Finally, Justin Trudeau decided that he will have to quit to save himself any further ignominy. His politics and his career have been adrift for a while now with no seeming way out of the morass he was sinking into with each passing day. It must have seemed to him that he was being abandoned not only by his own party, his nation but also by the wider world. For someone who had risen as the darling of global media just about a decade back, the fall from grace of being lampooned as the governor of the 51st state of America has been equally scathing.

So, when Trudeau announced that he was resigning and that he would stay on in office until his Liberal Party can choose a new leader, and that parliament would be prorogued until March 24, it was hardly greeted with a shrug.

How Trudeau Scripted His Own Downfall

Yet, most of the problems facing Trudeau are of his own making. When deputy prime minister and long-time ally Chrystia Freeland abruptly resigned in December, accusing Trudeau of not doing enough to address the “grave challenge” posed by Trump’s proposal to impose a tax of 25% on imported Canadian goods, it was the last straw, as it led to the withdrawal of support of parties like the New Democrats and the Quebec nationalist party, Bloc Quebecois, which had kept the Liberals in power. The Conservatives as the main opposition had been gaining ground over the last few years, with Trudeau himself being increasingly viewed as a drag on the political fortunes of the Liberals.

In her resignation letter, Freeland strongly criticised Trudeau’s “political gimmicks”, likely referring to a two-month sales tax holiday and C$250 rebates for most workers, underscoring the fundamental problem with Trudeau’s brand of leadership. For a leader who had come to power in 2015 promising “Sunny Ways” for his nation, all he could offer in the end was political gimmickry.

The economic situation post-Covid has been debilitating for most Canadians and his management of Covid left a large majority unimpressed. As unemployment skyrocketed and the cost of living crisis gained ground, Canadians’ faith in Trudeau’s abilities kept dwindling. His popularity plummeted and backbenchers began to desert him, fearing for their own political future.

On the foreign policy front, Trump’s election victory came as a huge setback. Trump has claimed that his pressure over tariffs led to Trudeau’s resignation; he also took a jibe at Canada’s situation, saying that it should become “the 51st State” of the US. “If Canada merged with the US, there would be no Tariffs, taxes would go way down, and they would be TOTALLY SECURE from the threat of the Russian and Chinese Ships that are constantly surrounding them,” he said on Truth Social, rubbing salt in Trudeau’s wounds.

A Lost Decade For India-Canada

Of course, when it comes to India, Trudeau was an unmitigated disaster. Canada, under his leadership, has managed to achieve the unthinkable: become the ‘new Pakistan’ in the Indian foreign policy matrix. Trudeau’s contribution to the fiasco that is the current India-Canada ties can’t be overestimated. The two nations had almost succeeded in moving beyond the Kanishka bombings, the nuclear challenge, and the wider Cold War strategic divergence. In particular, under Stephen Harper, Prime Minister from 2006 to 2015, the shift in tone and tenor, as well as substance of engagement, became pronounced.

Under Trudeau’s leadership, on the other hand, the decline was swift. His courting of Khalistani extremists to strengthen his domestic position clouded his ability to view India-Canada relations with the seriousness they deserved. By focusing on India as a target, he sought to rally his party’s base in a last-ditch effort. When Trudeau claimed last September that Canadian security agencies had credible evidence linking Indian government officials to the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, few in India took his assertions seriously. After all, it was his own government that had repeatedly refused to extradite Nijjar and other extremists despite India’s persistent requests, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the hateful, violent rhetoric of pro-Khalistan groups.

Good Riddance?

Self-righteous posturing by Trudeau and his party has been aimed at courting a key electoral demographic. Yet, his unwillingness to understand Indian concerns and lack of sensitivity about Sikh separatism have done some serious damage to the very fabric of India-Canada ties. Trudeau’s departure was needed for an India-Canada reset as the strategic partnership that was put in place in 2015 now lies in shambles. His successors will have to work hard to ensure that this reset happens quickly in order to make up for the lost decade under Trudeau.

