S Jaishankar gives a befitting reply to the Canadian tirade at a world forum meeting
Repeated verbal volleys by Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau without putting forth any tangible proof on the table have finally forced India to indulge in some hard, plainspeak. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar took diplomacy to another nuanced level when he forcefully articulated his reply to Trudeau's allegation that India was behind the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a pro-Khalistan Canadian citizen of Indian descent. Already making a name for himself in some straight talk, Jaishankar's measured statement charged Trudeau's Government with harbouring extremists in Canada and not taking any action against them. Speaking at a Council on Foreign Relations event in New York, the Minister said: “Canada has seen a lot of organised crime relating to secessionist forces, organised crime and violent extremism." However, Jaishankar declined to reveal if Canada had handed over any intelligence linking Indian officials to Nijjar’s death in a firing incident. After the killing and Trudeau’s statement in Canadian Parliament about India’s involvement, their bilateral relations are at an all-time low. The Canadian Government, in a kneejerk reaction, identified and expelled an Indian diplomat. Without giving any name, India also sent back a Canadian diplomat. But then Jaishankar said in unequivocal terms that Indian diplomats in Canada were being threatened. Obviously, it is a matter of grave concern for India and political expediency should be the criterion to deal with such situations. “Our concern is that the Trudeau Government has been very permissive because of political reasons. So we have a situation where our diplomats are threatened," he said in New York.
Jaishankar has employed a multipronged approach to deal with the crisis in which India has to come clean on the alleged extrajudicial killing. He made it known that India does not have such a policy and, two, if Canada has any intel, it should be shared with Indian authorities. He has also tried to rope in the United Nations, talking about India’s position at length and asking the world body to be more broad-based so the countries could effectively use it to air their grievances. He also warned nations (read Canada) that “political convenience" must not determine responses to terror or violence. “Respect for territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs cannot be exercised in cherry-picking," Jaishankar told the UNGA. “When reality departs from the rhetoric, we must have the courage to call it out.... This is very much the sentiment of the Global South," he added. Indeed, Jaishankar is the best person to plead India’s case. It is time to do some plain talking with Canada, which has harboured anti-India elements for long and ignored all Indian requests to act against them. Nijjar's case, though unfortunate, presents an opportunity to air India’s concerns about the anti-India campaigns being carried out in Europe and America by rogue elements while the Governments there look the other way on the pretext of supporting human rights and freedom.
