India-Canada diplomatic row: A case of western hypocrisy

Dr. Sudhir Kumar Das

(dasudhirk@gmail.com)

The stunning, unprecedented, and explosive statement by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the parliament of his country accusing India of complicity in the murder of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar has pushed India-Canada relations into unexpected turmoil. The first thing that strikes me is: does it behove well for a Prime Minister of a country, a G-7 country that too, to give a statement in parliament on a murder investigation? In his statement, he chooses words like ‘credible allegation’ and ‘potential link’ but no factual evidence. A Prime Minister of a country who accuses another country of violating its sovereignty but refrains from giving any factual evidence to the House of Commons is a little intriguing. In its totality, the statement is ‘full of sound and fury, signifying nothing’. His statement seems like it is based on lopsided premises and perceptions rather than on any concrete and substantive evidence. No one knows if he has shared any factual, credible evidence with his Five Eyes allies like the USA, the UK, New Zealand, and Australia. But going by his words in the statement, it seems he does not have any credible evidence at the moment. As a result, none of the allies has so far come forward in support of condemning India. The Canadian Foreign Minister Melanie Joly’s statement further complicates the matter when she says, ‘If the allegations are proven true’, which effectively means the investigation is underway and incomplete. Then what was the hurry on the part of the Prime Minister to give a statement in, out of all places, the parliament of the country? The incident of the murder of the Khalistani leader happened on the 18th of June in Surrey, British Columbia, and the investigation has been continuing for the last three months without any arrests of suspects, seizure of the vehicle used or the murder weapon, or the rudimentary pieces of evidence to be produced in any court of law. But Mr. Trudeau preferred to make a statement in parliament first before the investigation was completed and also acted on the unsubstantiated allegation by expelling an Indian diplomat. If tomorrow Canada produces some evidence to implicate India in the murder, it will be taken with a pinch of salt, and its authenticity will always be questioned on the ground that the local police simply corroborated the Prime Minister’s statement.

As expected, India has strongly refuted the allegation, terming it ‘absurd and motivated, and in a hard-hitting rebuttal, said that this has been done to divert attention from the failure of the Canadian government to rein in Khalistani activism challenging India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The foreign minister of Canada, Joly Melanie, stressed three points in her statement: the assassination was a violation of Canada’s sovereignty; the safety of Canadian citizens is of paramount importance for her government; and her government would do everything to unravel the truth behind the so-called assassination. Trudeau, in a placatory statement, said that he did not want to provoke India or escalate the matter, but nobody knew what plan he had to retrieve this diplomatic turmoil in the near future. The diplomatic bravado of Trudeau has already riled India, and it has issued a travel advisory for the citizens, asking them to be cautious while travelling to that country as there are ‘politically condoned hate crimes’ committed against Indians. India has also asked the Canadian High Commission to downsize their staff in New Delhi and stop visa services for Canadian nationals. India has taken a tough stance and does not seem to blink first. The strain in the relationship is already seen in the suspension of the FTA (Free Trade Agreement) negotiations with Canada.

