India and Canada are engaged in a growing political battle over foreign interference. It’s not some minor squabble and it has big implications for Australia domestically and in our relationship with New Delhi.

India accuses Canada of harbouring Sikh separatists and supporting them in their separatist activities back into India.

And Canada accuses India of not just supporting ‘counter-interference’ by pro-Indian people in Canada, but says it has evidence of direct involvement by Indian government officials in activities that have led to violence, intimidation and the June 2023 murder of a Canadian citizen, Hardeep Singh Nijar, in British Columbia.

The dispute has been growing since June last year and is showing no signs of slowing. 

Canada has now expelled the Indian High Commissioner to Ottawa and 5 other diplomats, and has charged Indian nationals in the murder of Mr Singh.  Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner Duheme has made a public statement saying that their investigation has uncovered broad and deep “criminal activity orchestrated by agents of the Government of India, and consequential threats to the safety and security of Canadians and individuals living in Canada. Despite law enforcement action, the harm has continued, posing a serious threat to our public safety.”

India has expelled Canada’s Acting High Commissioner to Delhi and 5 other diplomats and issued an outraged denial of Canada’s accusations, claiming that prime minister Trudeau’s government is influenced by a pro-Sikh separatist electoral bloc.

There are two problems here for anyone trying to think this all through.  First, the Canadian investigations’ major findings have been made public, but the actual evidence that supports them has not. 

This doesn’t allow any third party to test the validity or strength of the claims and it leaves Indian denials unable to be assessed.  That should be a fixed by the Canadian authorities going beyond top line statements and releasing some of the real evidence their investigations have uncovered.  This shouldn’t wait for lengthy legal processes to eventuate. Claims that releasing supporting evidence might prejudice cases look a little empty given the formal government and police allegations made publicly by Canadian ministers and officials so far.

The second problem is that the Modi government has form in the area of foreign interference and intimidation of critics in Indian diasporas overseas. Late last year, the US Justice Department began a prosecution around a murder plot in New York involving  “an Indian government employee, working together with others, including Gupta, in India and elsewhere, (who) directed a plot to assassinate on US soil an attorney and political activist who is a US citizen of Indian origin”.  That plot is eerily similar to the actual murder of Mr Singh in Canada.

And here in Australia, ‘details of New Delhi’s clandestine operations in Australia have emerged as western allies grow increasingly alarmed over the actions of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government’, with these Indian government activities including monitoring of India’s diaspora living in Australia.  As a result, an Indian ‘nest of spies’ was expelled back in 2020 following an ASIO investigation.  ASIO was concerned enough about the potential for violence and intimidation against Australians with Sikh ethnicity to meet with a number of them to seek insight and reassure them.

Where does this lead for Australia’s relationship with India ­­– and Canada?

Pretending none of this is happening is the most likely path for our government and national security agencies to take publicly.  Pressing prime minister Trudeau’s government to release evidence is the easy part.  India policy is a much harder road.

Questioned about Indian activities back in April 2024, ASIO chief Mike Burgess declined to say whether the Indian government’s foreign operations had caused any concern for ASIO back in Australia, saying “I don’t comment on any actions of any government, and you shouldn’t read anything into that”.  We can expect that line to be repeated.

But, even if leaving Australians in the dark about actual events involving a powerful country who we are deepening security, political and economic relations with is a good idea, there is no hiding from the large policy problem confronting Australian ministers and officials dealing with India. 

Engagement with Mr Modi’s government and security apparatus can’t ignore its track record of violent and intimidating interventions in other jurisdictions, including jurisdictions that have very friendly, deep relations with Mr Modi’s India. An India that is willing to plan and conduct violence up to and including killing citizens of friendly democratic countries is a partner who is imposing enormous practical limits on cooperation. Out of the “five eyes” countries, the UK has backed Canada the most. Last Wednesday the British Foreign Office said, “the government of India’s cooperation with Canada’s legal process is the right next step.”

Australians are having a long, continuing debate about the depth and impact of Chinese espionage and interference in our politics, on our university campuses and in university institutions themselves. We have even passed laws to allow prosecution for some of these activities.  But that is in a way an easier policy discussion because China is a deeply authoritarian state whose military is openly aggressive towards our own military and others, even if this security picture is balanced by our childlike joy at Australian lobster and iron ore sales there.

Now we are confronted by a flawed fellow democracy reaching into our society in dangerous ways that can bring internal Indian problems and disputes home to us.  Unfortunately, the nasty domestic contagion of anger and grievance from the war in the Middle East shows us that stoking violence, anger and dissent inside Australia’s multicultural community is easier than we would wish, and is something best dealt with early.

The risks of mismanaging domestic politics on this are large. We have more than 750,000 Indian-born Australians with international student numbers adding to diaspora numbers.  They have an excellent record of interfaith inclusion and tolerance. But our government has already encouraged Mr Modi to gather them and think of them as fellow Indians sharing his agenda, most obviously through Mr Albanese’s participation in highly political stadium celebrations during Modi’s visit to Australia last year.

At the same time, we are working hard to build closer military cooperation with India, to grow our economic relationship, and to work with India as a partner in the regionally-focused Quad grouping.

The path out of this for Australian political leaders and officials is difficult but clear. We should call on the Canadian government to release the evidence around Indian government connected violence there. And our government leaders should begin a more honest and open conversation here at home about the dangers and risks of internal Indian diaspora disputes and concerns spiralling into violence. All while ensuring that Mr Modi understands that we’re risking bigger things if Indian officials think there is any value in acting unlawfully against Australian citizens here ­– or in India.

If India is to truly be a great and democratic power, extra-judicial killings and interference in partner states simply can’t happen.

That means India has to move past bluster and denial and make policy changes to how it deals with its external critics and diasporas.  Durable democracies will always have critics and tolerating them is both necessary and healthy.

We’re at a point in world politics and security where we don’t need obstacles created between democracies by flawed policies and actions.  Being able to be open about our own flaws and those of others is the right foundation for true strategic relationships.  India is a vital strategic partner, so the stakes are high. Silence and pretence don’t hold any answers.

A version of this article was first published in The Australian. Anthony Bergin is a senior fellow at Strategic Analysis Australia, and Michael Shoebridge is director of SAA.