The annual Diwali celebration for the Indo-Canadian community at Parliament Hill has been canceled by the office of Canada’s Leader of the Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, amid escalating diplomatic tensions with India. The event, organized by the Overseas Friends of India Canada (OFIC), was scheduled for October 30, but the group received no explanation for the cancellation.
In an open letter, OFIC expressed disappointment, alleging “racial bias” by Poilievre’s office. The cancellation comes in the wake of heightened tensions between Canada and India following the killing of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar last year.
Shiv Bhasker, president of OFIC, criticized the decision, highlighting that the Diwali event has been held for 23 years and has historically included participation from Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs. “The sudden withdrawal of political leaders has left us feeling betrayed and unjustly singled out,” Bhasker stated.
He emphasized the importance of political leaders attending cultural events, especially during such sensitive times, arguing that their absence sends a “clear message to Indo-Canadians that we are being viewed not as fellow Canadians but as outsiders.” Bhasker asserted that canceling participation fails to distinguish between the Indian community in Canada and the actions of the Indian government, reinforcing stereotypes and racial biases.
The president of the diaspora group also highlighted the ongoing racism and discrimination in Canada, suggesting that the cancellation underscores the systemic biases that persist. “This is not just about a canceled Diwali event; it is about a much deeper, more insidious problem,” he remarked. Bhasker further demanded an apology for what he termed an “insensitive and discriminatory act” by Poilievre’s office and called for actionable steps to address systemic racism.
He concluded by stating, “We need to see a commitment to ensuring that no community in Canada is ever made to feel like second-class citizens because of their cultural or ethnic background,” criticizing Poilievre for turning a moment of unity into one of division.