If, for a moment, it is acknowledged that India is really involved in the killing of Nijjar, it is not something new or happened for the first time in international politics. In the world of espionage, covert operations to take down adversaries are a very normal practice. America and Israel are the pioneering leaders in this field. Adolf Eichman, the chief organiser of the Nazi extermination of Jews during the Holocaust, was kidnapped and smuggled out of Buenos Aires, Argentina, by the agents of the Israeli secret service, Mossad, in 1960. After a trial, he was sentenced to death in Israel, and for this successful covert operation, Mossad was hailed as an effectively daring organisation by the West, and the ensuing debate focused on the past deeds of Eichman, not the question of a violation of Argentina’s sovereignty. America taking out Osama Bin Laden from Abbottabad, Pakistan, in May 2011 and Ayman al-Zawahiri’s killing in Kabul by the USA in July 2022 are considered very successful operations resulting in the elimination of wanted terrorists. Canada was the first country to support and appreciate American actions without bothering about the question of the violation of the sovereignty of the concerned countries, Pakistan and Afghanistan. African and Latin American countries suffer from frequent regime changes affected by the interference of their past colonial masters and are accepted as a normal and legitimate practice. America terms Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri as terrorists; nobody ever asked for any concrete proof to support this contention, nor did America ever deem it fit to present any substantial and convincing evidence to this effect. Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian security head, was killed in a drone attack by the USA in January 2020 in Baghdad. The question of Iranian or Iraqi sovereignty was never an issue, neither with America nor with Canada, its closest ally. Nobody faulted Israel for carrying out the Entebbe Operation in July 1976 in the Ugandan capital of Kampala to free the hostages of a hijacked plane by Palestinian terrorists. The question of Uganda’s sovereignty did not arise then because the Ugandan dictator Idi Amin overtly supported the anti-human act of holding innocent passengers hostage to a political cause they were in no way related to. The list is long and unending. Now compare this with the case of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a wanted terrorist in India accused of planting a bomb in a cinema hall that claimed seven innocent lives and the killing of a Hindu priest in Punjab. He fled to Canada using a false identity and a forged passport in 1997. India several times asked for his extradition to the Canadian authorities, but as if poking a finger in India’s eyes, they not only gave him citizenship but also political protection to carry out anti-India activities like holding referendums for an independent Khalistan. His death has been presented as a case of a violation of the sovereignty of Canada by Mr. Trudeau to project himself as the champion of free speech and human rights. The double-standard and hypocritical attitudes of Western countries become very palpable here. When America eliminates a person in another country, he becomes a confirmed terrorist, no questions asked. But when India terms somebody as a terrorist and a threat to its sovereignty, the refrain of ‘credible evidence’ is played out by the Western nations.

The June 1985 mid-air bombing of Air India flight 182 (Kanishka) is a classic case of Canadian apathy that cost the lives of 329 passengers. The Kaniska bombing was the biggest terrorist act pre-9/11 conceived, plotted, and executed on Canadian soil by the Khalistani terrorists Talwinder Singh Parmar, Inderjit Singh Reyat, and some others. The Canadian authorities were warned beforehand of such a terrorist act by Indian intelligence, but they preferred to look the other way and let it happen in an appalling show of disregard for non-western lives. Even after a tragedy of such humongous proportion, the Canadian law enforcement agency RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) and judiciary moved in an inhumanly lethargic manner, and the only person convicted was Inderjit Singh Reyat after twenty years in 2005. All other terrorists, including Talwinder Singh Parmar, were acquitted by the Canadian court of any wrongdoing due to a lack of credible evidence. This shows the Canadian will to fight terrorism emanating from its own soil against another sovereign country. The terrorist act claimed 329 lives, but the collective conscience in Canada was never stirred. The convicted Inderjit Singh Reyat is a free man in Canada now, and the other suspect, Talwinder Singh Parmar, who was killed by the Punjab police in an encounter in 1992, enjoys the stature of a martyr in Canada. His involvement in the slaughter of 329 innocent passengers has been effectively condoned in the political expediency of Canadian politics.

Credible evidence is the key when it comes to the lives of people from the Third World, Latin America, and Africa, but no evidence is required when a Western country decides to declare someone a terrorist. Think for a moment: Osama Bin Laden was unquestionably the ideologue of Al Qaeda, but it must also be acknowledged that the accusation that he was directly linked to the 9/11 terrorist act has never been subjected to any stringent legal scrutiny. Had India or any other Asian or African country made a similar claim to designate a person as a terrorist living in a Western country, then the refrain of credible evidence would have rained on them. Nijjar’s killing is one such case of challenging the monopoly of Western countries to carry out covert operations and then giving it a legal colour by terming the person as a dangerous terrorist. The Canadian PM is saying that the Khalistanis are not breaking any law of the land by protesting peacefully, and freedom of expression is a fundamental right of the citizens. If it irritates India, then nothing can be done. What was Osama bin Laden doing? Only releasing videos taunting America—was that not his right to free speech?