(Harsh V Pant is Vice President for Studies at Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

A view of a sand sculpture depicting Donald Trump at Puri beach in Odisha on November 6, 2024 after he won the U.S. Presidential elections.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Five years after Prime Minister Narendra Modi told a crowd in Houston, Texas, that India had “connected well” with Republican candidate Donald Trump and followed it up with “Abki Baar Trump Sarkar (This time, a Trump government)”, Mr. Trump has gained the votes required to become the U.S.’s 47th President. Mr. Modi’s statement reflected the bonhomie that the two leaders shared throughout Mr. Trump’s first tenure. But when we go beyond personal ties to bilateral ties, ‘Trump 1.0’ was a mixed bag for India. New Delhi will no doubt welcome Trump 2.0, even as it braces for the impact of some of his methods, such as using social media to open coercion in order to drive home a point.

Where the road will be smooth

There are several reasons for the Modi government to be delighted with Mr. Trump’s victory. The President-elect has made it clear that he intends to build on his past history with India, which will include building trade ties, opening up more technology for Indian companies, and making more U.S. military hardware available for Indian defence forces. He will pick up the broken threads of negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement, which saw intense negotiations in 2019-2020 before he lost power, and which former President Joe Biden showed no interest in continuing. Rather than pushing India on carbon emission cuts, Mr. Trump is likely to encourage India to buy into U.S. oil and LNG, along the lines of the Memorandum of Understanding for the Driftwood LNG plant in Louisiana in 2019, which would have brought $2.5 billion in investment from Petronet India into the U.S. but was shelved a year later.

U.S. Elections 2024 results | LIVE updates

Under Mr. Trump, India-U.S. ties are also unlikely to face less trouble over issues such as democratic norms, minority rights, press freedoms, and human rights, which the Modi government faced from the Biden administration and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Nor will they need to worry about queries on the treatment of climate and human rights NGOs hit by the Foreign (Contribution) Regulation Act, 2010, although there may be some questions asked by Republican Congressmen who are concerned about U.S. Christian NGOs operating in India. New Delhi will also hope that public comments by the U.S. State Department and Department of Justice on the Pannun-Nijjar cases will be more muted. While the trial involving alleged middleman, Nikhil Gupta, for the aborted assassination attempt on Khalistani activist Gurpatwant Pannun last year would continue, founder of the Republican Hindu Coalition, Shalabh ‘Shaili’ Kumar, has said that he expects Mr. Trump to “crackdown” on Khalistani groups. Moreover, Mr. Trump’s frosty ties in the past with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau indicate that New Delhi would not have to worry about a reaction from Washington over its ongoing diplomatic war with Ottawa over the Nijjar killing.

Potential trouble areas

So, where could the trouble come from? The first problem is Mr. Trump’s persistent focus on cutting trade tariffs, which saw his administration impose a series of counter-tariffs, file World Trade Organization complaints, and then withdraw India’s GSP status for exporters.

The second is his habit of disclosing the contents of private conversations with leaders and, on occasion, embellishing them or even imagining them. For instance, he mocked Mr. Modi on the issue of lowering of duties on Harley Davidson motorcycles and badgered India to lift the ban on Hydroxychloroquine exports, which did not go down well in New Delhi.

This habit took a more serious turn when it involved other countries. In 2019, Mr. Trump told Pakistan’s then Prime Minister, Imran Khan, that they could “resolve the Kashmir issue”, and that Mr. Modi had asked him to mediate in the matter (India vehemently denied the assertion). In 2020, after China transgressed the Line of Actual Control and began a military stand-off with India, Mr. Trump posted that Mr. Modi was “not in a good mood” over the developments; India denied that the two leaders had spoken at all. Diplomats, however, point out that Mr. Trump did back India in the conflict, ensuring that the U.S. shared intelligence, leased drones, and supplied winter gear for the forces “in a manner different from past U.S. administrations”.

Perhaps the most testing times were during the U.S.’s tensions with Iran: in June 2018, he sent the then United Nations envoy, Nikki Haley, on a mission to New Delhi to virtually threaten India with sanctions. Subsequently, India “zeroed out” its oil imports from both Iran and Venezuela.

In some relief, New Delhi is likely to face little pressure now on cutting ties with Moscow, given Mr. Trump’s interest in engaging the Russian President. India will also seek Mr. Trump’s intervention in ending Israel’s war in Gaza and Lebanon, and reopening talks with Gulf countries, to help revive its plans for the India Middle East Europe Economic Corridor, now virtually moribund.

