Canada Asks Citizens to Avoid Traveling to India-Pakistan Border Due to 'Presence of Landmines'

The latest advisory for Canadians travelling to India comes just days after New Delhi asked Indian citizens visiting or living in Canada to “remain vigilant” owing to a “sharp increase in hate crimes against Indians” as well as an overall rise in “anti-India activities.”
Sputnik
The Canadian government has asked its citizens to “avoid all travel” to the Indian areas located within a range of 10 kilometers from the Pakistan border in Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat, according to the latest travel advisory by Global Canada.
In particular, the advisory says that the areas have an “unpredictable security situation” and even the “presence of landmines and unexploded ordnance.”
"The level of tension between India and Pakistan may change suddenly. You could experience difficulties when travelling between the two countries. You may be subject to scrutiny if officials from either country become aware that you have recently travelled to the other," states the advisory.
The advisory also urges Canadian citizens not to travel to the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir because of the “threat of terrorism, militancy, civil unrest and kidnapping.”
The Canadian advisory excludes the Wagah-Attari land border crossing in Punjab.
"Although international travelers regularly use the Wagah border crossing linking Amritsar, India, to Lahore, Pakistan, it remains vulnerable to attack. Security measures are in place. You may experience long delays," it states.
Canada Seeing ‘Sharp Increase’ in Hate Crimes & ‘Anti-India’ Activities, New Delhi Says
The India-Pakistan border runs through four Indian regions —Jammu and Kashmir UT and the states of Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat.
The Canadian government advisory for Pakistan, which was also last updated on Wednesday, also asks the citizens to avoid travelling to areas within 10 kilometers of the Indian border.
However, Ottawa’s advisory for Pakistan doesn’t cite the threat of “landmines” like it does in India’s case.
Discuss