Strengthening India-Canada Ties: A New Security Framework

National Security Advisor Ajit Doval's visit marks a pivotal moment in enhancing cooperation on national security between India and Canada.

Gopi

•February 9, 2026•5 mins read

India, Canada Restart High-Level Security Dialogue

Not Started

1. Strategic Context of the Visit

India’s National Security Adviser Ajit Doval visited Ottawa on 7 February 2026, marking the first such engagement since Canada’s 2023 allegations regarding the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. The visit reopened a high-level security communication channel that had remained strained for nearly three years. This signaled a pragmatic recalibration of ties in the face of shared security threats.

The meeting with Canada’s National Security and Intelligence Advisor Nathalie Drouin formed part of a bilateral security dialogue, also preparing ground for Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s scheduled visit to India in March 2026. Such sequencing indicates that both sides view security cooperation as the anchor for broader diplomatic stability.

Both countries acknowledged progress on initiatives supporting the safety and security of their citizens, identifying security coordination as a vital stabilizer in an otherwise sensitive bilateral relationship. In the absence of dialogue, risks of misperception and escalation would likely rise, especially given the political sensitivities within Canada’s domestic landscape.

Effective security engagement serves as a confidence-building mechanism: without it, mistrust hardens, making cooperation on wider issues—economic, diaspora-related, and geopolitical—far more difficult.

2. Establishment of Security and Law-Enforcement Liaison Officers

The two sides agreed to station security and law-enforcement liaison officers in each other’s countries. This institutional mechanism is designed to streamline real-time communication between agencies, reducing procedural delays and enabling joint responses to cross-border threats.

Strengthening operational linkages is crucial at a time when both countries face challenges such as the illegal flow of fentanyl precursors, transnational organized crime, and fugitive mobility. Liaison officers help move the relationship from political rhetoric to professional-level coordination.

By agreeing to build on existing working relationships, both sides recognized that sustained engagement at the operational level is vital for depoliticizing sensitive issues. Without such channels, law-enforcement cooperation becomes episodic and dependent on political cycles.

Institutional cooperation allows governments to focus on problem-solving: failure to build such mechanisms often leads to ad hoc responses, delays in actionable intelligence, and erosion of mutual trust.

3. Shared Workplan on National Security and Law Enforcement

India and Canada adopted a shared workplan to guide future cooperation on national security and law-enforcement matters. This reflects an attempt to rebuild predictability through structured processes rather than reactive exchanges.

The workplan aims to facilitate timely information sharing on mutual security concerns. Given the recent tensions, creating a roadmap for collaboration is essential to move beyond episodic dialogue and toward sustained, mutually beneficial engagement.

Through the workplan, both sides reaffirmed that practical cooperation—rather than rhetoric—will define the revival of the relationship. If ignored, unresolved issues such as criminal networks or drug trafficking could exploit jurisdictional gaps between the two states.

A structured workplan ensures continuity even when political environments fluctuate: without it, security dialogue tends to stall, allowing transnational threats to intensify.

4. Cooperation on Drug Control and Transnational Crime

Doval and Drouin identified drug trafficking, especially in fentanyl precursors, and transnational organized crime as priority concerns. Canada faces a severe opioid crisis, while India is a major chemical producer vulnerable to diversion by criminal networks.

This issue requires coordinated supply-chain tracking, intelligence exchange, and monitoring of financial flows. Both sides acknowledged that drug networks operate beyond national jurisdictions, exploiting regulatory and enforcement asymmetries.

Enhanced cooperation can help reduce domestic vulnerabilities in both countries. Without bilateral alignment, criminal syndicates gain operational space, contributing to public health crises and weakening internal security frameworks.

Joint action against transnational crime is essential because fragmented responses enable networks to shift operations across borders with minimal cost.

5. Advancing Cybersecurity Cooperation

India and Canada committed to formalizing cybersecurity cooperation—covering policy alignment, information sharing, and collaborative threat assessment. Cybersecurity has emerged as a critical frontier due to rising incidents of cyber fraud, state-sponsored intrusions, and attacks on digital infrastructure.

