ndia and Canada’s national interests call for a timely resolution of their diplomatic row. The two are important Indo-Pacific nations committed to a free and open region, and their strategic national interests are closely aligned across security, economy, culture and people-to-people connections. For example, Indian immigrants in Canada amount to nearly 4% of the national population with over half hailing from Punjab. Students from India account for 40% of the overseas contingent in Canadian universities, and about 80,000 Canadian citizens travel to India annually. Thus, both nations have much to gain from strong bi-lateral, regional and global partnerships, and shared solidarity with allies including the United States. The two leaders should prioritize big-picture national and strategic interests over myopic political considerations to resolve the matter expeditiously.
The present diplomatic dustup occurs in the context of a festering irritation. In 1985, Air India flight 182—named Kanishka—flying from Canada to India via London blew up off the coast of Ireland. All 326 passengers perished including 268 Canadian citizens—mostly of Indian origin—and 25 Indian nationals. A second bomb on another Air India flight headed west failed to account for the date line in its timer and blew up at Narita airport killing two bag handlers. Indian requests for the extradition of the alleged Khalistan terrorists behind the bombings were denied by Canada pre- and post- the Kanishka bombing. In 2010, a Canadian public inquiry found that a “cascading series of errors” led to the “largest mass murder in Canadian history.” Then Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered a public apology to the victims acknowledging that their “legitimate need for answers and indeed, for empathy, were treated with administrative disdain [for years].” The dormant but raw memories of the Kanishka incident are brought to fore by Trudeau’s present allegations.
In Canada, until today, a small minority of Indian-origin Canadians actively sustain a Khalistan separatist movement. The movement dissolved in India in the 1980s with little to no present domestic support. In this regard, Canada is an outlier among other nations with a large Indian diaspora such as the U.S., U.K., and Australia. In other nations, India’s diaspora is a major catalyst for ever stronger bi-lateral ties, but in Canada, the disproportionate voice of a slight minority committed to the Khalistan cause has often had the opposite effect. The present impasse is a case in point.
On 18 September, PM Trudeau addressed the Canadian parliament and declared that, “Canadian security agencies have been actively pursuing credible allegations of a potential link between agents of the Government of India and the killing of a Canadian citizen, Hardeep Singh Nijjar.” It was an extraordinary act of confrontational diplomacy. Normal diplomatic comport preserves leading statements such as “allegations of potential link” for closed in-person meetings. Indian authorities dismissed Trudeau’s statement as “absurd” and accused Canada of giving succor to anti-India terrorists and jeopardizing the security of Indian diplomats in Canada. The two nations followed up their counter accusations by expelling diplomats of the other. India suspended visa services in Canada leaving in limbo thousands of Canadians. In addition, India further demanded parity in bi-lateral diplomatic missions by requiring that Canada pare down its diplomatic presence in India to comport to 21 Indian diplomats at post in Canada. On 19 October, Canada, in reluctant compliance, recalled 41 diplomats home.
This unfortunate and untimely contretemps full of sound and fury signifies little and distracts much. It is time for the shrill actors to exit stage and pull curtains on the sordid play. The diplomatic détente of cross claims should give way to interest-driven rapprochement. It is Canada’s sovereign, sacrosanct right to ensure the security of its citizens from malign actions of any foreign nation—friend or foe. India enjoys a similar right and duty to protect its diplomats and to undertake all legal, proportionate, and necessary steps to defend its nation from terrorists. India and Canada should bolster a reciprocal and structured arrangement to share intelligence and coordinate law-enforcement and anti-terror actions of bilateral interests including transboundary money laundering and weapons sales. India-Australia, India-U.K., and India-U.S. cooperation in this regard may hold applicable lessons.
After bringing the row out in the open, it is in the best interest of PM Trudeau’s nation to lead the way in resolving the dispute. The present rift is a distraction from an allied front to counter China and Russia’s hegemonic designs and in deterring Hamas’s effort to sabotage an emerging new dawn in the Middle East. The U.S. and allies’ interests lie in the full and swift resolution of the row.
Trudeau’s error in launching sensational accusations based on “credible allegations of potential link” without irrefutable proof in hand undermines his fealty to the “rule of law.” The rule of law holds the accused “innocent till proven guilty;” assigns the burden to the accuser to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no one else could have committed the alleged crime; and affords the accused a platform of equal import to confront the witnesses and the accusations. Furthermore, the rule of law eschews selective application. Just prior to Trudeau’s allegations against India, he was widely criticized for not disclosing China’s extensive interference in the past Canadian election to the parliament and the people of Canada. Trudeau’s resolve in guarding the rule of law by calling out a friendly democracy on behalf of an alleged terrorist is conspicuously lacking in holding to account China’s persistent and pervasive coercion of Canadian citizens critical of the Chinese Communist Party.
If the Indian authorities are proven to have suggested an extra-territorial hit in a friendly nation, let alone support, plan, or execute it, then India is deserving of necessary reprobation. Notwithstanding a final evidentiary record or resolution, the incident has called into question India’s moral standing and marred its glow from hosting a successful G20 Summit. Furthermore, the nuisance value of the dispute is detracting from India’s growing convergence with the U.S., Europe, and QUAD in modernizing and strengthening the rules-based-order to counter China’s aggression.
Therefore, it would be optimal for India to de-escalate the row and resolve the matter judiciously. Restarting visa services in Canada would be a welcome sign. It’s past time for Canada and India, for the good of their people and their shared interest in the free world, to swiftly find common ground and move beyond their impasse.
a global affairs media network
Canada and India Should Strive for a Strategic and Swift Resolution
Image by shalender kumar from Pixabay
October 28, 2023
Despite being closely aligned on their national interests, relations between Canada and India are strained. One issue is a fringe separatist movement—which is active and hostile to Indian interests—that has managed to survive in the Indian diaspora of Canada, writes Kaush Arha.
