India-Canada new chirp: Visa denial to Khalistani Canadians stirs outcry, debate

Pro-Khalistan Canadians are crying foul over what they claim is “weaponization” of India’s visa policy. They are miffed over a clause in the visa application form which demands denouncement of ‘Khalistan’ as a prerequisite to getting an Indian visa.

The issue has caught fire with a Canadian news report in Global News claiming that India’s actions amount to foreign interference in Canadian affairs.

The report has fuelled an intense debate on India’s right to exercise its right to control who enters its border, and Canada being selective.

The article paints India’s visa policy as a form of coercion, claiming that the Indian Government is using travel visas to silence its critics.

The report claims that India is targeting Khalistani sympathizers in Canada, asking them to renounce their support for the Khalistan movement as a condition to getting a visa.

According to the article, if these individuals don’t denounce the separatist movement and pledge allegiance to India’s sovereignty, their chances of being granted a visa are next to none.

India sights this as a security measure, as did Canada, when it rejected visas of Indian nationals citing the same reason.

History of controversy:

This isn’t the first time Canada and its leadership have found themselves embroiled in a controversy over Khalistani links.

Back in 2018, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau faced global backlash when an alleged Sikh extremist was invited to an official dinner during Trudeau’s State visit to India.

Jaspal Atwal, a Canadian citizen of Indian origin, had been convicted and later acquitted of attempting to assassinate an Indian minister in 1986. He was also accused of being a member of a banned Sikh extremist group.

Atwal was spotted in photographs with Trudeau’s wife Sophie, and one of his Cabinet Ministers during an event in Mumbai earlier that week. Canadian authorities were quick to withdraw Atwal’s invitation to the dinner and Trudeau stated that the invitation should never have been extended.

Indian officials were equally alarmed, questioning how Atwal had been granted a visa to enter India in the first place.

This incident added a diplomatic strain on Trudeau’s visit and further highlighted Canada’s lenient stance towards individuals associated with the Khalistani cause.

Current Controversy

Canada is once again at odds with India over the Khalistan issue, but this time the debate revolves around visas. Is this reasonable policy enforcement? Or, as critics like Global News imply, is it a violation of freedom of expression and political beliefs?

The Khalistani movement is not a new issue. For decades, the movement has called for a separate State of Khalistan.

While the idea of an independent Sikh State has deep cultural and religious roots, the movement has been marred by violent acts and extremist ideologies. It has also had strong links with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, a group known for fostering destabilizing activities within India.

Canada, with its large Sikh diaspora, has seen pro-Khalistani groups grow and become more vocal in recent years. These groups often hold rallies, glorify violence, and have even threatened Indian officials. Activities that have not gone unnoticed by Indian authorities.

India has accused these groups of spreading hate and inciting violence, both within Canada and against Indian nationals abroad.

Global News ‘foreign interference’

The Global News report has accused India of ‘foreign interference.’ The report suggests that India’s visa policy is a form of coercion and accuses India of manipulating the travel documents of Khalistani supporters.

It claims that individuals applying for Indian visas are being forced to denounce their support for Khalistan or face visa rejection.

This is not a simple ‘sign a letter’ situation. Individuals like Bikramjit Singh Sandhar, a prominent Khalistani leader and former president of the Guru Nanak Sikh Gurdwara in Canada’s Surrey, have come forward, detailing their experiences with Indian consular officials.

Sandhar, who applied for a visa in 2016, was reportedly told that his application was denied because of his previous statements on the Khalistani cause.

According to Sandhar, after being denied a visa, he was sent a form and a letter requesting that he renounce the Khalistan movement and news ‘deep respect’ for India.

This, they said, was the price to pay for getting a visa. Sandhar refused to sign it. His visa application was denied.

So, is this a case of India trying to control the political narrative of its critics? Or is this simply a reasonable policy to protect India’s sovereignty and its people from individuals who have ties to groups known for violent acts and terrorism?

Geopolitical analysts have been quick to weigh in on the matter, pointing out the hypocrisy in the Global News report.

While it highlights India’s visa policy as a form of political oppression, experts argue that countries around the world have long used similar measures to regulate who can enter their borders.

The United States, for example, requires visa applicants to provide detailed information on their social media accounts, ensuring that individuals with extremist views are kept out.

Many countries, including Canada, have similar policies in place, especially when it comes to people with links to terrorism or hate groups.

Daniel Bordman, a political analyst based in Canada, took to social media to sarcastically comment on the Global News report, pointing out the absurdity of claiming that a country is violating someone’s rights by asking them to sign a form denouncing terrorism before granting them a visa.

“Can you believe that India had the audacity to require a man who ran a temple with pictures all over it praising mass-murdering terrorists as heroes… to fill out a form denouncing terrorism before allowing him to enter India? A form! He could’ve gotten carpal tunnel syndrome,” Bordman said.

It’s a sharp commentary, but it makes a valid point… The visa process isn’t about silencing critics, it’s about ensuring that people entering the country don’t have a history of supporting terrorism or violence.

The same critics who condemn India’s visa denials fail to acknowledge that Canada has had its own history of restricting the movement of certain individuals due to national security concerns.

For example, in 2010, Canada denied a visa to a retired Indian official, Tejinder Singh Dhillon, who had worked with the Central Reserve Police Force or CRPF, a paramilitary force in India.

The Canadian Government argued that Dhillon’s association with a force that allegedly committed human rights abuses made him inadmissible to the country. The Indian Government was quick to condemn this decision, calling it ‘insulting’ and ‘humiliating.’

Canada eventually apologized for the incident, but this wasn’t the first time Indian officials were denied entry. In fact, Canada has denied entry to several serving and former Indian officials over the years, and India has repeatedly responded with diplomatic protests.

The stakes, though, are higher than just visa denials.

The relationship between India and Canada has been strained for years, particularly after the 2023 assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian Khalistani leader.

Trudeau accused India of being involved in Nijjar’s death, a claim that India categorically denied. The controversy over Nijjar’s murder has deepened the rift between the two countries, with accusations and counter-accusations flying between the two Governments.

And in the midst of all this, Khalistani supporters in Canada have been staging violent protests outside Indian consular offices, targeting Indian officials, and even glorifying terrorist activities.

These actions have only increased India’s wariness of the pro-Khalistani movement in Canada. As such, denying visas to individuals linked to the movement, particularly those with a history of violent threats, seems like a reasonable response.

But the outcry over the visa issue has added fuel to the diplomatic fire.
As this diplomatic spat between India and Canada continues to evolve, it’s clear that the Khalistani issue is far from resolved.

For India, ensuring that its borders remain secure and that its people are not threatened by violent extremism is a matter of national security.

For Canada, protecting the rights of its citizens, even those with extremist views, is a delicate balancing act.

But in the end, the international community will have to ask — What comes first, national security or the right to free movement?

As both countries navigate this complex issue, one thing is certain, the relationship between India and Canada will continue to be shaped by the ongoing struggle over the Khalistani cause.

And as the debate over visa policies and foreign interference intensifies, it’s clear that this issue is far from being settled.