Both sides recognized the urgency of addressing cyber vulnerabilities as digital connectivity deepens. Aligning cybersecurity policies can promote interoperability and faster incident response. In the absence of coordination, cyber risks escalate, affecting financial systems, critical infrastructure, and citizen data.

The commitment also reflects a shared understanding that cyberthreats are transnational and require harmonized standards across partners. Delayed cooperation could widen attack surfaces and empower malicious actors.

Cyber coordination ensures resilience: without it, countries face prolonged response times, fragmented defences, and increased exposure to sophisticated cyberattacks.

6. Collaboration on Fraud and Immigration Enforcement

The dialogue included discussions on cooperation related to fraud and immigration enforcement, areas that often intersect with diaspora mobility, student flows, and economic migration. Ensuring lawful mobility is central to maintaining trust in bilateral people-to-people exchanges.

Both sides emphasized adherence to domestic laws and international obligations, reflecting a commitment to balancing enforcement with rights-based approaches. Improved coordination can reduce document fraud, identity misuse, and criminal exploitation of migration routes.

If neglected, these issues can fuel political tensions, erode public confidence in migration management, and strain diplomatic relations, especially given the large Indian diaspora in Canada.

Effective cooperation on fraud and immigration safeguards legitimate mobility: without it, administrative burdens grow and social frictions intensify.

7. High-Level Engagement Beyond Security Agencies

Apart from the principal dialogue, Ajit Doval met Gary Anandasangaree, Canada’s Minister for Public Safety, reflecting widening institutional engagement. Such meetings expand the dialogue beyond intelligence agencies to broader public-safety mechanisms.

This interaction helps anchor cooperation within formal governmental structures, reducing the risk of over-dependence on individual actors. It enables both sides to explore holistic approaches encompassing policing, community safety, and regulatory mechanisms.

Sustained political engagement reinforces operational cooperation and signals long-term commitment. If ignored, the relationship risks reverting to episodic, short-lived contacts lacking institutional backing.

Political-level engagement legitimizes operational collaboration: without it, bureaucratic inertia can weaken implementation and slow progress.

Conclusion

The 2026 India–Canada security dialogue marks a crucial step in moving bilateral relations from contention to structured cooperation. By institutionalizing liaison mechanisms, adopting a shared workplan, and expanding collaboration across cyber, drug control, and immigration domains, both countries aim to rebuild trust through practical outcomes. This approach strengthens long-term governance capacities and contributes to a more stable and predictable bilateral partnership.

Quick Q&A

Everything you need to know

Context and symbolism: NSA Ajit Doval’s visit to Canada in February 2026 is strategically significant as it marks the first high-level security engagement since Canada accused India of involvement in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in 2023. The visit signals a conscious attempt by both countries to move beyond a phase of diplomatic strain and re-establish structured security dialogue. In international relations, such visits often serve as confidence-building measures, indicating willingness to manage disagreements through institutional mechanisms rather than public confrontation.

Security-centric recalibration: The visit was embedded within a bilateral security dialogue and focused on practical cooperation rather than political posturing. By agreeing on a shared workplan covering national security, law enforcement, cybersecurity, and transnational crime, both sides demonstrated a shift towards issue-based engagement. This reflects a broader trend in diplomacy where security cooperation is insulated from political disputes to safeguard core national interests.

Broader diplomatic implications: Importantly, the visit preceded Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s planned visit to India, suggesting preparatory ground-laying. For India, it underscores the principle that security concerns—especially terrorism, organized crime, and drug trafficking—require sustained engagement even with partners where political trust has been tested. Thus, the visit represents a pragmatic reset rather than a resolution of all underlying disputes.

Need for institutionalised coordination: The decision to establish security and law-enforcement liaison officers reflects recognition that ad-hoc communication is insufficient to address complex transnational threats. Liaison officers act as permanent institutional bridges, enabling real-time information exchange and reducing bureaucratic delays that often hamper cross-border investigations.

