Canada’s charges are a grave diplomatic test

AS I write these lines, the government has not reacted to the truly unprecedented proceedings of the 126th meeting of the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security of October 29. The theme of the meeting was ‘Electoral Interference and Criminal Activities in Canada of Agents of the Government of India’.

The officials who gave evidence before the committee, whose proceedings went on for over two hours, were the country’s National Security and Intelligence Adviser Nathalie Drouin, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs David Morrison, Canadian Security and Intelligence Service Director Daniel Rogers, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Department’s Associate Deputy Minister Tricia Geddes and Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner Michael Duheme. A stronger panel of officials could not have been summoned to give an account on behalf of the Justin Trudeau government regarding its allegations against India.

In her opening statement, Nathalie Drouin gave a detailed account of Canada’s version of the interaction between Canadian and Indian officials concerned after the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in June 2023 in Surrey, Canada. She alleged that India’s "refusal to cooperate led us to where we are today."

Drouin’s statement went far beyond the Nijjar murder in seeking to paint a picture of Indian interference and promotion of criminal activities in Canada. Her statement, the responses of the officials to the questions posed to them and the comments of some MPs who participated in the committee’s proceedings were very negative from the Indian standpoint.

In all, they constitute a grave diplomatic challenge which cannot go without a credible response.

A muscular attitude that powerful states take extra-territorial action to defend their interests will not do because India has always projected itself, including during the tenure of the present dispensation, as a country which abides by international law. Further, it will no longer be sufficient to deny that Canada has not given evidence because the Canadian officials have emphatically stated that they had done so. Hence, India’s diplomatic and security establishments will have to ensure that it shows that the material given to them by the Canadians was untenable.

Drouin claimed that Canada had proceeded on two tracks: law enforcement and diplomatic. The former involved protecting Canadian nationals from Indian actions and the latter led to engaging India, which was Canada’s significant international partner, with important people-to-people ties.

However, Canada could not ignore attempts by the "agents of the Indian government" to promote coercion and violence and "undermine our democracy." She asserted that Canadian officials tried to keep the channels of communication open with their Indian counterparts and had held meetings in 2023 — August and September in Delhi, November in Dubai, December in Saudi Arabia —and 2024 — January in London and March in Dubai. Finally, a meeting was held on October 12 in Singapore.

She said that her predecessor and other Canadian officials had met India’s National Security Adviser on six occasions. She also met the Indian High Commissioner. She claimed that the Indian response was spreading the false narrative that Canada had shown them "no evidence and was ignoring its concerns on Khalistan."

Drouin claimed that at the October 12th meeting, the two decided to reconvene by video on the 14th, but on the 13th, stories appeared in the Indian media that Canada had given no evidence. She asserted that India was using its diplomats and consular officers or their proxies to gather information on select Canadian nationals and that this information was passed on to India, where senior officials used it to target Canadians with violence through the Lawrence Bishnoi gang. As part of its media strategy, it went to an international news outlet (The Washington Post) to brief it on what, according to Canada, India was up to.

An MP asked if they had informed the newspaper that the senior official involved in these Indian actions was the Indian Home Minister. It was Morrison who said that the newspaper asked him if the senior official they had not named in their briefing was the Home Minister and he confirmed that he was.

The hearing became a bit partisan between the government parties and the opposition, but, significantly, no opposition MP supported India, except one, who asked if criminals in Canada targeted India and the RCMP chief conceded that it could be so. Despite political differences, the opposition does not wish to be labelled as uncaring for public security because the entire thrust of the Canadian officials was that all that they had done was to protect their people from the threat posed by Indian actions.

Canada’s record of disregarding India’s concerns on Khalistan is undeniable. Canada’s entire handling of the Kanishka bombing was racist in nature. Its laws abuse the concept of ‘free speech’ to permit even the glorification of the violent killing of Indira Gandhi and the calls for the establishment of Khalistan through violence. Its approach on the question of giving visas to Indian officials is intrusive and offensive. At the same time, it has given visas to criminals.

All this will, however, not help in meeting the diplomatic challenge posed by the committee hearing. India cannot allow allegations against a senior minister stand. It cannot also allow allegations which are no longer limited to the Nijjar murder case go unanswered. Mere statements will not do.

To begin with, India should be able to show that the material given to it is untenable per se and especially so in a court of law. It also has to take diplomatic action even if that causes trouble to the diaspora and hurts trade. The Canadians have challenged the country’s honour and what is left if honour is not defended, even if a cost has to be paid?

Diplomacy always requires a cool-headed approach. That does not mean meekness. The Canadian accusations cannot be dismissed as those that are routinely made by inimical neighbours. India must now use all its diplomatic arsenal to respond to the atrocious charges made by Canada which, significantly, has not made any real progress in the Nijjar murder trial, where it has held four Indian nationals as accused.