The need for quiet diplomacy to clear the air

Source– The post is based on the article “The need for quiet diplomacy to clear the air” published in “The Hindu” on 27th September 2023.

Syllabus: GS2- Bilateral groupings and agreements

Relevance- India and Canada bilateral relationship

News– Recently, PM Justin Trudeau said in the nation’s Parliament that his government was probing “credible allegations” that Indian agents were responsible for the killing in June this year.

How differing perspectives of India and Canada regarding Khalistan issues are responsible for the current state of relationship?

Canada perspective- Canada believes that India displays little regard to its laws and governance system, which prevents it from taking actions that India wants.

During his speech at the UN headquarters on September 21, Mr. Trudeau emphasised Canada’s commitment to the rule of law and the importance of the global community upholding a rules-based world order.

Canada’s approach has asserted that regardless of any grievances a country may have against Canada, causing harm to any of its nationals is unacceptable.

India’s perspective- national laws cannot serve as a shield for advocating secession and organising protests that glorify murder. If such laws are absent, it becomes necessary for a country to enact them.

Currently, Canada is condemning Khalistani propagandists involved in hate speech but is not taking legal action against them. There is also a deeper issue at play here.

What is the history of the Khalistan movement in Canada?

India’s long-standing frustrations with Canada regarding the Khalistan issue can be traced back over four decades.

The establishment of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in 1984 marked a significant development. Many CSIS officers had knowledge of Khalistani activities.

These activities began in 1969 when the Khalistan Commando Movement, led by Jagjit Singh Chauhan, unilaterally declared independence for Punjab and established “consulates” in Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Toronto.
The tragic Air India Kanishka bombing in June 1985 did not lead Canada to recognize terrorism as a universal threat.

What is the best approach to resolve such kinds of issues?

Mr. Trudeau should have advocated for “constructive engagement” in the Nijjar case during his remarks to the Canadian Parliament rather than using harsh language. Mr. Trudeau could have also refrained from expelling a senior Indian diplomat.

Mutual accusations are rarely helpful, especially in resolving issues within important bilateral relationships. A quiet and mature diplomatic approach is needed to address the Nijjar case and longstanding, ongoing issues.