India asks Canada to disclose evidence, without dismissing probe: S. Jaishankar on Hardeep Nijjar murder

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar

Jaishankar : Relations between India and Canada have been strained by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s claim that he was the “ambassador of the Indian government” over the killing of Khalistan terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Surrey, British Columbia. The controversy flared up again last week when the U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said he raised the issue in New Delhi during a trip to India for a 2+2 meeting with his Indian counterpart S Jaishankar. Justin Trudeau not only addressed the media shortly after the assassination, but also brought up the “violation of the Vienna Convention” on diplomatic relations.

As a result of the Nijjar incident, the handling of diplomacy and the ways in which states defend diplomatic relations through their diplomatic relations have also been scrutinized, although both sides seem to be talking about the same issues the matter of.

Canada has expressed concern over the “denial of diplomacy” for its people, while India has adopted the phrase “equality” in diplomacy as its watchword n ‘the dispute of the matter

First, let’s explain what Trudeau meant when he described India’s “retaliation” as “expelling an entire Canadian diplomatic corps” according to a statement issued by the Foreign Office regarding “number of Canadian diplomats it is much higher in India” The .

India referred to Article

Jaishankar on Hardeep Nijjar murder

In reply to Canada, India referred to Article 11.1 of the Vienna Convention on International Relations.

  • “1. The receiving State may, having regard to the conditions and circumstances in the receiving state, and the needs of the particular mission, set the scope of a mission to such limits as it considers just and reasonable.” in,” it says in the event that there is no specific agreement on mission size.
  • 2. The receiving State may refuse to recognize officials of a group fairly, on comparable standards and without discrimination.”
  • This led the Foreign Office to say it had rejected “any attempt to suggest that the application of equality is a breach of international norms”.

Canada did not really bring up the issue of transnational equality in its public statements. Instead, the issue of “lifting mission safeguards” was brought up as a violation of the Vienna Convention. Several Canadian news publications mentioned workforce numbers that could not be recorded but were not included in official government reports.

In his speech on November 12, Justin Trudeau said the following. In response, India violated rights under the Vienna Convention by forcing some Canadian diplomats out. Countries around the world are concerned about this because if one country suddenly decides to withdraw protection from another, the risk to international relations is great.” The speaker reiterated Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Jolie’s statement on the abolition of diplomatic immunity.

Articles 29 to 39 deal with the immunity of diplomats from prosecution while performing their duties, and the corresponding rights granted to their families “The person of a diplomat shall not be insulted,” Article 29 states. He shall not be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention under any circumstances. The receiving State shall treat him with respect and take all reasonable precautions to protect him from any attack on his person, liberty or dignity.” Article 37 also states, “Non-State members of the mission children or permanent residents of the recipient’s country shall be protected. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Following PM Trudeau’s allegations on September 18, Canada expelled an Indian diplomat, and India immediately responded by expelling a Canadian diplomat as well.

“The receiving State may, without explaining its decision at any time, notify the sending State that the head of mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is an individual or that any other member of the staff is a non-redeemable mission.” not,” Article 9 of the Vienna Convention. When such a situation arises, the sending state shall, if necessary, recall the person in question or resign his or her duties during the mission or before setting foot on the territory of the receiving state even, the individual may be considered central, or unacceptable . 2. If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable time to fulfill its obligations under paragraph 1 of this Article, the receiving State may refuse to accept the person in question as a member of the Mission.

External Affairs Minister S Jayashankar, however, clarified that the decision to revoke the protection was motivated by other considerations than “equality”. “In our situation, we raised the issue of parity because there were issues with Canadian employees continuing to participate in our activities. Most of them have not been made public. “I believe that in time new information will come out and people will understand why our discomfort with many of them, as we did.” he said, ‘Not so.

The Trudeau government has yet to make public any evidence that “agents of the Indian government Jaishankar” were involved in Nijjar’s murder; In contrast, India did not disclose any information about “Canadian personnel” intervention.

Subtraction results in many of the same and reciprocal reactions. Divisions between two countries often lead to the recall or expulsion of ambassadors. As seen in the situation in India and Pakistan, even top management can recognize the problem. After a breakdown in relations after the Pulwama terror incident, it was in 2019 that the two countries called their senior officials.

In the case of Indian army officer Devayani Khobragade in 2013, it was a matter of diplomatic security that prompted India to react strongly against the US. India lamented what it considered to be a flagrant violation of international relations by the then Vice-President—his arrest and torture while imprisoned in New York.

Despite the fact that Canada and India continue to have serious differences over Khalistan, it is still possible for the two countries to escalate tensions and achieve negative results when dealing with diplomatic tactics use to express disapproval. Most important were visa issues; Canada said in Oct. 19 in a statement that “customer service will be affected and our operations will be impacted by this mass displacement.” All private embassy operations must now be temporarily suspended until further notice.

It said that as a result of India’s decision, citizens of both countries would get substandard services. “The Indian application process will be open for recognition and processed within Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). On the other hand, certain application requirements must be fulfilled locally or at a safe location in the event that.” safely said in the statement.”

There are 230,000 Indian students studying there and there is a large Indian community in Canada.

Following Trudeau’s accusations, India also suspended the visa service; On October 26, it reopened a month or so later. There were four more types of visas: convention, business, medical and entry.

Diplomatic maturity with a better understanding of the concerns of states on sensitive issues and the ability to gently resolve disputes on both sides puts people in diplomatic conflict in a more connected world a neither party is the immediate child of political food.

Leave a Comment

Exit mobile version