Western governments are rebuilding ties with India despite allegations of foreign interference and intelligence activities targeting individuals on their territory. The contradiction was evident on October 13, when Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi reaffirmed plans to expand trade and security cooperation despite unresolved security concerns. Their renewed engagement illustrates how strategic interests can limit the diplomatic consequences of serious disputes.
India’s economic importance, military capabilities and position in the Indo-Pacific give Western governments compelling reasons to preserve their relationships with New Delhi. For Washington, India is an important partner in managing China’s expanding regional influence. For Ottawa, stronger ties support trade diversification and access to one of Asia’s largest markets. Australia similarly sees India as a significant participant in Indo-Pacific security cooperation.
These interests create a hierarchy of priorities. Intelligence allegations may trigger investigations, diplomatic protests and security concerns, but they do not automatically determine the direction of broader bilateral relations. Governments can pursue accountability through legal and intelligence channels while maintaining economic negotiations and strategic partnerships. This separation of disputes from wider cooperation helps explain why Western pressure on India has remained limited.
Strategic Interests Outweigh Diplomatic Disputes
Canada provides the clearest example of this approach. In its 2025 public report, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service identified India among the principal state actors involved in foreign interference and espionage affecting Canada. The agency described historical efforts to cultivate covert relationships with politicians, journalists and diaspora communities, as well as concerns about surveillance and intimidation of individuals critical of the Indian government.
These findings followed the diplomatic confrontation surrounding the 2023 killing of Sikh separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in British Columbia. Canadian authorities alleged Indian involvement, which New Delhi denied. The controversy damaged diplomatic relations and raised serious questions about foreign interference and the protection of individuals on Canadian territory.
Yet Canada’s approach has shifted toward renewed engagement. During Carney’s March 2026 visit to India, both governments agreed to strengthen cooperation in trade, energy and national security. Their joint statement included plans for enhanced law-enforcement coordination, information-sharing mechanisms and regular dialogue between national security officials.
The economic incentives became clearer in October. On October 13, Carney and Modi reaffirmed their commitment to concluding negotiations on a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, supporting efforts to double bilateral trade by 2030. According to the Canadian prime minister’s office, they also welcomed expanding cooperation in defense, artificial intelligence and security.
The leaders acknowledged a national security adviser-level dialogue held in India the previous week. A planned December visit by Modi to Canada further demonstrated the political commitment to rebuilding relations.
Canada’s renewed engagement reflects broader economic calculations. With Ottawa seeking to diversify trade and reduce dependence on the United States amid American protectionist policies, India has become an increasingly important prospective commercial partner. The objective is not simply diplomatic reconciliation but greater economic flexibility in an uncertain international environment.
This helps explain the Canadian decision to pursue trade negotiations alongside security discussions. Restoring diplomatic channels may provide opportunities to address unresolved concerns, but renewed cooperation does not establish that earlier allegations have been resolved or that accountability has been achieved.
The United States faces a different version of the same dilemma. In October 2024, the U.S. Justice Department charged Indian government employee Vikash Yadav in connection with an alleged plot to assassinate a Sikh separatist and American citizen in New York.
The indictment contains allegations rather than a judicial determination of guilt. Nevertheless, the case raised serious questions about possible intelligence operations targeting individuals within the territory of a major security partner.
Washington’s response demonstrates the distinction between pursuing legal accountability and maintaining strategic cooperation. Criminal proceedings can continue independently of the broader relationship, while American policymakers assess India’s importance for regional security, technology cooperation and the Indo-Pacific balance of power.
India’s strategic position matters particularly because Washington seeks partnerships capable of contributing to regional stability without requiring formal military alliances. New Delhi’s military scale, geographic location and independent relationship with Moscow make it an important, though sometimes difficult, partner.
Broad punitive measures could also complicate defense cooperation, weaken efforts to diversify strategic supply chains and make it harder for Western governments to engage New Delhi on regional security.
Australia has encountered comparable concerns. In April 2024, ABC News identified India as the country behind an espionage network disrupted by Australian intelligence authorities in 2020. The reported activities involved attempts to obtain sensitive defense information, develop political relationships and monitor diaspora communities.
Australia nevertheless maintains an important strategic relationship with India through bilateral cooperation and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, alongside the United States and Japan.
The Canadian, American and Australian cases differ in their evidence, legal status and institutional responses. They cannot establish a single coordinated Indian policy without further proof. However, they reveal a common policy challenge: governments must address intelligence-related concerns while preserving relationships they consider important to their wider security interests.
Why Western Pressure Has Limits
India’s foreign policy further complicates Western calculations. Its doctrine of strategic autonomy allows New Delhi to maintain relationships with competing powers rather than align exclusively with one geopolitical bloc.
Russia remains an important example. Despite Western sanctions following the invasion of Ukraine, Indian refiners continued purchasing substantial quantities of Russian crude. According to Reuters, imports reached approximately 2.6 million barrels per day in June 2026 and remained around 2.47 million barrels per day in July.
India argues that affordable energy is essential for domestic economic stability. These purchases have created disagreements with Western governments seeking to constrain Russian revenues, but they also demonstrate New Delhi’s willingness to preserve economic options despite external pressure.
Such policy differences must be distinguished from allegations of unlawful intelligence activity. Purchasing Russian oil involves commercial decisions and differing sanctions policies. An alleged assassination operation or coercive foreign interference raises separate legal questions involving sovereignty and individual rights.
Western governments have responded to these challenges through different channels. Trade and defense cooperation can proceed alongside intelligence investigations and diplomatic negotiations. This separation allows governments to protect strategic relationships without necessarily abandoning legal or security concerns.
Canada’s diplomatic reset illustrates both the advantages and limitations of this approach. Renewed security dialogue may provide opportunities to address allegations of foreign interference, but its existence does not establish that accountability has been achieved. Washington and Canberra face similar challenges in maintaining cooperation while protecting their institutions and citizens.
India’s economic scale, military capabilities and strategic position give Western governments strong incentives to maintain engagement. Competition with China further increases the value of cooperation, making broad diplomatic isolation an unattractive option for many policymakers.
Yet strategic importance does not confer immunity from legal or political consequences. Criminal proceedings, intelligence restrictions and diplomatic objections can continue even as economic and security partnerships develop.
The central test is whether Western governments can preserve strategically valuable relationships without weakening accountability. Strategic necessity may limit the pressure they are willing to apply, but lasting partnerships ultimately depend on respect for sovereignty, the rule of law and the protection of individuals.
Saima Afzal is a researcher specializing in South Asian security, counterterrorism, and broader geopolitical dynamics across the Middle East, Afghanistan, and the Indo-Pacific. Her work examines strategic affairs and evolving patterns of regional conflict. She is currently a Research Scholar at Justus Liebig University, Germany.
Follow SouthAsianDesk on X, Instagram and Facebook for insights on business and current affairs from across South Asia.
