Foreign interference is unacceptable in Canada. It shouldn’t become acceptable simply because it’s aimed at India.

I don’t pretend to have deep, on-the-ground knowledge of Alberta’s separatist debate. But Canada’s near-universal pushback against foreign interference in that conversation has been heartening, because it reveals a civic reflex Canadians still share, whatever your view on separation, you don’t want outsiders manipulating a domestic question.

Recent reporting has made the concern concrete. A study summarized by Global News warned that foreign actors, including American and Russian ones, are meddling in Alberta’s separatist debate in ways that threaten Canadian sovereignty (Global News, May 2026). Canada’s National Observer reported research showing inauthentic ‘news’ channels and influence campaigns amplifying Alberta secession and annexation narratives (Canada’s National Observer, April 2026). The Guardian reported a major Alberta voter-data breach linked to separatist organizing, exactly the kind of vulnerability experts warn can be exploited (The Guardian, May 2026).

So, Canada’s standard is clear: foreign interference is unacceptable, especially when it rides on disinformation, data exposure, and community targeting. Good. Now apply that same standard to how many Indians, across political views, have experienced the Khalistan file for years.

From India’s perspective, the core complaint is at least a few decades old that Canadian political space, and institutions have enabled an overseas separatist ecosystem to operate openly from Canada, often wrapped in ‘rights’ language, even as India links that ecosystem to extremism, intimidation, and criminality. That is not a characterization I’m inventing; it is an official position India has put on record. In September 2023, India’s Ministry of External Affairs explicitly referred to ‘Khalistani terrorists and extremists’ sheltered in Canada and said, ‘the space given in Canada to a range of illegal activities including murders, human trafficking and organised crime is not new’.

Canadians can disagree with India’s framing. But the asymmetry in Canadian instincts is hard to miss. When Alberta becomes the target, Canadians immediately reach for the language of sovereignty, manipulation, coercion, and democratic integrity. When India raises similar concerns about separatist organizing from Canadian soil, often paired with intimidation politics and crime allegations, Canada’s reflex is too often to repackage it as ‘a disagreement about free speech’.

Canada’s own intelligence reporting has, in fact, moved closer to India’s concern than Canada’s political class admits. The CSIS Public Report states that ongoing involvement in violent extremist activities by Canada-based Khalistani extremists continues to pose a national-security threat to Canada and Canadian interests, and notes that some fundraising can be diverted toward violent activity (CSIS Public Report, 2025). That is not India lobbying Canada. That is Canada describing a domestic threat.

The double standard isn’t only about what is tolerated on Canadian soil. It’s also about what Canadian politicians choose to amplify abroad and that record spans parties.

During the 2020–21 farmers’ protest, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly called the situation ‘concerning’ and signalled support for peaceful protest and dialogue (Hindustan Times, December 2020). Conservative MPs spoke too. In the House of Commons, Arnold Viersen said Sikhs were ‘thinking of and praying for India’s farmers’ protesting new legislation (House of Commons Hansard, November 2020).

Conservative MP Brad Vis tabled petitions from constituents ‘concerned for the safety of farmers’ protesting domestic legislative changes in India (House of Commons Hansard, December 2020). Conservative MP Tim Uppal likewise said India’s farmers ‘deserve to be heard and respected’, a message amplified in media coverage (Scroll, December 2020). Ontario NDP MPP Gurratan Singh was also cited among Canadian politicians voicing concern about the protests, showing the commentary extended beyond Ottawa into provincial politics (Canada’s National Observer, December 2020).

The Amritpal Singh episode in 2023 is even more instructive because it involved public order and violence, not merely protest. Al Jazeera reported that Amritpal and supporters armed with swords, knives and guns raided a police station in February 2023 after an aide was arrested, an event central to the later crackdown and manhunt (Al Jazeera, April 2023). India Today reported Punjab Police describing the Ajnala, Punjab incident as an attack on police and highlighting pressure on authorities during the confrontation. (India Today, February 2023).

Now ask a simple question: if a mobilized group stormed a police station in Canada to force the release of an aide, under threat, with weapons visible, would Canadian authorities treat it as ‘civil liberties’ theatre, or would they enforce criminal law and restore public order?

Canadian political reactions again moved quickly into public positioning. Global News reported that MPs from multiple parties criticized India’s crackdown and internet restrictions, and it specifically noted Conservative voices as well. Conservative deputy leader Tim Uppal and Conservative MP Jasraj Singh Hallan among them (Global News, March 2023). Canada’s Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly said Canada was following developments ‘very closely’ (The Indian Express, March 2023). Jagmeet Singh called the crackdown ‘draconian’ and urged Canadian intervention (Hindustan Times, March 2023).