India’s neighbours may be more concerned about the impact of Mr. Trump’s victory. During his last tenure, he had cancelled most of the U.S. aid to Pakistan. Now, the Shahbaz Sharif government would worry about losing U.S. support on loans from the International Monetary Fund and World Bank as well. In Bangladesh, Chief Advisor Muhammad Yunus, a close friend of Democratic Party leaders, has already run afoul of Mr. Trump, who posted on social media last week about Dhaka’s failure to protect Hindu minorities. The Biden government had expanded its outreach in South Asian countries, such as Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives. In that sense, many in the region may worry not so much about U.S. actions, but a lack of attention from the new administration.

suhasini.h@thehindu.co.in

New Delhi:

Recalled Indian High Commissioner to Canada Sanjay Kumar Verma on Friday shared a terrifying moment when Khalistani ‘goons’ came very close to bodily harm him and attacked him with a ‘sharp object’ – most likely a ‘kirpan’ – in Alberta that could potentially harm him.

In a podcast with ANI, Sanjay Verma shared his experience of threats and intimidation from the Khalistanis.

Sanjay Verma said, “All these attempts to harm me bodily, that was in the presence of Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the local police and the local police on the ground took immediate action, pushed him away because there was a sharp weapon and the RCMP then whisked me from the side door to the venue.”

“It was in Alberta. I am not an expert on Canadian law about open carrying so I will not be able to say that. But most likely they would have said that it was ‘kirpan’ which is a small blade whereas they had swords in their hand. They could come very, very close to me,” said Mr Verma.

When asked if the incident was reported, Sanjay Verma said, “It was all reported and we were told that investigations are on.”

Speaking of intimidation from the Khalistanis, Sanjay Verma said that the intimidation came through banned organisations associated with the Khalistani extremists.

“Some came through emails during the so-called protests, which I call hooliganism when they gathered in front of the two consulates or the High Commission. They would shout slogans to intimidate us. Whenever we were attending public events, again, they would shout slogans to intimidate us,” he said.

Sharing an incident, Sanjay Verma said, “In one instance, close to Diwali, they created 10 heads for me, called me Ravan. And then my effigy was burnt as Ravan. Is that not hate speech? Then they created another poster of mine. And they riddled it with bullets. Is that not hate speech? Then what is it?”

“I reported this to the foreign ministry. The response was that we forwarded it to the relevant authorities, which is correct. We also do the same. But the report never came back. Okay. So we presume that nothing happened. So we presume that it went into a black box. Not to come out,” he stated.

When asked if he, at any point, felt threatened physically, Sanjay Verma replied, “Threatened, yes. But did I become threatened? No. In most of my public events, there will be these hooligans outside shouting slogans against India, but also against me. Some of them are very burly-looking tall guys who would also gesture to physically harm me, but just the gestures, except for a few incidents. And so they tried.”

“They came close to me. They tried to intimidate me through such, slogans shouting, and abusing me verbally. That was reported,” he stated.

Speaking about his security, Sanjay Verma said, “I had Canadian security, both federal and local.”

Asked about whether he, at any time, doubted their ability to protect him, he replied, “No, that I won’t say. They were very professional, well-trained, and very respectful. So as far as the police officers who were protecting us and now protecting my colleagues there, very, very professional, never had an iota of doubt on their professionalism.”

He added, “But unfortunately, the statement which we saw in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police press briefing, where even the investigation has not been concluded, that was a sad thing to see.”

Mr Verma said that he was there to serve India’s national interest and was committed to doing so.

“So diplomacy for most of us would be, you know, being nice, nice cities. But then the final objective of diplomacy happens to be to safeguard your national interest. National interest could be improving relationships. National interest could be raising awareness against these Khalistani goons. All these are national interests,” he said.

“So we work for the national interests. It so happened that my national interest was a bit different than the national interest of most other ambassadors in other countries,” said Sanjay Verma.

Mr Verma was recalled from Canada after the country said he was a person of interest in the case of the murder of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar. He denied all charges. 

