The Canadian government, led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has named India a “cyber adversary” in a recently published cyber security report. This has caused fresh tension between the two countries in diplomatic corridors in recent times. It does imply that Canada is trying to portray India as the latter is an adversarial country in terms of its cyber security, which intensifies the already strained relationships. India’s strong reaction to the move undertaken by Canada termed its posture as part of a sustained effort to defame the country on the international forum.
Canada’s Allegations: India as a Cyber Enemy
The accusations made are based on Canada’s “National Cyber Threat Assessment 2025-2026” report, stating that India is a state with a potentially threatening cyber program. The report continues to say that India is planning on how to develop sophisticated cyberinfrastructure support for its national security interests, such as countering terrorism and influence globally. Indian officials reportedly have made use of commercial cyber vendors to enhance operations that can be used by Canada in cyber espionage and narratives that are against the nation.
The report further indicates that cyber actors possibly supported by the Indian government are engaging in cyber activities targeting the networks of Canada probably for espionage. It points out that countries striving to achieve a considerable place in world power, like India, may represent various degrees of cyber threats against Canada.
It’s a serious claim, but no tangible proof is available. The observer within me can little too bold of the attitude on the part of Canada coming up with such generalized claims without having the hard proof of it. Such enormous claims cannot go without proof, and in that light of things, it would just appear as political rhetoric and not some meaningful security report.
More Read
India’s Strong Response
India has been prompt in response and has used direct language. The official spokesperson of the MEA, Randhir Jaiswal said, “New Delhi categorically rejects such baseless accusations without any evidence yet an attempt to damage India’s international reputation.” This is a new pattern of the accusation made by Toronto as unfounded allegations made to shift the global perspective against India.
Jaiswal said senior Canadian officials had openly admitted their intentions of shaping world views against India, an effort that is targeted in his opinion. According to him, “These allegations are part of a consistent Canadian strategy to malign India, without any shred of evidence to back up their claims.” In his view, the content of the report is sheer speculation.
Diplomatic Norms Violated? India’s Diplomatic Staff Under Surveillance
In addition to these cyber allegations, New Delhi has also complained that its diplomatic personnel based in Canada are under surveillance. The communications of this staff are being intercepted while under constant surveillance during office hours and also overnight as the Indian side says it is a clear case of breaching the diplomatic norms prevalent in international practices.
Such conduct, the MEA states is an intimidating modus operandi by resorting to surveillance and harassment tactics. The Canadian government is adopting surveillance and harassment tactics to intimidate Indian officials and officers. Such acts against a host country violate international law, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which clearly states norms of diplomacy. While formal protest was lodged it had been stated that “technicalities” cannot be resorted to as a rationale for indulging in activities of surveillance, which brings with it the effect of yet more divisive and hostile atmosphere.
In my view, if the surveillance allegations are to be trusted, then it’s the first time that diplomacy has taken such an unorthodox step away from traditional diplomatic protocol. I don’t recall two nations acting in such a manner with each other’s diplomats and setting a precedent for worse things to come. It goes against the grain of diplomacy itself, where diplomats operate free from harassment, and this would deepen mistrust between India and Canada manifold if true.
A troubled relationship based on political differences
This is the latest in a long line of a rather troubled diplomatic relationship between India and Canada, fueled by allegations of Canada supporting Khalistani separatist groups. The Indian government has criticized Prime Minister Trudeau for allegedly allowing separatist movements to gain a foothold in Canada, further straining bilateral relations. According to the Indian government, the Khalistani vote bank is that which Mr. Trudeau is using to gain political momentum, which India feels gives a threat to its oneness and stability.
For many Indians, this long-term support of the separatist movement is devastatingly hurtful to the bilateral relations between the two countries. The political situation of both countries shows that Canada and India are moving in opposite directions, as Canada is siding with freedom of speech, even for groups like the Khalistanis, whereas the same act of freedom of speech by Canada has hurt India’s sovereignty directly.
The Bigger Picture: What’s Next for Indo-Canadian Relations?
This situation puts India and Canada in a very fragile position, as mistrust develops rapidly between the two nations. As India argues, Canada’s recent moves might represent a politically motivated gesture to boost Trudeau’s domestic support base rather than credible security concerns. But for Canada, it is a fear of India’s growing influence, not just in cyberspace but also in expanding international reach.
This diplomatic feud is precisely when both countries want to mark their presence globally. Canada, traditionally the picture of peace and order and abiding by international practices, appears to take on India rather sternly- perhaps for domestic political appeasement. The new high-powered Indian state can’t stand anything it sees as a dent in the image it is so earnestly trying to portray- that of a global giant on the rise.
As an observer, this situation puts both countries in a precarious corner. It is indeed difficult to predict if this can be reconciled within a short period without showing a political will to relent on the other side. Dialogues may still have a chance, but under such deeply entrenched political and security concerns, cooperation appears to be difficult.
Thus, the label “cyber adversary” and the accusations of surveillance further complicate an already sensitive relationship. The way and manner both countries navigate this rocky terrain will determine their diplomatic and economic relations for many years ahead.
Analysis by Atul Raj