Outside government, the World Sikh Organization of Canada issued a formal statement condemning the “security operations” in Punjab and raising fears about extrajudicial harm, illustrating how non-government actors in Canada also shaped the narrative internationally (World Sikh Organization of Canada, March 2023)

India’s response to both episodes followed the same script: formal diplomatic pushback and a clear message that Canada was commenting on internal Indian matters. In 2020, India summoned Canada’s envoy, warned that Trudeau’s remarks could ‘impact ties’, and called the commentary ‘ill-informed’, ‘unwarranted’, and ‘interference’ (Al Jazeera, December 2020) (India Today, December 2020) (Reuters, December 2020).

In 2023, as Canadian politicians and organizations criticized the Punjab crackdown, Indian officials framed the operation as law-enforcement action to ‘nab a fugitive’, signalling that Canada’s commentary was external noise while India pursued policing. (The Indian Express, March 2023.)

Put the pattern together and the hypocrisy becomes harder to ignore. Canada is right to reject foreign interference in Alberta. But Canada’s political class has repeatedly engaged in rhetorical interference in India, on mass protests and on an internal security crackdown triggered by a police-station attack, then bristled when India said, plainly, ‘this is our internal matter’.

That is why the Alberta interference debate matters beyond Alberta. It has forced Canadians to admit, in real time, that democratic debates can be manipulated through proxies, disinformation, intimidation, and exploitation of institutional openness. Canada is suddenly fluent in the language of foreign influence because it can taste it.

The underlying principle is that sovereignty is not selective. If foreign interference is wrong when aimed at Canadian unity, it is equally wrong when Canadian space is used to inflame separatist politics abroad.

Foreign interference is unacceptable in Canada. It shouldn’t become acceptable simply because it’s aimed at India.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Speaking alongside Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese during a joint press conference in Canberra, Carney said Canada would stand by its partners as tensions in the Middle East deepen following a large-scale military strike by the United States and Israel on Iran.“One can never categorically rule out participation,” Carney said when asked whether Canada could become directly involved in the conflict. He described the question as hypothetical but stressed that Canada remained committed to supporting its allies and protecting its national interests.“We will stand by our allies,” he said. “We will always defend Canadians.”Conflict dominates diplomatic visitCarney’s visit to Australia has been overshadowed by the widening war in the Middle East following the U.S.–Israeli strike on Iran that killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, according to statements referenced during the visit.The Canadian leader said the strikes were “inconsistent with international law,” while also reiterating Canada’s long-standing position that Iran should not obtain a nuclear weapon.Carney said Canada supported efforts aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, though he described the situation as “another example of the failure of the international order.”Despite the rising tensions, the prime minister called for restraint and urged steps to reduce the risk of further escalation.Carney reiterated his call for “de-escalation” of the conflict, highlighting concerns that the confrontation could destabilise the broader Middle East and strain the international security system.Middle powers urged to cooperateDuring a speech to Australia’s parliament, Carney urged countries he described as “middle powers” to work more closely together in an international environment increasingly shaped by major geopolitical competition.He said nations such as Canada and Australia faced a choice between cooperating to help shape the evolving global order or allowing larger powers to set the rules.“In this brave new world, middle powers cannot simply build higher walls and retreat behind them. We must work together,” Carney told lawmakers.He said countries with similar political and economic values could help influence international governance through cooperation and coordinated policies.“Great powers can compel, but compulsion comes with costs, both reputational and financial,” he said, adding that countries such as Canada and Australia possessed the ability to convene partners because they were seen as reliable actors in international affairs.Carney said these countries could strengthen their influence by aligning their policies with their stated values and working collectively in multilateral forums.

Expanding economic and strategic cooperationCarney also highlighted plans for deeper cooperation between Canada and Australia across a range of sectors including defence, artificial intelligence and natural resources.He said the two countries intended to work together as “strategic collaborators” and pointed to the potential of combining their rare earth mineral resources, which are widely used in advanced technologies and clean energy systems.“We know we must work with others who share our values to build solid capabilities,” he told parliament, warning that countries risked being “caught between the hyperscalers and the hegemons” if they failed to strengthen partnerships.Carney’s visit forms part of a broader tour of the Asia-Pacific region aimed at expanding economic partnerships and reducing Canada’s reliance on the United States.

The trip comes amid strained relations between Ottawa and Washington. Carney has previously clashed with U.S. President Donald Trump, who has threatened tariffs on Canadian goods and has at times suggested the possibility of annexing Canada.Earlier this year, speaking at the World Economic Forum in January, Carney warned that the U.S.-led global system of governance was undergoing what he described as “a rupture,” reflecting broader shifts in the balance of geopolitical power.