The ties between India and Canada soured after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau alleged in the Canadian Parliament last year that he had “credible allegations” of India’s hand in the killing of Nijjar.
India has denied all the allegations, calling them “absurd” and “motivated” and has accused Canada of giving space to extremist and anti-India elements in their country.

Nijjar, who was designated a terrorist by India’s National Investigation Agency in 2020, was shot and killed outside a Gurdwara in Surrey in June last year.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

Recalled Indian High Commissioner to Canada Sanjay Kumar Verma on Friday shared a terrifying moment when Khalistani ‘goons’ came very close to bodily harm him and attacked him with a ‘sharp object’ – most likely a ‘kirpan’ – in Alberta that could potentially harm him.

In a podcast with ANI, Sanjay Verma shared his experience of threats and intimidation from the Khalistanis.

Sanjay Verma said, “All these attempts to harm me bodily, that was in the presence of Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the local police and the local police on the ground took immediate action, pushed him away because there was a sharp weapon and the RCMP then whisked me from the side door to the venue.”

“It was in Alberta. I am not an expert on Canadian law about open carrying so I will not be able to say that. But most likely they would have said that it was ‘kirpan’ which is a small blade whereas they had swords in their hand. They could come very, very close to me,” said Mr Verma.

When asked if the incident was reported, Sanjay Verma said, “It was all reported and we were told that investigations are on.”

Speaking of intimidation from the Khalistanis, Sanjay Verma said that the intimidation came through banned organisations associated with the Khalistani extremists.

“Some came through emails during the so-called protests, which I call hooliganism when they gathered in front of the two consulates or the High Commission. They would shout slogans to intimidate us. Whenever we were attending public events, again, they would shout slogans to intimidate us,” he said.

Sharing an incident, Sanjay Verma said, “In one instance, close to Diwali, they created 10 heads for me, called me Ravan. And then my effigy was burnt as Ravan. Is that not hate speech? Then they created another poster of mine. And they riddled it with bullets. Is that not hate speech? Then what is it?”

“I reported this to the foreign ministry. The response was that we forwarded it to the relevant authorities, which is correct. We also do the same. But the report never came back. Okay. So we presume that nothing happened. So we presume that it went into a black box. Not to come out,” he stated.

When asked if he, at any point, felt threatened physically, Sanjay Verma replied, “Threatened, yes. But did I become threatened? No. In most of my public events, there will be these hooligans outside shouting slogans against India, but also against me. Some of them are very burly-looking tall guys who would also gesture to physically harm me, but just the gestures, except for a few incidents. And so they tried.”

“They came close to me. They tried to intimidate me through such, slogans shouting, and abusing me verbally. That was reported,” he stated.

Speaking about his security, Sanjay Verma said, “I had Canadian security, both federal and local.”

Asked about whether he, at any time, doubted their ability to protect him, he replied, “No, that I won’t say. They were very professional, well-trained, and very respectful. So as far as the police officers who were protecting us and now protecting my colleagues there, very, very professional, never had an iota of doubt on their professionalism.”

He added, “But unfortunately, the statement which we saw in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police press briefing, where even the investigation has not been concluded, that was a sad thing to see.”

Mr Verma said that he was there to serve India’s national interest and was committed to doing so.

“So diplomacy for most of us would be, you know, being nice, nice cities. But then the final objective of diplomacy happens to be to safeguard your national interest. National interest could be improving relationships. National interest could be raising awareness against these Khalistani goons. All these are national interests,” he said.

“So we work for the national interests. It so happened that my national interest was a bit different than the national interest of most other ambassadors in other countries,” said Sanjay Verma.

Mr Verma was recalled from Canada after the country said he was a person of interest in the case of the murder of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar. He denied all charges. 

The ties between India and Canada soured after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau alleged in the Canadian Parliament last year that he had “credible allegations” of India’s hand in the killing of Nijjar.
India has denied all the allegations, calling them “absurd” and “motivated” and has accused Canada of giving space to extremist and anti-India elements in their country.

Nijjar, who was designated a terrorist by India’s National Investigation Agency in 2020, was shot and killed outside a Gurdwara in Surrey in June last year.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

“We’re not so different, you and I. We’ve both spent our lives looking for the weakness in one another’s systems. Don’t you think it’s time to recognize there is as little worth on your side as there is on mine?”

