5 min readOct 16, 2024 11:55 AM IST
First published on: Oct 16, 2024 at 01:00 AM IST
India-Canada relations truly reached a low point on October 14. This is because the two countries’ public recriminations have gone beyond the realm of intelligence and diplomacy into the dangerous territory of personal political attacks. That is a stage from which attempts at restoring even a modicum of normalcy to bilateral ties becomes a difficult and long-drawn-out process even after anger and passions cool down.
India-Canada ties went into a steep decline last year when Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau informed his Parliament on September 18 that there were “credible allegations of a potential link between agents of the Government of India and the killing of a Canadian citizen, Hardeep Singh Nijjar”. India had strongly refuted Canadian allegations. It pointed to Canadian indifference and the hypocrisy in preventing its citizens from promoting violent separatism in India through their support for Khalistan. However, while the Canadian charges were grave, they had remained confined to the sphere of diplomacy. Now, they have moved into a downward political spiral.
National Security Advisor Ajit Doval reportedly met his Canadian counterpart on October 12 in Singapore to discuss the latest ramifications of the Nijjar matter as well as the Canadian allegations that Indian diplomats were engaged in illegitimate diplomatic conduct. While India has remained silent on the meeting, the Canadians have not. Indeed, Trudeau himself told a media briefing in Ottawa on October 14 that he had conveyed to Prime Minister Modi in Laos — where the two were attending the East Asia ASEAN summit on October 10 and 11 — that the Singapore NSAs meeting was going to be “incredibly important” and that it had to be taken “very, very seriously”. Trudeau claimed that Modi told him that he was aware of the meeting.
The Canadians have not given an official account of what transpired at the meeting. The Washington Post carried a report on some crucial aspects of the issues relating to the Nijjar affair and of what transpired at the Singapore meeting. The report stated that a Canadian official said that “conversations and texts among Indian diplomats include references to ‘a senior official in India and a senior official in RAW’ who have authorised the intelligence gathering missions and attacks on Sikh separatists”.
The story spun by the Canadians cannot be taken seriously by anyone who has even a modicum of knowledge of how Indian diplomats, including Heads of Missions, function. The Canadians claim that they asked India to lift the immunities of six Indian diplomats who were “persons of interest” in the series of criminal activities involving the Indian community and Nijjar’s murder. These included the Indian High Commissioner Sanjay Verma. A “person of interest” is an informal term used by US and Canadian law enforcement agencies regarding those who may have some knowledge or involvement in a crime. The Canadians would know that no country ever lifts the immunities of its diplomats. Hence, this entire Canadian exercise was propagandistic. Besides, the Canadian tale that the six diplomats were collecting information on members of the Indian diaspora which was then being fed to criminal gangs to intimidate anti-India elements and undertake crimes may make for a good fictional account, but is far removed from the staid world of Indian diplomacy.
The upshot of the Canadian move is that India recalled the six Indian diplomats, including the High Commissioner, and expelled six Canadian diplomats. India has issued a strongly-worded — in fact, ferocious — statement condemning Trudeau and his politics. Earlier, India had asked Canada to reduce the size of its mission in India. All this will naturally impact bilateral ties in all spheres, including people-to-people contacts.
Trudeau, as well as Canadian officials, have stated that Canada respects India’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. They accuse India of not respecting Canadian sovereignty. The Canadian deputy foreign minister, while testifying before a commission on foreign interference, said that there were many activities of pro-Khalistani elements which were “awful, but lawful”. He meant that they were within the ambit of Canada’s laws relating to freedom of expression. The fact is that Western democracies, which constantly emphasise fundamental freedoms and rights, are the first to give these a go-by when their security interests are threatened. History is littered with such instances. Hence, the sanctimonious attitudes of these countries can only be treated with contempt. Indeed, how many times has Trudeau really spoken out against US violation of international law through the extra-territorial application of its domestic laws? Trudeau has also, in the past, spoken about Indian domestic affairs. For many, that rightly constitutes a violation of international law.
What should India do about the situation it finds itself in with Canada? This is critical because the Canadians claim that their present actions were only to “disrupt” ongoing Indian activity against the safety of their nationals. They have four Indian nationals in their custody in connection with the Nijjar murder case and they may produce “evidence” in court while prosecuting them, which may be embarrassing to the government. That bridge will have to be crossed when it comes. Meanwhile, India will have to energetically engage Western countries with which it has robust diplomatic and intelligence ties. It must impress upon them the preposterousness of Canadian attempts to involve the Indian political leadership in matters — which they would know from their experience — it always refrains from interfering in.
The writer is a former diplomat
The upshot of the Canadian move is that India recalled the six Indian diplomats, including the High Commissioner, and expelled six Canadian diplomats. India has issued a strongly-worded — in fact, ferocious — statement condemning Trudeau and his politics. 
Share
