Ottawa, April 6 – Canada’s recently enacted Bill C-9, the “Combating Hate Act,” directly addresses incidents promoted by Khalistani extremists that have caused concern among Indian diaspora communities. The bill criminalizes intimidation or obstruction of individuals seeking to access religious or cultural spaces.
In an article for India Narrative, Sanjay Kumar Verma, former High Commissioner of India to Canada, stated that the effectiveness of the law hinges on its consistent enforcement, the confidence it builds among the public, and its ability to restore normalcy for the diaspora.
Verma wrote, “In recent years, the Indian diaspora in Canada has faced a climate that feels increasingly charged, performative, and at times, openly hostile, driven by Khalistani extremism based in Canada. What was once considered the fringe of political expression has, in several instances, crossed into the realm of intimidation, incitement to violence, and hate speech, directed not only at symbols of India but also at individuals representing the Indian state.”
Until recently, Canada’s legal framework struggled to respond decisively to these developments. The system, he explained, was designed to intervene only when speech caused clear and demonstrable harm.
“The difficulty, as events since 2022 have shown, is that contemporary forms of intimidation do not always fit neatly into those categories. The display of threatening imagery, the strategic use of public demonstrations to target specific communities or institutions, and the obstruction, implicit or otherwise, of access to religious spaces often fall into a grey area. They create an environment of pressure and unease without always meeting the legal standard required for prosecution.”
Highlighting the relevance of Canada's Bill C-9, Verma emphasized that the legislation is not simply an update to existing law; it is an acknowledgement that the nature of harm has evolved and that the legal framework must evolve with it.
“By criminalising the obstruction of access to places of worship and recognising the role of symbolic hate in creating insecurity, it offers a form of legal acknowledgment that these concerns are neither exaggerated nor isolated. It affirms that safety is not limited to protection from physical violence, but includes the ability to participate in community life without intimidation.”
At the same time, the legislation raises important questions about balance. The Indian diaspora, like other communities in Canada, values the country’s tradition of robust free expression. The challenge for Canadian authorities will be to ensure that enforcement remains precise, targeting genuine instances of hatred without casting an unnecessarily wide net.
Verma highlighted the growing threat of Khalistani extremism, stating that, as India’s High Commissioner in Canada, he witnessed firsthand how several acts, which were previously considered the fringes of political expression, crossed into the realm of intimidation, incitement to violence, and hate speech.
He recalled the "disturbing tableau" at a Nagar Kirtan procession in Toronto, which depicted the violent assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, not as a historical reflection, but as a spectacle to be re-enacted. In another instance, a poster bearing the image of India's then High Commissioner was displayed with simulated bullet marks, a gesture meant to incite violence and hatred.
“The grotesque display of Indian leadership in public protests, incendiary slogans calling for violence, and demonstrations staged in close proximity to Indian diplomatic missions have created a pattern that goes beyond dissent,” he stated.
“In some cases, threats, both implicit and explicit, have been directed at India's High Commissioner and other diplomats. This is not dissent stretching its voice; it is dissent testing how far intimidation can travel before the law catches up. When violence is staged as memory and threat is aestheticised as protest, the question is no longer about freedom of expression but about the erosion of its boundaries,” he added.
According to Verma, the cumulative effect for the Indian diaspora has been a growing sense of insecurity, with community spaces not immune to this atmosphere. He stressed that these are not isolated incidents but calculated performative acts that blur the boundary between expression and intimidation, testing the extent to which public space can normalise threat.
“Hindu temples have been vandalised with graffiti carrying extremist messaging, often designed less to persuade than to provoke. The repetition of such incidents has created a sense that these are not isolated acts of mischief but part of a broader attempt to challenge India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity through disruption and symbolic aggression,” he wrote in India Narrative.
The issue of vandalism of places of worship, the former diplomat mentions, illustrates both the necessity and the complexity of this approach.
“Such acts are rarely random. They are designed to send a message, to mark territory, and to provoke reaction. By bringing symbolic acts within the ambit of criminal law, Bill C-9 acknowledges their impact. Yet the credibility of this approach will depend on whether these acts are investigated thoroughly and prosecuted decisively. A law that promises protection but fails to deliver it risks deepening, rather than alleviating, community anxiety.”