Those who’ve been rooting for Gary Oldman playing Jackson Lamb, the instantly unlikeable boss of the good-for-nothings of MI5, the British intelligence agency, in Apple’s Slow Horses, may not even remember this line the actor delivered playing another spy boss in another spy thriller: as George Smiley in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, a 2011 film based on John la Carre’s book. 

Addressed to Smiley’s Russian counterpart, Karla, this line, emblematic of the film’s politics, was celebrated and decried in equal measure for creating an equivalence between the US and the USSR during the Cold War. Going by the recent media stories and diplomatic activity, George Smiley could have very well said it about India and Canada today.

Blow Hot, Blow Cold

New Delhi and Ottawa have expelled each other’s top diplomats, following the Canadian Prime Minister’s latest accusation of the Indian establishment being directly involved in the assassination of a Sikh separatist on Canadian soil. India, on the other hand, has not only denied it but also mounted a counterattack on Canada for nurturing anti-India groups within its territory. 

Fall is not fair weather for India-Canada relations. Exactly one year ago, the two countries were engaged in similar diplomatic acrimony over the same assassination. Khalistan, after nuclear proliferation, has been their proverbial bee in the bonnet for several decades. With the exception of the lull during the turn of the millennium, the issue has stayed alive and volatile. It is not going anywhere in a hurry.

Canada’s soft approach towards anti-India outfits was once attributed solely to its domestic politics: the country is home to the largest Sikh diaspora, with around 7,70,000 of them living there. The current strain in the relationship, however, may not just be about Canada’s vote bank politics or India’s internal affairs involving resistance from a sect of Sikhs. There is, quite clearly, an emergence of bilateral antagonism now. Are the rapprochement personnel doing their job well? Or, more provocatively, are the spies doing theirs?

Flashbacks From 1975

Realistically speaking, assassinations on foreign soil are not a no-go zone, even with declared enemies, if the assassins are smart. The morality and legality of such actions is another story. What, then, has compelled Canada, a limited ally, to make public its investigations in the Nijjar assassination case and hold India responsible? Has there been a slight or a breach of trust, intended or otherwise, behind the scenes that a public show is to be put up? Are there bad-faith actors at work on either side, or is it sheer incompetence? It could be either or both, but as venerable Canadian writer Margaret Atwood reminds us, “Stupidity is the same as evil if you judge by the results”. Therefore, it’s the breakdown of bilateral ties that matters, much more than the nitty-gritty of what caused it. 

This escalation of diplomatic tensions between India and Canada is beginning to loosely resemble another controversial diplomatic event that occurred half a century ago: the breakdown of the then newly forged Australia-North Korea relations. On October 30, 1975, Pyongyang recalled its diplomats from Canberra, citing the host country’s ‘unfriendly attitude’ and ‘intolerable provocative acts’ in a communication sent via commercial mail. Less than ten days later, Australian diplomats were ousted from Pyongyang on November 8 on account of ‘unfriendly behaviour’ and ‘abuse of diplomatic immunity’.

The actors and the times are different, but the problem is the same. This inability to smoothen out the rough edges time and again reflects poorly on the political and diplomatic leaders of India and Canada. What are long bilateral ties worth if they cannot withstand such events? Both Ottawa and New Delhi have engaged in the game of provocation and reconciliation. The classic blow-hot, blow-cold approach. To what end, though? 

A Lesson From Bridge Of Spies

Coming back to George Smiley’s wisdom, looking for weaknesses in the other is a zero-sum game. This isn’t the Cold War yet, but as India grows in stature, the chances of this game intensifying will increase correspondingly. India and Canada are not directly engaged in any military-territorial jostling, so these flare-ups have an even more limited scope. Both are citing long-term national security concerns, and other countries like the UK and the US are trying to broker ‘peace’ by urging India to cooperate in the investigation.

Diplomacy is an exercise in sifting fact from fiction but addressing both because both matter, even if unequally. Another popular culture reference to demonstrate it comes from Bridge of Spies, a 2014 film about the famous spy exchange between the US and USSR. James Donovan (Tom Hanks), a lawyer representing a Russian spy called Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance), tells him, “The case against you matters. Making them prove it matters. The fiction is: whether you did it or not doesn’t matter. The state has to prove it, that you’re a spy”.

