India has vehemently refuted the allegations leveled by the Canadian spy agency CSIS, dismissing them as “baseless.” The Ministry of External Affairs issued a robust statement rejecting Canada’s accusations and pointing out what it perceives as hypocrisy on Ottawa’s part. External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal, addressing the CSIS report, labeled the claims as groundless and highlighted the real concern of Ottawa’s historical interference in New Delhi’s internal matters.

During a press briefing, Jaiswal emphasized, “We have noted media reports regarding the Canadian commission’s investigation… We strongly refute any unfounded allegations of Indian interference in Canadian elections.”

“It is not the policy of the Indian government to meddle in the democratic processes of other nations. On the contrary, it is Canada that has been intruding into our internal affairs,” he added.

What does the CSIS report entail? A document by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service under scrutiny by the Federal Commission of Inquiry probes potential foreign interference by nations such as India, Pakistan, China, and Russia in Canada’s elections in 2019 and 2021. The CSIS alleged that in 2021, the Indian government had “intent to interfere and likely conducted clandestine activities,” which included utilizing a proxy agent in Canada.

Furthermore, the Canadian spy agency claimed that in 2021, the Indian government orchestrated foreign interference activities primarily focused on a few electoral districts. According to the CSIS document, these districts were targeted due to India’s perception that a segment of Indo-Canadian voters sympathized with the Khalistani movement or held pro-Pakistan political views. The CSIS asserted that it had amassed “a body of intelligence” indicating that a government of India proxy agent may have attempted to interfere in democratic processes by providing illicit financial support to pro-Indian candidates.

However, CSIS Director David Vigneault cautioned the inquiry against accepting the allegations mentioned in the report as factual, suggesting they necessitate further investigation. The inquiry noted that the information in the report appeared to be unverified, single-sourced, or incomplete.