Addressing shared threats: Both India and Canada face challenges from transnational organized crime, including drug trafficking networks and the illegal flow of fentanyl and its precursors. Canada has emerged as a significant hub in the global fentanyl crisis, while India is concerned about drug routes affecting its internal security. Liaison officers can coordinate intelligence, track financial flows, and support joint investigations, thereby improving operational outcomes.

Trust-building function: From a UPSC perspective, this move also has diplomatic significance. Institutional cooperation helps rebuild trust in periods of political tension. By embedding cooperation within formal channels, both countries reduce dependence on political goodwill alone and create mechanisms resilient to diplomatic fluctuations.

Operational focus: The shared workplan agreed upon by India and Canada prioritises practical collaboration over rhetorical alignment. It outlines cooperation in areas such as law enforcement coordination, cybersecurity policy, immigration enforcement, and fraud prevention. This indicates a shift from abstract commitments to actionable objectives, which is essential in managing complex security environments.

Respect for sovereignty and law: The workplan explicitly notes that cooperation will be consistent with domestic laws and international obligations. This is crucial, as it reassures both sides that engagement will not compromise sovereignty or legal frameworks. Such clarity helps prevent future misunderstandings, especially in sensitive areas like intelligence sharing.

UPSС-relevant insight: For governance and diplomacy analysis, this reflects functionalism in international relations—states cooperate in specific functional areas even when political relations are strained. The India–Canada case shows how security cooperation can act as a stabilising pillar in otherwise turbulent bilateral ties.

Positive implications: Renewed security cooperation helps prevent escalation of mistrust and ensures that transnational threats are addressed collaboratively. Issues such as drug trafficking, cybercrime, and organized criminal networks cannot be tackled unilaterally. Engagement at the NSA level indicates maturity in diplomatic conduct, separating long-term security interests from short-term political disputes.

Limitations and risks: However, cooperation in security domains does not automatically translate into resolution of political disagreements. If unresolved issues—such as differing legal interpretations or domestic political pressures—resurface, they could undermine trust built through security channels. There is also the risk that intelligence-sharing may remain limited due to residual suspicion.

Balanced assessment: From a UPSC standpoint, the engagement reflects a risk-management strategy rather than reconciliation. It demonstrates how states can compartmentalise relations, ensuring cooperation where interests converge while managing disagreements elsewhere. Such an approach is increasingly relevant in a fragmented global order.

Nature of the challenge: The fentanyl crisis exemplifies modern security threats that blur the line between public health, crime, and national security. Synthetic drugs are easy to manufacture, transport, and conceal, making them a transnational problem requiring coordinated responses. Canada’s experience with fentanyl-related fatalities and India’s concerns about drug routes affecting youth and border security highlight shared vulnerabilities.

Role of bilateral cooperation: By committing to information sharing and law-enforcement collaboration, India and Canada acknowledge that unilateral enforcement is inadequate. Joint tracking of supply chains, precursor chemicals, and financial networks can disrupt criminal ecosystems more effectively than isolated actions.

Policy lesson: This example underscores the evolving nature of security, where non-traditional threats demand international cooperation. For UPSC candidates, it illustrates how internal security, external relations, and global governance increasingly intersect.

Case background: Following serious diplomatic strain after 2023, India–Canada relations faced the risk of long-term deterioration. The resumption of structured security dialogue through NSA-level engagement demonstrates an alternative path to crisis management—engagement without immediate resolution of disputes.

Key lessons: The case shows the importance of

Institutional channels over ad-hoc diplomacy
Compartmentalisation of issues
Focus on shared interests such as citizen safety

These principles help prevent diplomatic breakdown even in adverse circumstances.

UPSC relevance: As a case study, it highlights pragmatic statecraft in a multipolar world. It reinforces the idea that effective foreign policy often involves managing differences rather than eliminating them, ensuring continuity of cooperation in critical domains like security and law enforcement.