, showing active engagement with the country. Inactive immigrants less likely to be citizens: Among those without any tax filing (considered inactive), only 28% were citizens. For example, among inactive Iranian immigrants, 50% held citizenship, compared to just 14% of inactive Americans. Why fewer people may be choosing citizenship Despite the positive retention figures, the report notes a slowdown in citizenship uptake. Some immigrants may delay or skip citizenship due to better global mobility or dissatisfaction with economic conditions in Canada. Rising housing costs, stagnant wages, and limited job opportunities may be pushing some to consider alternatives. Bernhard warned, 'If Canada can't provide a better future, immigrants will leave.' Andrew Griffith, a former director general in Canada's immigration department, said citizenship policies currently 'strike a good balance,' but added they may need updating to keep pace with changing realities.