Chandra Arya, an Indian-origin Member of Parliament in Canada, has emerged as a highly controversial figure for his repeated targeting of Sikh activism and his alignment with narratives that closely mirror those propagated by the Indian state. While Arya positions himself as a champion of Hindus in Canada, his rhetoric and actions reveal a deeper agenda that risks undermining community harmony, erasing historical injustices, and furthering divisive ideologies. His persistent framing of Sikh activism as extremism and his silence on critical issues, like the assassination of Bhai Hardeep Singh Nijjar, raises urgent questions about his motivations, accountability, and role in Canadian politics. 

Arya’s public statements have consistently sought to conflate Sikh activism with extremism, portraying Khalistan supporters as dangerous threats to Canadian society. His rhetoric is inflammatory, divisive, and often devoid of factual grounding. Despite Canadian intelligence agencies repeatedly rejecting the Indian narrative of widespread Khalistani extremism in the country, Arya continues to amplify this false narrative. This deflection not only stigmatizes an entire community but also trivializes their legitimate grievances, particularly in the wake of credible accusations of India’s involvement in Nijjar’s assassination—a fact that Arya has conveniently ignored. 

The lack of accountability for Arya’s actions within the Liberal Party is equally troubling. While Sikh MPs within the party have often claimed that party discipline prevents them from taking strong public stands on issues affecting their community, Arya appears to operate without such constraints. His ability to freely criticize Sikh activism and promote Indian state narratives underscores an inherent bias within the party’s internal dynamics. If Arya can repeatedly speak out in alignment with India’s interests, why are Sikh MPs unable to advocate for their communities with equal freedom? This disparity not only highlights a double standard but also raises concerns about the political marginalization of Sikhs within Canada’s ruling party. 

One of Arya’s most glaring contradictions lies in his continued relationship with the Indian government. In August 2024, Arya met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, referring to India as a “significant” partner for Canadian exports and investments. This meeting occurred just weeks before Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused India of orchestrating Nijjar’s assassination on Canadian soil. Arya’s willingness to engage with Indian leadership during such a fraught period illustrates a troubling alignment with a state credibly accused of engaging in transnational repression, including the targeting of Sikh activists in Canada. 

Arya’s actions and rhetoric also reflect a broader strategy of delegitimizing Sikh activism by framing it as a threat to Canadian society. By repeatedly invoking the specter of “Khalistani extremism,” Arya seeks to criminalize political dissent and activism among Sikhs, creating an environment of fear and mistrust. This approach aligns with India’s long-standing attempts to portray Sikh demands for justice and self-determination as extremist threats. Arya’s parroting of this narrative does not just harm the Sikh community; it also undermines Canada’s sovereignty by allowing foreign state interests to shape domestic discourse. 

Moreover, Arya’s silence on issues of critical importance to Canadian Sikhs further underscores his biases. While he has been vocal in condemning Sikh activism, he has remained conspicuously silent on the assassination of Nijjar—a Canadian citizen killed in what the Canadian government alleges was an act of Indian state terrorism. This selective outrage exposes Arya’s priorities and raises serious questions about his commitment to representing the diverse communities of Canada. 

Arya’s alignment with Indian state narratives becomes even more dangerous when viewed in the context of Canada’s broader struggles with foreign interference. Indian state propaganda, often amplified through disinformation networks, seeks to sow discord within diaspora communities and stifle dissent. Arya’s rhetoric and actions fit neatly into this strategy, as he continues to promote narratives that distract from India’s culpability while demonizing those who seek accountability. His repeated calls to address “Khalistani extremism” conveniently deflect attention from India’s documented involvement in transnational repression and its efforts to undermine Canada’s sovereignty. 

Arya’s behavior also risks further fracturing Canada’s multicultural fabric. By framing Sikh activism as a threat and aligning himself with Indian state interests, he fuels tensions between communities and erodes the trust necessary for harmonious coexistence. His inflammatory rhetoric does not just target Sikhs; it sends a chilling message to all minority communities in Canada that their legitimate grievances and activism can be dismissed as extremism if they challenge powerful state actors. 

In the face of these concerns, it is imperative for Canadian institutions, media, and the public to critically examine Arya’s role in shaping public discourse. His alignment with divisive narratives, his selective outrage, and his questionable loyalties to a foreign state demand accountability. Canada’s commitment to multiculturalism, justice, and democracy cannot afford to be compromised by the unchecked actions of individuals who prioritize foreign state interests over the well-being of their constituents. 

Chandra Arya’s rhetoric and actions represent a clear and present danger to community harmony, political accountability, and Canada’s sovereignty. By amplifying divisive narratives and aligning himself with a state credibly accused of transnational repression, Arya undermines the very principles that Canada stands for. It is time for Canadian institutions and the public to hold Arya accountable and to reaffirm their commitment to justice, truth, and the protection of all communities. The stakes are too high to allow foreign state narratives to dictate Canada’s domestic discourse. 

Author: Naunihal Singh