Asian News Makers
Diplomacy India Insight

India-Canada Diplomatic Rift: Examining the Fallout from Trudeau’s Admissions on Nijjar’s Killing

The diplomatic relationship between India and Canada has faced turbulent times, particularly after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly accused India of being involved in the assassination of Khalistani extremist Hardeep Singh Nijjar.

This accusation, lacking substantive proof, ignited tensions and placed the two countries on opposing sides of a major diplomatic rift. Recently, however, Trudeau admitted in a testimony that his government did not have “hard proof” to back its allegations against India, further complicating the situation.

Trudeau’s Testimony: No Concrete Evidence, Just Intelligence

Prime Minister Trudeau, during a public inquiry on foreign interference, confessed that the initial accusation against India regarding Nijjar’s assassination was based on intelligence, not evidence.

He revealed that the intelligence gathered by Canadian authorities and allied nations suggested that Indian agents were involved, but he clarified that there was no hard proof to substantiate these claims at the time of the accusation.

Trudeau explained the government’s approach, stating, “We told India it is not hard evidence but just intelligence at that point.”

He admitted that Canada’s requests for cooperation from India were met with demands for evidence, which Canada did not have.

According to Trudeau, India repeatedly asked for tangible proof, while the Canadian government urged India to investigate its own security agencies instead. “Their ask was… give us the evidence you have on us,” said Trudeau, but Canada could not provide anything substantial.

This candid admission underscores the fragile nature of the allegations and raises questions about the rationale behind Canada’s decision to go public without sufficient evidence.

India’s Response: Vindication and Frustration

India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) responded quickly and sharply to Trudeau’s statements. Randhir Jaiswal, spokesperson for the MEA, expressed that the Indian government felt vindicated by Trudeau’s admission, stating, “What we have heard today only confirms what we have been saying consistently all along—Canada has presented us no evidence whatsoever in support of the serious allegations it has levelled against India and Indian diplomats.”

This statement emphasizes India’s long-held position that the accusations were unfounded and part of a broader political agenda.

Jaiswal went on to assert that the responsibility for the deterioration of diplomatic relations lies squarely with Prime Minister Trudeau. According to the MEA, Trudeau’s actions and accusations have caused irreparable damage to India-Canada relations. “The responsibility for the damage that this cavalier behaviour has caused to India-Canada relations lies with Prime Minister Trudeau alone,” Jaiswal remarked.

By placing the blame on Trudeau, India sought to distance itself from any responsibility for the strained relations while reinforcing its stance that the accusations were politically motivated and baseless.

Diplomatic Expulsions and Accusations

The diplomatic row between India and Canada intensified following Trudeau’s initial accusations. In June of last year, Trudeau accused Indian agents of orchestrating the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who was shot dead in British Columbia.

India quickly dismissed the claims as “absurd” and politically driven, signaling that Trudeau’s government was playing into the hands of pro-Khalistani elements that had long been a thorn in Indo-Canadian relations.

In retaliation for the accusations, India expelled six Canadian diplomats after summoning Charge d’Affaires Stewart Wheeler.

The expulsion of diplomats was a significant escalation in the conflict, and India made it clear that it was not willing to tolerate what it termed Canada’s “baseless targeting” of Indian diplomats and officials.

India also expressed concerns over the growing extremism within Canada, which it believes poses a threat not only to the safety of its diplomats but also to the broader Indo-Canadian relationship.

In a symbolic move, India announced the withdrawal of its High Commissioner to Canada, Sanjay Kumar Verma, signaling that more actions could follow if Canada continued to support pro-Khalistani elements.

Canada’s Pro-Khalistani Activities

The Nijjar case and the broader diplomatic fallout are set against a backdrop of longstanding tension between India and Canada over the latter’s perceived leniency towards pro-Khalistani activities.

For years, India has criticized Canada for providing a platform to Khalistani separatists and extremists who, according to India, operate with relative impunity.

Pro-Khalistani rallies, events, and speeches in Canada have been a significant point of friction in the bilateral relationship, with India viewing these activities as a threat to its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

By accusing India of involvement in Nijjar’s killing, Trudeau’s government exacerbated an already tense situation.

India, on multiple occasions, has voiced its displeasure over Canada’s failure to take action against Khalistani extremists, accusing the Canadian government of turning a blind eye to activities that undermine India’s internal security.

The Nijjar case, therefore, fits into a larger narrative of mutual distrust and diplomatic discord, with both nations accusing each other of failing to address key security concerns.

Diplomatic Solutions or Continued Friction?

The diplomatic clash between India and Canada has raised concerns about the future of bilateral relations between the two nations.

While both sides have voiced their grievances, the path to resolution remains unclear. India’s position is firm- without concrete evidence, the allegations against it should be withdrawn, and Canada should take serious action against pro-Khalistani elements operating on its soil.

On the other hand, Canada, having gone public with its accusations, may find it politically difficult to backtrack completely without facing domestic and international backlash.

Both countries have much to gain from a stable diplomatic relationship, but it will require both sides to engage in open, honest dialogue free from political maneuvering.

Whether such dialogue is possible in the near future remains to be seen, especially in the wake of Trudeau’s admissions and the expulsion of diplomats.

For now, the relationship between India and Canada stands at a crossroads, with the world watching closely to see how the two nations navigate this challenging chapter.

Related posts