New Delhi: For only the second time since Canada levelled accusations against India regarding the killing of a Canadian citizen, the foreign ministers of the two countries met in Germany – for their first publicised meeting – to discuss the matter.
The two minister had, however, met in Washington shortly after the contentious allegations were aired, when the Indian foreign minister was in United States to attend the UN General Assembly. This meeting was unannounced and was neither officially denied nor confirmed by either Ottawa or New Delhi.
Over four months later, both countries announced their meeting on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference on Friday, February 16.
“Our conversation understandably focused on the present state of our bilateral ties. Was also useful to exchange views on the global situation,” Indian external affairs minister Jaishankar posted on X.
Similarly, Canadian foreign minister Melanie Joly wrote on X that they had a “frank discussion on Canada-India relations and the current global issues, including Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine”.
‘Advancements’ after tension
On September 19, Canadian Prime minister Justin Trudeau stood in the House of Commons and announced that there were “credible allegations” of Indian government agents being involved in the killing of a Canadian national, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, whom New Delhi describes as a Khalistani terrorist.
India and Canada had each expelled a senior diplomat, but New Delhi went further to stop visa services for Canadian nationals. India also forced Canada to downsize its diplomatic presence by calling for reciprocity in the size of embassies and other outposts in each other’s countries.
Two months after Trudeau’s announcement, US prosecutors unsealed charges against an Indian national, Nikhil Gupta, which linked an unnamed government official to the foiled attempt to murder a Khalistani group’s lawyer in New York by hiring a hitman. The November indictment also connected Nijjar’s killing in June 2023 with the alleged conspiracy.
In contrast to the reaction to Canada, India quickly set up a high-level committee to probe the allegations made by US investigators. However, no announcement about the result of the probe has been made so far.
Last month, the outgoing Canadian National Security Advisor Jody Thomas had claimed there was “advancements” in the relationship. She had also said in her interview to Canadian media that India was “cooperating” in the investigation.
However, a week later, the Indian high commissioner to Canada, Sanjay Kumar Verma contradicted Thomas and said that New Delhi was not cooperating as it had yet to receive any evidence from Canadian authorities.
On the same day, the Canadian House of Common’s standing committee on foreign affairs and international development held a hearing where a senior Canadian diplomat noted that information from the police investigation had not yet been shared.
Conspiracy and inquiries
Weldon Epp, the Canadian foreign ministry’s assistant deputy minister for the Indo-Pacific, told lawmakers that the Indian position has been that “until they receive evidence from a police investigation, they will reserve their right as to how they will respond”.
“Therefore, it’s not inaccurate to say that while that investigation is still under way, the RCMP is not directly engaging the high commissioner,” he said on February 5.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) is the primary investigative body for the case.
Earlier, Jaishankar had justified India’s differing reaction to US and Canada by arguing that only one of them has given “specific evidence or inputs”.
The senior Canadian foreign ministry official said that the nature of the Canadian and American inquiries were different as one was a murder, while another was a conspiracy to hire a hitman.
Further, he pointed out the legal processes in US and Canada were very different. “The possibility for an early narrative and the disclosure of evidence through an indictment in the U.S. differs quite significantly from the legal process in Canada,” said Epp.
He claimed that the “inflection point in a Canadian investigation, such that detailed information supporting the investigation can be released to the public or a foreign government, comes at a later stage”. He added that due to the disclosure of the US indictment there was “a clear link being described by the evidence provided to date”.
‘Asking questions’
Describing the India setting up the “independent high-level committee” in response to US claims as a positive step, Epp observed that when investigation reaches a “comparable inflection point” in Canada, “more information will be available for the Indian government and its high-level committee to consider”.
The Canadian diplomat also told lawmakers that Ottawa was in “intensive” conversations with “like-minded” allies, like United States and United Kingdom, over this ongoing challenge.
“All three countries, the two partners you named and Canada, have large diaspora communities that have been targets of transnational crime. There have been challenges that affect these communities. There’s a concern for domestic security as well as for engaging India on addressing those domestic matters that may play out differently in our legal systems than they do in India,” said Epp as per the transcript.
He also indicated that Ottawa had worked with the two countries to “ask questions of our Indian colleagues”.
“It’s important to raise these questions, for Canada to raise them, to receive an official position from the Indian government and to hear from the Indian government, including from Prime Minister Modi, that they will, “definitely look into” any evidence and hold people accountable if there’s evidence provided. Working with our partners, we’ll have to continue to raise these issues and have those conversations,” said Epp.
The issue of Indian government’s claims about activities of Khalistani groups in those three countries was also part of these conversations.
“…it is true that there have been discussions, both between our partners and India but also between our partners—between us, the U.K. and the U.S.—because we are all dealing with some similar impacts of differences between our legal systems, let’s just say, and that of India’s, when it comes to how to deal with allegations of terrorism and extremism,” he said.
Sensationalising
India had also complained publicly that Canada had gone public over its allegations despite New Delhi’s request for sharing information. While Trudeau had raised the matter directly with his Indian counterpart during the G-20 summit, other senior Canadian officials had also visited New Delhi earlier.
In answer to repeated questions regarding Trudeau’s decision to publicly disclose the accusations, Epp reaffirmed its necessity, citing an imminent publication by a prominent Canadian newspaper.
“To answer your question, you can imagine it’s rather implausible, knowing the media was about to release the sensational story, that the government would simply choose not to comment. The Prime Minister’s decision, as it has been previously described by the Prime Minister and Minister Leblanc, was meant to address a concerned Canadian public and reassure them about what the government’s approach would be in addressing this issue and how the government had already been actively involved, including the Prime Minister’s raising it personally with Prime Minister Modi at the G20,” he said.
India had also criticised Canada over concerns that it was giving space to Khalistani extremism and ignored repeated requests for extradition of proscribed terrorists.
However, Epp argued that in the “body of ongoing requests” from India, the “evidentiary threshold in Canadian law is not met”.
Incidentally, despite the frosty political relations, both countries have asserted that trade ties have remained unaffected.