I
ndia and Canada’s national interests call for a timely resolution of their diplomatic row. The two are important Indo-Pacific nations committed to a free and open region, and their strategic national interests are closely aligned across security, economy, culture and people-to-people connections. For example, Indian immigrants in Canada amount to nearly 4% of the national population with over half hailing from Punjab. Students from India account for 40% of the overseas contingent in Canadian universities, and about 80,000 Canadian citizens travel to India annually. Thus, both nations have much to gain from strong bi-lateral, regional and global partnerships, and shared solidarity with allies including the United States. The two leaders should prioritize big-picture national and strategic interests over myopic political considerations to resolve the matter expeditiously.
The present diplomatic dustup occurs in the context of a festering irritation. In 1985, Air India flight 182—named Kanishka—flying from Canada to India via London blew up off the coast of Ireland. All 326 passengers perished including 268 Canadian citizens—mostly of Indian origin—and 25 Indian nationals. A second bomb on another Air India flight headed west failed to account for the date line in its timer and blew up at Narita airport killing two bag handlers. Indian requests for the extradition of the alleged Khalistan terrorists behind the bombings were denied by Canada pre- and post- the Kanishka bombing. In 2010, a Canadian public inquiry found that a “cascading series of errors” led to the “largest mass murder in Canadian history.” Then Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered a public apology to the victims acknowledging that their “legitimate need for answers and indeed, for empathy, were treated with administrative disdain [for years].” The dormant but raw memories of the Kanishka incident are brought to fore by Trudeau’s present allegations.
In Canada, until today, a small minority of Indian-origin Canadians actively sustain a Khalistan separatist movement. The movement dissolved in India in the 1980s with little to no present domestic support. In this regard, Canada is an outlier among other nations with a large Indian diaspora such as the U.S., U.K., and Australia. In other nations, India’s diaspora is a major catalyst for ever stronger bi-lateral ties, but in Canada, the disproportionate voice of a slight minority committed to the Khalistan cause has often had the opposite effect. The present impasse is a case in point.
On 18 September, PM Trudeau addressed the Canadian parliament and declared that, “Canadian security agencies have been actively pursuing credible allegations of a potential link between agents of the Government of India and the killing of a Canadian citizen, Hardeep Singh Nijjar.” It was an extraordinary act of confrontational diplomacy. Normal diplomatic comport preserves leading statements such as “allegations of potential link” for closed in-person meetings. Indian authorities dismissed Trudeau’s statement as “absurd” and accused Canada of giving succor to anti-India terrorists and jeopardizing the security of Indian diplomats in Canada. The two nations followed up their counter accusations by expelling diplomats of the other. India suspended visa services in Canada leaving in limbo thousands of Canadians. In addition, India further demanded parity in bi-lateral diplomatic missions by requiring that Canada pare down its diplomatic presence in India to comport to 21 Indian diplomats at post in Canada. On 19 October, Canada, in reluctant compliance, recalled 41 diplomats home.
This unfortunate and untimely contretemps full of sound and fury signifies little and distracts much. It is time for the shrill actors to exit stage and pull curtains on the sordid play. The diplomatic détente of cross claims should give way to interest-driven rapprochement. It is Canada’s sovereign, sacrosanct right to ensure the security of its citizens from malign actions of any foreign nation—friend or foe. India enjoys a similar right and duty to protect its diplomats and to undertake all legal, proportionate, and necessary steps to defend its nation from terrorists. India and Canada should bolster a reciprocal and structured arrangement to share intelligence and coordinate law-enforcement and anti-terror actions of bilateral interests including transboundary money laundering and weapons sales. India-Australia, India-U.K., and India-U.S. cooperation in this regard may hold applicable lessons.
After bringing the row out in the open, it is in the best interest of PM Trudeau’s nation to lead the way in resolving the dispute. The present rift is a distraction from an allied front to counter China and Russia’s hegemonic designs and in deterring Hamas’s effort to sabotage an emerging new dawn in the Middle East. The U.S. and allies’ interests lie in the full and swift resolution of the row.
Trudeau’s error in launching sensational accusations based on “credible allegations of potential link” without irrefutable proof in hand undermines his fealty to the “rule of law.” The rule of law holds the accused “innocent till proven guilty;” assigns the burden to the accuser to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no one else could have committed the alleged crime; and affords the accused a platform of equal import to confront the witnesses and the accusations. Furthermore, the rule of law eschews selective application. Just prior to Trudeau’s allegations against India, he was widely criticized for not disclosing China’s extensive interference in the past Canadian election to the parliament and the people of Canada. Trudeau’s resolve in guarding the rule of law by calling out a friendly democracy on behalf of an alleged terrorist is conspicuously lacking in holding to account China’s persistent and pervasive coercion of Canadian citizens critical of the Chinese Communist Party.
If the Indian authorities are proven to have suggested an extra-territorial hit in a friendly nation, let alone support, plan, or execute it, then India is deserving of necessary reprobation. Notwithstanding a final evidentiary record or resolution, the incident has called into question India’s moral standing and marred its glow from hosting a successful G20 Summit. Furthermore, the nuisance value of the dispute is detracting from India’s growing convergence with the U.S., Europe, and QUAD in modernizing and strengthening the rules-based-order to counter China’s aggression.
Therefore, it would be optimal for India to de-escalate the row and resolve the matter judiciously. Restarting visa services in Canada would be a welcome sign. It’s past time for Canada and India, for the good of their people and their shared interest in the free world, to swiftly find common ground and move beyond their impasse.
