India’s alleged move to restrict visa access to individuals sympathetic to the Khalistan movement has sparked predictable outrage among its critics. A recent report by Global News claims that the Indian government is actively denying visas to such individuals unless they explicitly profess respect for India’s territorial integrity and renounce support for the Khalistani separatist agenda. While detractors cry foul, accusing India of overreach and harassment, this response from New Delhi marks a necessary and overdue assertion of sovereignty in the face of sustained anti-India activities from abroad.
At the heart of the report is Bikramjit Singh Sandhar, former president of the Guru Nanak Sikh Gurdwara in Surrey, British Columbia—a figure known for his past support of the Khalistan movement. Sandhar, denied a visa in 2016, was allegedly later asked to sign a letter distancing himself from the separatist cause. He is not alone. Several members of the Sikh diaspora in Canada, influential within their communities, have reportedly been subjected to similar conditions. While critics frame this as an act of suppression, it is, in reality, an exercise in basic statecraft.
A Global Standard in Diplomatic Policy
Visa access is not an entitlement—it is a privilege granted at the discretion of the host nation. Every sovereign country reserves the right to deny entry to individuals deemed a threat to its national integrity or security. India’s alleged approach toward Khalistani sympathisers mirrors a global diplomatic practice that is neither new nor unique. Western democracies that are quick to chastise India have long adopted similar measures.
China, for instance, would never entertain visa applications from Tibetan independence activists or Uighur separatists. Spain has consistently denied access to Catalonian separatists, and the United Kingdom has a history of barring Irish republicans linked to the IRA. Even smaller nations, like Sri Lanka, have adopted hardline stances against Tamil separatists. Why, then, is India’s decision to hold Khalistani supporters accountable through visa denials considered an exception rather than the norm?
The answer lies in the political and ideological hypocrisy of certain Western nations, Canada chief among them.
Canada’s Selective Tolerance
For decades, Canada has served as a sanctuary for Khalistani extremists, who have used its soil to promote separatism and violence against India. The 1985 Kanishka bombing—one of the deadliest acts of aviation terrorism—is a grim reminder of this history, with its masterminds sheltered in Canada. Today, the situation has worsened. High-profile gurdwaras, such as the one Sandhar once led, have been linked to Khalistani propaganda, including open glorification of terrorists like Talwinder Singh Parmar, a chief architect of the Kanishka tragedy.
Even Canada’s official institutions have, on occasion, been forced to acknowledge this reality. In a recent press conference, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police inadvertently confirmed the active presence of Khalistani elements on Canadian soil. Yet, successive Canadian governments, particularly under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, have chosen to placate these factions for political gain. Trudeau’s reliance on Khalistani sympathisers as a significant vote bank has emboldened separatist narratives while undermining Indo-Canadian relations.
The hypocrisy runs deep. While Canada welcomes Khalistani elements with open arms, it has subjected Indian military personnel—those who have defended India’s sovereignty in regions like Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir—to humiliating visa denials and intrusive questioning about their service. Such double standards expose a troubling agenda that prioritises appeasement of extremist elements over fostering meaningful diplomatic ties.
India’s Diplomatic Maturity
If the reports are accurate, India’s decision to deny visas to Khalistani supporters is a much-needed course correction. For too long, anti-India forces have exploited India’s democratic openness while enjoying the protections offered by foreign governments like Canada’s. New Delhi’s move signals a long-overdue assertion of its sovereignty and national security interests. The message is clear: those who work against India’s territorial integrity will no longer enjoy unfettered access to the very country they seek to harm.
The alleged carrot-and-stick approach—where individuals are rewarded with visa facilitation in exchange for denouncing Khalistani extremism—demonstrates India’s strategic pragmatism. It also sets a precedent for stronger measures, such as the confiscation of property and freezing of assets belonging to separatist sympathisers. This is not an overreaction; it is a proportionate response to decades of provocation.
The Way Forward
The outrage among the usual anti-India circles—amplified through op-eds and social media—follows a predictable script. Khalistani separatists are rebranded as “human rights activists,” while India’s efforts to protect its sovereignty are vilified as authoritarian overreach. This narrative conveniently ignores the violent history of the Khalistan movement and the mass casualties it inflicted on innocent lives.
India’s rising global stature has made it a target for such misinformation campaigns. However, the Modi government’s bold steps reflect India’s growing confidence on the world stage. Canada’s appeasement of Khalistani elements has strained bilateral ties and eroded trust, but India is no longer willing to look the other way. Western nations must understand that fostering separatism under the guise of free speech is a dangerous game with far-reaching consequences.
In denying visas to those who actively work against its national interests, India is not just protecting its sovereignty but also sending a strong message: the era of exploiting India’s openness is over. If other nations refuse to take India’s concerns seriously, New Delhi has every right to protect itself with measures it deems necessary. Canada’s continued indulgence of Khalistani elements may have unintended repercussions, but India will no longer allow its national security to be held hostage to foreign appeasement politics.
Visa denial is not harassment—it is a necessary defense of territorial integrity. For Khalistani supporters and their enablers, the choice is simple: abandon the agenda of separatism, or face the consequences of exclusion.
