PM Narendra Modi and Justin Trudeau.
Credit: Reuters File Photos
Only a week ago, India’s pro-government media outlets were running news videos with headlines like ‘Why did Indian PM Modi scold Canadian PM Trudeau on the sidelines of the G20 summit?’ It seemed that an errant schoolboy had been punished by his teacher. Now the shoe is on the other foot.
In an emergency session of the Canadian parliament on September 18, Justin Trudeau accused Indian intelligence agencies of involvement in the murder of a Canadian citizen, Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Even as India has denied any involvement, Canada has expelled an officer of India’s external intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing, from its mission in Ottawa. India followed with a tit-for-tat expulsion of a Canadian diplomat on September 19. A trade treaty between India and Canada had already been put on hold as relations between the two countries deteriorated.
Trudeau’s revelations could not have come as a surprise to India. Already in Singapore, on his way to the G20 Summit, he had announced that he would raise the issue of “foreign interference” in Canada’s internal affairs with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Trudeau told the Canadian House of Commons on September 18, “Over the past number of weeks 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.” He revealed that his government had “declared its deep concerns to the top intelligence and security officials of the Indian government” and that at the G20, he had “brought them personally and directly to Prime Minister Modi in no uncertain terms.”
India has maintained that there has been no interference, and rather it was New Delhi which had raised concerns about Indian diplomats in Canada receiving death threats from Khalistanis. A statement by India’s Ministry of External Affairs said, “Allegations of the government of India’s involvement in any act of violence in Canada are absurd and motivated.” It admitted that Trudeau raised these issues with Modi on the sidelines of the G20 Summit, but that they were “completely rejected.”
Nijjar was a supporter of Sikh separatism and Chief of Khalistan Tiger Force. He was the legal adviser and spokesperson of the Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) led by prominent Khalistan leader Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a United States citizen. He was shot dead by two masked men outside a Gurdwara in Surrey in the province of British Columbia, in Canada on June 18. His killing came in the wake of similar incidents against Khalistan votaries in other parts of the world.
Perhaps the Canadian government sees a link between some of these killings as Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly has revealed that Trudeau had briefed both US President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. She said that she would also discuss the Nijjar killing with her G7 counterparts at the United Nations in New York. Her statements suggest that Trudeau’s open accusations against India were made with the knowledge, if not the tacit assent, of the US and the UK.
Reacting to Trudeau’s allegations against India the White House released a statement late on September 18 evening that it was “deeply concerned” over the accusations linking Indian government agencies with Nijjar’s murder. White House National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson said, “We are deeply concerned about the allegations referenced by Prime Minister Trudeau earlier today” and that the US remained “in regular contact with our Canadian partners. It is critical that Canada’s investigation proceed and the perpetrators be brought to justice.” The alacrity with which the US has reacted suggests that New Delhi can expect no slack from Washington DC on the issue.
If the Canadian allegations are true, then Indian diplomacy may have to pay a price for the provocative policy of ‘Ghar mein ghus ke maarenge’ (we will hit the enemy inside its territory)’ publicly enunciated by Modi in 2019, after the Balakot airstrike. Mysterious killings of pro-Khalistan and pro-Kashmiri terrorists sheltering in Pakistan have always been blamed on India, and have led to retaliatory action. A car bomb that exploded outside the home of Jamat-ud-Dawa Chief Hafiz Sayeed on June 23, 2021, was followed four days later by Pakistan crashing two explosive-laden drones over Jammu airport. Canada, however, is not Pakistan.
Nevertheless, Trudeau’s accusations are likely to turn Canada’s Sikh population against India. Most of them have little sympathy for Khalistan, which is espoused by a small minority of radicals, but an anti-India sentiment may now get a new wind in its sails. The Indian subcontinent is the top source of overseas students in Canadian universities — in 2022, Canada welcomed 226,450 Indian students. The chill entering India-Canada ties will be felt most by the students who go to Canada for higher studies, as Canada may become wary of importing India’s domestic politics along with them. The trade deal is already stalled and may not be easy to push as diplomatic ties worsen.
In addition, there is the possibility of extremist Sikhs reacting in India. It may be no coincidence that a senior intelligence officer of the Punjab cadre who retired a couple of months ago was suddenly given Z-plus security mere days before the G20 Summit when India would have got to know about the impending allegations and their potential impact.
Such games, if the accusations of Indian involvement are correct, are dangerous. Previous Indian governments desisted from them. They understood the value of diplomatic resolution of contentious issues rather than behaving like the Mossad and the KGB without the wherewithal or diplomatic clout of an Israel or a Russia.
Recklessness and muscular display abroad can endanger Indian intelligence officials, diplomats, and even politicians at home and abroad, apart from creating unnecessary martyrs for lost causes.
(Bharat Bhushan is a Delhi-based journalist.)
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of DH