The Globe and Mail, once a respected news outlet, has alarmingly transformed into a mouthpiece for the Canadian government, peddling narratives that resemble something out of a fantasy novel. In Campbell Clark’s recent article, he portrays India’s expelled High Commissioner Sanjay Kumar Verma as an aggressor, eager to pick a fight with Ottawa. However, Clark conveniently ignores the real issue: the Canadian government’s alarmingly passive response to Khalistani extremism within its borders.
Clark’s article claims that Verma, upon assuming his role, was determined to confront Ottawa on the issue of Khalistani separatists. But what’s so outrageous about that? When a nation repeatedly fails to address terrorist activities within its borders, threatening the sovereignty of another nation, what else can the high commissioner do but raise concerns and demand action?
The accusations of “coercion” and “illegal activities” levelled against Verma and other Indian diplomats are baseless and reeks of a desperate attempt to deflect from Canada’s own shortcomings. Clark conveniently forgets that Indian diplomats have been raising concerns about Khalistani extremism for decades, dating back to the 1985 Air India bombing – a terrorist attack originating from Canadian soil that claimed 329 innocent lives. So, what was so different about Verma’s approach? He simply continued to pressure a Canadian government that remained stubbornly deaf to repeated calls for action against terrorists operating within its borders.
Clark tries to justify Canada’s distinction between terrorists and “non-violent” Khalistan advocates, conveniently overlooking the often-established links between these so-called “non-violent” activists and violent extremism. India’s demand for action is not an overreach; it is a fundamental right to protect its citizens and sovereignty from threats rooted in foreign soil.
Clark’s article fails to address the real issue: Canada’s unwillingness to draw a firm line between legitimate activism and violent separatism, which poses a real and present danger. While the RCMP’s accusations lack substance, Canada, instead of seeking evidence or accountability, chose to escalate tensions by going after diplomats. This lack of reciprocity further strains already fragile relations and exposes Canada’s refusal to address the real issue: extremism festering within its borders.
Then Andrew Coyne, another Canadian commentator, jumped on the bandwagon, echoing the same tired rhetoric, audaciously claiming, “This is not a diplomatic spat; it’s state terrorism, and Canada is right to call it out.” Really? India has been calling out Canada’s inaction for years, directly pointing to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s reliance on Khalistani extremists to maintain political power. Canada has become a breeding ground for terror, and Trudeau is at the helm.
Coyne’s argument that the timing of the RCMP’s accusations was not a ploy to distract from Trudeau’s political troubles is laughable, especially considering his admission that Trudeau has manipulated other cases of foreign interference for political survival. This blatant contradiction exposes Coyne’s bias and his attempt to shield Trudeau from scrutiny.
Coyne’s misguided attempt to portray India as an aggressor highlights the hypocrisy that India has been battling for years. While acknowledging Canada’s slow response to Sikh extremism and the Liberal Party’s shameless courting of Sikh nationalist votes, he fails to grasp that India’s actions are not the work of an authoritarian regime but the efforts of a responsible democracy safeguarding its citizens.
To suggest that India, the world’s largest democracy, engages in state terrorism is not only offensive but also a complete erasure of the brutal history of Khalistani violence that has claimed countless lives. Canada must wake up to the global threat of terrorism and stop enabling extremists within its own borders.
Coyne sermonises that India’s actions are “not the behavior of an ally.” Well, neither is harboring terrorists. If Canada truly valued its alliance with India, it would take concrete steps to dismantle the networks of violence thriving on its soil, rather than scapegoating Indian diplomats and distorting the truth.
