Hindus threatened with mass deportation during hate-filled Khalistani parade in Toronto, Canada
Toronto, Ontario, Canada 
3 May, 2025
Case Summary
A parade marked by extreme anti-Hindu rhetoric was organised outside the Malton Gurdwara in Toronto by pro-Khalistani elements based in Canada. The parade featured slogans demanding the deportation of 800,000 Hindus living in the country and showcased caged effigies of Indian leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar. The event took place shortly after the Canadian elections, which saw Mark Carney replace Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party. The parade, far from being a routine political protest, was infused with communal hostility, specifically targeting Hindus. Participants chanted slogans in favour of Khalistan—an imagined Sikh homeland to be carved out of Punjab—and called for secession from India. The parade drew widespread criticism online and provoked fears about the rise in hate speech and community-targeted threats within Canada. Videos from the parade revealed the involvement of high-profile Khalistani operatives. Individuals linked to Babbar Khalsa, a banned terrorist organisation responsible for the 1985 bombing of Air India Flight 182, were seen addressing the gathering. The Khalsa Parade also featured figures from Amritpal Singh’s Anandpur Khalsa Force (AKF), a group that has drawn attention for its terrorist leanings. Among those seen was Santokh Singh Khalsa, who has a prior conviction related to plotting attacks against Indian interests. These activities occurred just days before Canada’s national elections, raising alarm over the impunity with which extremist elements operate on Canadian soil. Canadian journalist Daniel Bordman described the parade as a display of “anti-Hindu hatred” and highlighted the worrying silence of the newly elected Prime Minister. In a social media post, he questioned whether Carney’s government would continue the same policy trajectory as Trudeau’s, which had been perceived as lenient towards Khalistani extremism. Other public voices, such as commentator Shawn Binda, drew attention to the direct nature of the threats issued. Binda documented the targeting of Hindus across the diaspora—from the Caribbean to Africa and Southeast Asia—accusing the parade organisers of using anti-Hindu hate speech masked as political dissent. Binda’s footage included a disturbing statement made during the parade: “India says there is nothing left for it in Canada. This is a message to the 8 lakh Indians living here, take them back to Hindustan.” Recent developments also indicate that Khalistani figures remain active in wider international conflicts. Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a leading Khalistani figure, issued a statement supporting Pakistan shortly after the Pahalgam terrorist attack, in which 26 Hindus were killed by operatives of Lashkar-e-Taiba’s offshoot, The Resistance Force. This endorsement further cements the ideological and operational overlap between Khalistani separatism and jihadist extremism, exposing a common interest in fomenting anti-Hindu and anti-India sentiment on foreign soil.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of- Hate speech against Hindus. Within it, the sub-category selected is- Violent threats. Violent threats, explicit, implicit or implied, is the most dangerous form of hate speech since it goes beyond discriminatory and prejudicial language to express the intent of causing harm to an individual or a group of people based on their religious identity and faith. There could be several different kinds of threats that are issued to Hindus based on religious animosity. An explicit threat would mean the direct threat of violence towards an individual Hindu, a group of Hindus or Hindus at large. Physical violence, death threats, threats of destruction of property belonging to Hindus and threats of genocide would mean explicit threats against Hindus for their religious identity. Implicit threats may not be a direct threat but implied through the use of symbols of actions – for example – in the Nupur Sharma case, other than explicit threats, there were also implicit threats when Islamists took to the streets to burn and beat her effigies. It implies that they want to do the same to Nupur Sharma – thereby is considered an implicit threat. Violent threats can be delivered in person, through letters, phone calls, graffiti, or increasingly through social media and other online platforms. It would be important to understand that a threat – explicit or implicit, online or offline – to an individual who happens to be a Hindu does not qualify as a religiously motivated threat. Such a threat, while vile and dangerous, could be owing to non-religious reasons and/or personal animosity. To qualify as a religiously motivated threat, it would need to exhibit an indication that the individual is being targeted for religious reasons and/or owing to his/her religious identity as a Hindu. This incident qualifies as a hate crime because it involves clear and targeted expressions of harm against Hindus based explicitly on their religious identity. During the Khalistani-organised parade in Toronto, participants issued calls for the deportation of 800,000 Hindus residing in Canada. This is an explicit threat, as it targets an entire religious community with the intention of forcibly removing them from the country, solely because of their faith. The language used was not vague or symbolic—it was a direct call to action against Hindus, indicating hostility rooted in religious animosity. It is important to note that the Khalistani parade, showcased caged effigies of Indian leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar. While it may seem that these actions do not directly target Hindus, the underlying truth reveals otherwise. Khalistani separatists perceive India as a Hindu collectivity and harbour specific animosity toward Hindus and their faith. Their demand for a separate state stems from the belief that the Sikh religious identity is distinct from India's perceived Hindu identity, much like Islam. Therefore, threats against India or its leadership are inherently anti-Hindu and reflect deep-seated hostility, constituting a hate crime.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Sikh Extremists
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
both
Sources 
