Column | Canada does not love India less, it loves Indian dissidents more

Canada is the one country that has proved that the presence of a large Indian community does not necessarily mean that we will have cordial relations with that nation. In fact, it is because of the presence of 1.9 million Indians that Indo-Canadian relations are in a mess.

As it happened, most of the Indian immigrants are from Punjab, which was in turmoil on account of the division between the Hindus and the Sikhs there, which led to the establishment of a separate Sikh state.

The irony is that the Sikhs, who took to the defence forces in large numbers because of their patriotism as the martial race of India, began to aspire for an independent state and started agitating for it.

Many untoward events took place like the Indian army entering the Golden Temple in Amritsar to destroy the fanatic group that had occupied the Temple with arms purchased with money from the migrant Punjabis in the West, particularly Canada.

The consequence was the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and the shooting down of an Air India plane, which killed many Canadian citizens of Indian origin.

Subsequently, the Khalistan movement subsided in India, but it strengthened in Canada, the US and the UK. The Sikhs became a powerful political and financial segment. However, India-Canada relations flourished because of the trade and cultural links, and many Sikhs began to uphold their Indian status and became community leaders.

The local political parties started to support the Khalistan movement without even realising that this would eventually threaten the countries' bilateral relations. As a result, an undercurrent of hostility developed between the Sikhs and the Hindus.

The tension between India and Canada on account of that country's open support for the Khalistan activists reached a crisis point when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced in the Canadian Parliament on his return from the Delhi Summit of G20 last year that there was evidence that agents of the Government of India were behind the murder of a known Sikh terrorist.

India denied the charge and expressed willingness to investigate any evidence that Canada might provide. The Western allies of Canada, including the US, expressed solidarity with Canada.

The US went even further and revealed that an investigation was in progress about a plot by India to murder a Khalistani leader, arrested a suspect and even listed India's National Security Advisor as a suspect.

Although the focus in both cases was on the resolution by mutual consultation, the Indian charge of support to terrorism in India and the counter charge that India was taking the law into its own hands in dealing with terrorists abroad, tension grew even without normal relations being affected.

The situation erupted when Canada announced that the Indian High Commissioner was a “person of interest” in the case of the murder of a Khalistani terrorist and India lost no time in expressing its horror not only by withdrawing the High Commissioner, but also by ordering the expulsion of Canada’s Acting High Commissioner and some of his colleagues. A war of words followed between Canada and India, but no other options like visa suspension or trade were exercised.

Such a situation is exceptional between democracies with strong interest in each other. An unprecedented situation could clearly deteriorate with grave consequences in bilateral relations. The silver lining is that diplomatic expulsions alone do not affect business as usual except for the inconvenience caused to the diplomats and their families.

The expulsion of diplomats is recognised as an instrument of international relations in exceptional circumstances. Although it appears to be a drastic measure, it is symbolic of displeasure, the assertion of sovereignty and the defence against perceived threats to prevent the outbreak of conflicts.

Diplomatic expulsions can be traced back to ancient civilisations where foreign envoys were occasionally ordered out. In recent times, expulsions are regulated and guided by international law and diplomatic conventions relating to diplomatic immunity. Since diplomats cannot be detained, expulsion is a natural process which is resorted to in exceptional circumstances. In other words, it is a way of dealing with an extremely difficult situation peacefully and measuredly.

Reciprocity is an essential element in expulsions, and it is not uncommon for reciprocal expulsions even when one country expels diplomats for a reason, and the other country expels the same number even if there is no charge against them.

There are also instances of reciprocal expulsions being ordered in a friendly way by choosing diplomats under orders of transfer and those who have already left. Large number of diplomats were expelled by the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War.

Often, diplomatic expulsions are ordered by a weak state to assert its sovereignty against interference by a stronger state. Once, one of the small island states in the South Pacific expelled the High Commissioner of Australia for showing a local project as part of the Australian aid program to assert that it was not totally dependent on Australia for its development! Australia could do nothing but appoint another High Commissioner to the island state.

Canada, however, was not content with expulsions, not because it wanted to ruin the relations with India, but to impress the Khalistani Party, whose support is essential for Prime Minister Trudeau to continue in power and to get reelected next year.

But the fact remains that Canada has not provided a shred of evidence to prove India’s culpability in the murder of a terrorist. It appears that the stage is set for matters to get worse before they get better. In the meantime, innocent migrants and students who intend to seek greener pastures in Canada will suffer.

The Canada-India diplomatic crisis is deep and the situation will remain tense as the Khalistanis are crucial for the Trudeau Government to continue in office. Even a change of Government after the elections in 2025 may not change the situation. Canada needs India as much as India needs Canada and the present situation does not help either.

Perhaps, Chinese interference in Canada is a greater threat to Canadian democracy than the quarrel over the Khalistani militants. Perhaps, just as it happened in the US case, the two countries should find a solution after examining the evidence of any Indian involvement that Canada should provide. In diplomacy, there are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests.