Canada has quietly elevated its travel warning for India to one of its most complex and restrictive advisories, placing parts of the country alongside some of the world’s highest risk destinations such as Venezuela, Iran, Yemen and South Sudan.

The shift reflects a rare convergence of concerns about terrorism, civil unrest, border flashpoints and diplomatic tensions, and it underscores how rapidly India’s risk profile has changed for Canadian travellers and tour operators.

More News

India Moves Up Canada’s Global Risk Ladder

India is now classified by Ottawa as a destination where Canadians must exercise a “high degree of caution” nationwide, with multiple regions subject to the government’s two most severe warning levels: “avoid non-essential travel” and “avoid all travel.” The advisory, most recently updated in December 2025, highlights “the threat of terrorist attacks throughout the country” as a key driver of concern, while also pointing to localized violence and unrest in several border and insurgency-affected states.

Under the latest guidance, Canadians are told not to travel at all to Jammu and Kashmir, as well as to sensitive stretches of the border with Pakistan in Gujarat, Punjab and Rajasthan. Large parts of the Northeast, including Assam and Manipur, are listed under “avoid non-essential travel,” reflecting long-running insurgencies and periodic ethnic clashes. These restrictions effectively carve India into risk tiers, even as the broader country remains open, in principle, to tourism and business travel.

The sharpened language brings sections of India into the same advisory bracket as Canada’s most dangerous conflict and crisis zones. Ottawa’s current “avoid all travel” list includes countries such as Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Haiti, South Sudan, Libya, Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, Iraq, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and North Korea, along with several others where war, state collapse or foreign intervention have made consular assistance difficult or impossible.

While India itself is not on the absolute “do not travel” list, the inclusion of entire Indian regions in that category is a striking development for a country that has long marketed itself as one of the world’s most diverse and accessible tourist destinations. For Canadian travellers, it signals that internal fault lines once viewed as peripheral are now central to Ottawa’s risk calculus.

From Terror Threats to Civil Unrest: What Is Driving the Shift

Canada’s India advisory is framed around a cocktail of security concerns: terrorism, insurgency, communal tensions, mass protests and a spate of bomb threats that have tested the resilience of India’s public security systems. Officials highlight the possibility of attacks in crowded public places, religious sites, transport hubs and markets, warning that foreigners can be caught up in violence even when they are not targeted directly.

In 2024, a wave of bomb hoaxes swept through India’s aviation sector, forcing the diversion of multiple international flights, including services between Indian cities and North America. Indian authorities recorded hundreds of fake bomb threats over the course of the year, an order-of-magnitude increase compared with 2023. While the vast majority proved unfounded, the disruption underscored the vulnerability of critical infrastructure and added to international unease about the risk of copycat actions or operational lapses.

Beyond aviation incidents, Canada’s advisory reflects long-running instability in Jammu and Kashmir, where an entrenched security presence, periodic militant attacks and tight controls on movement remain a feature of daily life. In the Northeast, recurring clashes in Manipur and sporadic insurgent activity across Assam and neighboring states have led foreign governments to take a more conservative stance on travel, particularly in rural and border districts.

Civil unrest in major Indian cities also factors into the overall warning level. Over the past several years, New Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru and other urban centers have experienced mass demonstrations on a range of issues, from contentious legislation and religious tensions to unemployment and farmers’ grievances. Canadian officials caution that protests can escalate quickly, disrupting transport and sometimes turning violent, and advise citizens to steer clear of large gatherings and politically sensitive sites.

Diplomatic Row and Anti-Canada Sentiment Add a New Layer of Risk

Overlaying the raw security picture is a deep diplomatic rift between Ottawa and New Delhi that began in September 2023, when then prime minister Justin Trudeau publicly linked Indian agents to the killing of Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in British Columbia. The fallout triggered tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats, the closure of Canadian consulates in several Indian cities and an unprecedented cooling of political ties between the two countries.

Although both sides have at various moments signalled a desire to stabilize relations, tensions have flared repeatedly as Canadian police and intelligence agencies have released further details of alleged Indian operations on Canadian soil. India has denied the accusations and accused Canada of harboring extremists, particularly supporters of the Khalistan separatist movement. The standoff has remained a running subtext in both countries’ foreign policy and domestic politics.

Canada’s travel advisory for India explicitly references this fraught context, warning that calls for protests and an uptick in negative sentiment toward Canada have circulated both in traditional media and on social platforms. Canadians are advised that anti-Canada demonstrations could occur and that they may face harassment or intimidation, particularly in politically charged environments or during high-profile events.

In and around the National Capital Region, the advisory urges travellers to keep a low profile, limit the sharing of personal information with strangers and stay alert to changes in the local mood. While there has been no systematic targeting of Canadian tourists reported, the diplomatic row has created an additional layer of uncertainty, with the potential to complicate consular assistance and crisis response in the event of an incident involving Canadians.

India’s Warning on Travel to Canada Completes a Rare Two-Way Alert

India has responded with its own travel guidance, creating a highly unusual situation in which both countries are formally cautioning their citizens about visiting the other. In May 2025, New Delhi reaffirmed an advisory urging Indian nationals and students in Canada to exercise “utmost caution” in light of what it describes as growing anti-India activities, hate crimes and criminal violence directed at its diaspora and diplomats.

The Indian advisory highlights the risk of politically motivated threats against Indian community leaders and missions, echoing concerns it has voiced for years about the activities of separatist groups and their supporters in Canadian cities. It calls on Indian nationals to avoid regions and venues that have seen “anti-India” incidents, and instructs students in particular to remain vigilant and stay in close touch with local authorities and the Indian high commission.

For the global travel industry, the dueling advisories mark one of the most prominent examples of bilateral political tensions spilling directly into consumer-facing travel guidance. Unlike more familiar conflict-driven advisories, in which both governments typically share a common concern about a third-party threat, the India–Canada case blends conventional security risks with allegations of state-sponsored interference and transnational repression.

The result is a feedback loop in which diplomatic mistrust and domestic politics on both sides can quickly translate into practical constraints for travellers, from slower visa processing and reduced consular access to a chilling effect on educational exchanges and tourism marketing campaigns.

How India’s Partial “No-Go” Zones Compare With Full Country Bans

Canada’s decision to assign its most severe travel warning level to specific regions inside India aligns the country with a growing list of “hybrid” risk destinations, where authorities distinguish between relatively safe urban corridors and highly volatile frontiers. Similar carve-outs exist in the advisories for countries such as Nigeria and Pakistan, where major commercial centers remain accessible even as border regions are flagged as too dangerous to visit.

However, the inclusion of Indian territories in the same “avoid all travel” tier as war-torn nations like Yemen and Syria carries both symbolic and practical weight. For insurance companies, the phrasing can trigger travel coverage exclusions or require special underwriting; for multinational corporations, it can prompt the re-routing of staff movements and a reassessment of regional headquarters or back-office operations.

By contrast, full-country “do not travel” warnings, such as those currently applied to Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia and Libya, typically reflect a degree of systemic collapse or pervasive violence that governments view as beyond their capacity to manage. In those contexts, Ottawa explicitly warns that it may be unable to provide consular assistance and urges Canadians already in-country to leave as soon as it is safe to do so.

India remains well short of this threshold. Its large cities continue to welcome millions of foreign visitors annually, and its tourism infrastructure, from Goa’s beaches to Rajasthan’s heritage circuits and the Himalayan trekking routes, is still very much open for business. Yet the segmentation of its territory on Canada’s risk map is a reminder that even middle-income democracies with strong state institutions are not immune to pockets of chronic instability that foreign governments are no longer prepared to discount.

Implications for Travellers, Airlines and the Tourism Industry

For ordinary Canadian travellers, the upgraded advisory is not legally binding, but it reshapes the practical landscape of travel to India and neighbouring regions. Many travel insurance policies explicitly reference the Canadian government’s tiered advisory system, limiting coverage or excluding benefits in areas categorized as “avoid non-essential travel” or “avoid all travel.” That can affect everything from medical evacuation rights to reimbursement for trip cancellations if unrest flares after a booking is made.

Tour operators and airlines also track Ottawa’s warnings closely, often in tandem with advisories from the United States, the United Kingdom and European governments. Elevated risk ratings can lead to the suspension of group tours, the rerouting of flights away from contested airspace and, in some cases, the withdrawal of staff from consular or logistics hubs in sensitive regions. For India, that may mean fewer packaged itineraries that include Kashmir or the Northeast, and more tightly controlled circuits focusing on lower-risk urban and resort destinations.

On the Indian side, outbound agencies sending tourists and students to Canada are grappling with a parallel set of questions, particularly as New Delhi continues to warn of security threats facing the Indian diaspora there. While Canada remains a top destination for Indian students and migrants, repeated references to hate crimes, politically motivated violence and foreign interference allegations have injected a note of caution into what was once viewed as a straightforward aspirational pathway.

The bilateral chill has already had visible consequences: slowed visa processing, scaled-back consular services and a more hesitant environment for educational partnerships and corporate travel. With both governments embedding their concerns in formal advisories, the prospect of a rapid return to pre-2023 levels of people-to-people movement appears increasingly remote, even if high-level diplomatic contacts resume.

A More Muscular Canadian Approach to Global Travel Risk

Canada’s tougher line on India comes as part of a broader recalibration of how it communicates global travel risk to its citizens. In January 2026, federal officials updated multiple country pages in quick succession, moving Iran and Venezuela into the “avoid all travel” category and reiterating similar guidance for Somalia, Haiti, South Sudan, Russia, Belarus and others. The language used is notably more forceful than in past years, with repeated instructions to “leave if you can do so safely” and blunt warnings about arbitrary detention, kidnapping, air strikes and the breakdown of local law enforcement.

Observers say the pattern points to a more muscular outbound risk strategy in Ottawa, shaped by lessons from crises like the fall of Kabul, the war in Ukraine, the deterioration of security in Haiti and the rapid escalation of tensions in the Red Sea and broader Middle East. Rather than waiting for Canadians to become trapped by fast-moving events, officials appear increasingly willing to apply high warning levels earlier and to more countries, even at the risk of political friction.

In this environment, India’s complex advisory stands out as a hybrid case. It is not a failed state or an active war zone, but a major G20 economy and a key Indo-Pacific partner whose internal vulnerabilities and diplomatic disputes have nonetheless pushed parts of its territory into Canada’s highest risk categories. For Canadian travellers and for the travel industry more broadly, this blurring of lines between traditional “conflict zones” and strategically important partners is likely to be a defining feature of the global risk map in the years ahead.

Whether India and Canada can rebuild enough trust to ease their mutual warnings will depend not only on the trajectory of their diplomatic row but also on how both governments respond to the very security threats they now flag so prominently. Until then, South Asia’s largest democracy will share an uneasy place on Canada’s advisory list alongside some of the most troubled countries in the world, a juxtaposition that would have seemed unlikely just a few years ago.