Before anyone condescends about taking lessons from fiction, remember, apart from John la Carre, celebrated writers like Ian Fleming and Graham Greene once served in MI6. 

(Nishtha Gautam is a Delhi-based author and academic.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

“We’re not so different, you and I. We’ve both spent our lives looking for the weakness in one another’s systems. Don’t you think it’s time to recognize there is as little worth on your side as there is on mine?”

Those who’ve been rooting for Gary Oldman playing Jackson Lamb, the instantly unlikeable boss of the good-for-nothings of MI5, the British intelligence agency, in Apple’s Slow Horses, may not even remember this line the actor delivered playing another spy boss in another spy thriller: as George Smiley in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, a 2011 film based on John la Carre’s book. 

Addressed to Smiley’s Russian counterpart, Karla, this line, emblematic of the film’s politics, was celebrated and decried in equal measure for creating an equivalence between the US and the USSR during the Cold War. Going by the recent media stories and diplomatic activity, George Smiley could have very well said it about India and Canada today.

Blow Hot, Blow Cold

New Delhi and Ottawa have expelled each other’s top diplomats, following the Canadian Prime Minister’s latest accusation of the Indian establishment being directly involved in the assassination of a Sikh separatist on Canadian soil. India, on the other hand, has not only denied it but also mounted a counterattack on Canada for nurturing anti-India groups within its territory. 

Fall is not fair weather for India-Canada relations. Exactly one year ago, the two countries were engaged in similar diplomatic acrimony over the same assassination. Khalistan, after nuclear proliferation, has been their proverbial bee in the bonnet for several decades. With the exception of the lull during the turn of the millennium, the issue has stayed alive and volatile. It is not going anywhere in a hurry.

Canada’s soft approach towards anti-India outfits was once attributed solely to its domestic politics: the country is home to the largest Sikh diaspora, with around 7,70,000 of them living there. The current strain in the relationship, however, may not just be about Canada’s vote bank politics or India’s internal affairs involving resistance from a sect of Sikhs. There is, quite clearly, an emergence of bilateral antagonism now. Are the rapprochement personnel doing their job well? Or, more provocatively, are the spies doing theirs?

Flashbacks From 1975

Realistically speaking, assassinations on foreign soil are not a no-go zone, even with declared enemies, if the assassins are smart. The morality and legality of such actions is another story. What, then, has compelled Canada, a limited ally, to make public its investigations in the Nijjar assassination case and hold India responsible? Has there been a slight or a breach of trust, intended or otherwise, behind the scenes that a public show is to be put up? Are there bad-faith actors at work on either side, or is it sheer incompetence? It could be either or both, but as venerable Canadian writer Margaret Atwood reminds us, “Stupidity is the same as evil if you judge by the results”. Therefore, it’s the breakdown of bilateral ties that matters, much more than the nitty-gritty of what caused it. 

This escalation of diplomatic tensions between India and Canada is beginning to loosely resemble another controversial diplomatic event that occurred half a century ago: the breakdown of the then newly forged Australia-North Korea relations. On October 30, 1975, Pyongyang recalled its diplomats from Canberra, citing the host country’s ‘unfriendly attitude’ and ‘intolerable provocative acts’ in a communication sent via commercial mail. Less than ten days later, Australian diplomats were ousted from Pyongyang on November 8 on account of ‘unfriendly behaviour’ and ‘abuse of diplomatic immunity’.

The actors and the times are different, but the problem is the same. This inability to smoothen out the rough edges time and again reflects poorly on the political and diplomatic leaders of India and Canada. What are long bilateral ties worth if they cannot withstand such events? Both Ottawa and New Delhi have engaged in the game of provocation and reconciliation. The classic blow-hot, blow-cold approach. To what end, though? 

A Lesson From Bridge Of Spies

Coming back to George Smiley’s wisdom, looking for weaknesses in the other is a zero-sum game. This isn’t the Cold War yet, but as India grows in stature, the chances of this game intensifying will increase correspondingly. India and Canada are not directly engaged in any military-territorial jostling, so these flare-ups have an even more limited scope. Both are citing long-term national security concerns, and other countries like the UK and the US are trying to broker ‘peace’ by urging India to cooperate in the investigation.

Diplomacy is an exercise in sifting fact from fiction but addressing both because both matter, even if unequally. Another popular culture reference to demonstrate it comes from Bridge of Spies, a 2014 film about the famous spy exchange between the US and USSR. James Donovan (Tom Hanks), a lawyer representing a Russian spy called Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance), tells him, “The case against you matters. Making them prove it matters. The fiction is: whether you did it or not doesn’t matter. The state has to prove it, that you’re a spy”.

Before anyone condescends about taking lessons from fiction, remember, apart from John la Carre, celebrated writers like Ian Fleming and Graham Greene once served in MI6. 

(Nishtha Gautam is a Delhi-based author and academic.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

Demonstrators holding flags and signs protest outside India’s consulate, a week after Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau raised the prospect of New Delhi’s involvement in the murder of Sikh separatist leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar, in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada on September 25, 2023.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

The United States has said there ought to be a full and fair investigation into Canada’s allegations that the Indian government was involved in the killing of a separatist Sikh leader in British Columbia earlier this year.

State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller said this at a news conference on Tuesday.

Also Read | Canada’s Nijjar case probe must proceed, perpetrators brought to justice: U.S.

“They are such concerning allegations that we think there ought to be a full and fair investigation,” Mr. Miller said, adding, “Canada has said it is committed to doing that, and we believe the Indian government should cooperate with it.”

The official was responding to a question on a row between Canada and India after the conclusion of the G-20 Summit in New Delhi.

Also Read | Canada updates travel advisory; asks its citizens in India to ‘stay vigilant and exercise caution’

Canada has accused India of being involved in the killing of Sikh separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in British Columbia. India has termed the allegations “baseless” and said Canada has become a safe haven for terrorists.

“We are obviously quite concerned about the situation in Canada. We have cooperated closely with our Canadian counterparts, and we have urged India to cooperate in that investigation and we’ll continue to do so,” Mr. Miller said.

India remains an important partner of the United States, the official added.

Chandra Arya. File
| Photo Credit: Special arrangement

Amid a diplomatic row between India and Canada, an Indo-Canadian lawmaker from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s party has expressed dismay at the “glorification of terrorism” and hate crime targeting Hindus in this country in the name of “freedom of expression”.

The sharp reaction from Chandra Arya, who represents the riding of Nepean in the House of Commons of Canada, came as extremist elements backed by a leader of the Khalistan movement openly asked Hindu Canadians to go back to India.

“A few days back Khalistan movement leader in Canada and the president of Sikhs for Justice which organises the so-called referendum Gurpatwant Singh Pannun attacked Hindu Canadians asking us to leave Canada and go back to India,” Chandra Arya, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, said.

“I have heard from many Hindu-Canadians who are fearful after this targeted attack. I urge Hindu-Canadians to stay calm but vigilant. Please report any incident of Hinduphobia to your local law enforcement agencies,” the Indo-Canadian MP posted on X.

“The Khalistan movement leader is trying to provoke Hindu Canadians to react and divide the Hindu and Sikh communities in Canada,” Mr. Arya said.

His remarks came after Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau’s allegations of “potential” involvement of Indian government agents in the killing of Khalistani separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in June in Surrey unleashed a diplomatic row between the two nations.

India has rejected the charges as “absurd” and “motivated” and kicked out a senior Canadian diplomat in a tit-for-tat move to Ottawa’s expulsion of an Indian official.

“Let me be clear. The vast majority of our Canadian Sikh brothers and sisters do not support the Khalistan movement. Most Sikh Canadians may not publicly condemn the Khalistan movement for several reasons, but they are deeply connected to the Hindu-Canadian community. Canadian Hindus and Sikhs are connected through family relationships and shared social and cultural ties,” Mr. Arya said.

“This direct attack on Hindu Canadians by the leader of the Canadian Khalistan movement is a further escalation of the recent attacks on Hindu temples and public celebration of the assassination of Hindu Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by terrorists,” he added.

“Canada has high moral values and we fully uphold the rule of law. I can’t understand how glorification of terrorism or a hate crime targeting a religious group is allowed in the name of freedom of speech and expression,” Mr. Arya said.

“There would be outrage in Canada if a white supremacist attacked any group of racialised Canadians asking them to get out of our country. But apparently, this Khalistani leader can get away with this hate crime,” he said.

“Hindu Canadians keep a low profile and are considered soft targets. The anti-Hindu elements cannot digest the success of Hindu Canadians,” Mr. Arya said.

“Two well-organised groups claiming to represent their faiths have been attacking Hindu-Canadian community leaders, Hindu organisations and even me. For more than ten months, I have been attacked for raising a flag with our Hindu religious sacred symbol Aum on our Parliament Hill,” Mr. Arya alleged.

“I again call upon Hindu Canadians to stay calm but vigilant. As Canadians, we can be proud of our Hindu faith and heritage and our impressive contribution to the socio-economic success of our country Canada,” he added.

New Delhi:

In its first reaction to the controversy over Canada’s allegation that Indian officials played a role in the killing of a Khalistani terrorist, Australia has called the reports “concerning” and said it has raised the issue with its “Indian counterparts”.

Australia is a member of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad, grouping with India, Japan and the United States. It is also part of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance with Canada, the US, the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

Speaking in the Canadian parliament on Monday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had said his government had “credible allegations” linking the killing of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in June with the “agents of the Government of India”. The next day, Mr Trudeau said he was not looking to “provoke” India or “escalate” tension, but wanted New Delhi to treat Nijjar’s killing with “utmost seriousness”.

The Indian government has rejected the allegation as “absurd and motivated”.

Responding to a question from a reporter on Mr Trudeau’s claim, Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong said, “Look, these are concerning reports, and I note that investigations are still underway, but obviously these are concerning reports and we are monitoring these developments closely with our partners, and we’ll continue to do so… We have, Australia has raised these issues with our Indian counterparts, as you would expect us to do.

On whether Australia was planning to raise the issue with Japan, since it is a member of the Quad, Ms Wong said while she can’t give a commentary on what is raised and what will be raised, the country’s principal position is that it believes the sovereignty of all countries and the rule of law should be respected.

Asked if she had concerns about foreign interference from India in Australia, the minister said, “I think Australia is a robust democracy, and I think the Indian diaspora has a range of views, and you know, we have made clear in relation to democratic debate in Australia that the peaceful expression of different views is a key part of Australia’s democracy, and I think most Australians would agree with that.”

Probed for specifics on how Canberra had shared its concerns with New Delhi and the information, if any, that had been shared by Canada, Ms Wong refused to go into details. “I would just say to you that we have been monitoring these developments with partners closely, we will continue to do so, and I will confirm that we have raised our concerns with India. I’m not going to go into any further detail on that.”

She also refused to divulge details on whether the subject was brought up privately at the G20 Summit in New Delhi earlier this month. 

To a question on Sikh Indians being “at risk” in Australia, Ms Wong said, “Well, I’d note that these allegations are still being investigated, so I would recognise that fact, but more broadly I would say this: we take the view as a government that Australian democracy is precious, that as a matter of principle, and as a matter of law, Australians of whatever persuasion have a right to peaceful protest.”

“And, in all circumstances, we reflect that right in our public statements and in our private conversations with other governments. You would also know we have, as a Parliament, made very clear statements, both legislatively and as a matter of policy, about the importance of Australian democracy being unaffected by external concerns,” she added.

Canada has expelled a senior Indian diplomat, who, it claims, is the head of India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) in the country. India, on Tuesday, asked a senior Canadian diplomat to leave the country within five days. 

In a strong denial of Mr Trudeau’s allegations, India’s External Affairs Ministry had said, “Allegations of the Government of India’s involvement in any act of violence in Canada are absurd and motivated. Similar allegations were made by the Canadian Prime Minister to our Prime Minister, and were completely rejected.” 

According to a report in The Washington Post, weeks before making the allegations, Canadian officials had sought public condemnation of Nijjar’s killing from their allies, including the United States, but were met with reluctance.