Trudeau with Modi. Trudeau’s public accusation that the Indian government was involved in Nijjar’s killing has led to a diplomatic fallout between Canada and India. — Reuters
THE ongoing diplomatic crisis between India and Canada has captured the attention of not only politicians but also enthusiasts of international relations and diplomacy. What began as a specific controversy over the assassination of Khalistani separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar has now become a textbook case in how diplomatic terms and actions can shape global narratives.
This episode has brought several important concepts to the forefront, offering an opportunity for informal education for anyone interested in diplomacy. At the heart of this conflict are some key diplomatic terms that are now part of popular discourse.
One of these is “person of interest,” a term frequently used in both law enforcement and international relations. This term refers to someone who is not officially charged with a crime but is of significant interest to authorities due to ongoing investigations.
In this case, Nijjar was considered a person of interest by both Indian and Canadian agencies for his involvement in Khalistani separatist activities, which India considers a major national security threat.
This brings us to the diplomatic fallout that followed Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s public accusation that the Indian government was involved in Nijjar’s killing. This accusation led to the declaration of several Indian diplomats in Canada as “persona non grata.” In diplomacy, when a diplomat is declared persona non grata, they are no longer welcome in the host country and must leave immediately.
It’s one of the harshest diplomatic actions a country can take against foreign representatives, and it signalled a sharp escalation in tensions between the two nations. India quickly retaliated, expelling Canadian diplomats and creating a tit-for-tat scenario that has left both countries in a state of diplomatic freeze.
The Indo-Canadian row also highlights the role of intelligence sharing networks, particularly the Five Eyes alliance. The Five Eyes is a group of five countries Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand that share intelligence on security matters. It’s believed that Trudeau’s accusations against India were based on information shared within this alliance.
The role of Five Eyes in this case is critical because it demonstrates how intelligence from one country can impact diplomatic relations on a global scale. However, the controversy also underscores the complications of diaspora politics. Canada has the largest Sikh population outside of India, with over 770,000 Sikhs living there, representing 2% of Canada’s population.
Sikh politicians and voters form an influential voting bloc, especially in regions like British Columbia. Some argue that Trudeau’s handling of the Khalistani issue is politically motivated, as his government has been under pressure from within this influential community.
It’s a delicate balancing act between maintaining strong relations with India and addressing domestic political concerns. Trudeau’s alliance with Jagmeet Singh, leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP) and a prominent Sikh politician, added another layer of complexity to the situation.
As this situation unfolds, it serves as an informal educational opportunity for those fascinated by diplomacy and international relations.
The terms “person of interest,” “persona non grata,” the role of Five Eyes, the impact of diaspora politics, and the involvement of agencies like the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are all essential components of understanding how modern diplomacy works.
This case is a prime example of how these terms are not just theoretical but have real-world implications that can affect global relations, economies, and even the lives of everyday citizens.
In the larger picture, this incident has pushed both nations to reconsider their diplomatic strategies. Trade, student visas, and investment are all hanging in the balance, threatening to undo years of growing partnership between India and Canada.
Indian students, who make up a significant portion of Canada’s international student population, are now facing delays in visa processing. Moreover, Canada is one of India’s top 20 investors, and the current chill threatens to slow down this economic collaboration.
The political and diplomatic fallout has also emphasised the need for countries to tread carefully when accusing foreign powers without conclusive evidence. As India has repeatedly stated, Canada has yet to provide any substantial proof linking Indian agencies to the assassination.
The opaque nature of intelligence-sharing and the secretive operations of alliances like Five Eyes make this even more complex. The lack of transparency in intelligence dealings can often lead to more questions than answers, further complicating already fragile diplomatic relationships.
Ultimately, this entire episode is a reminder of the famous quote by Sun Tzu: “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” Diplomacy is not just about managing relations with allies but also about carefully navigating conflicts with adversaries. India and Canada, two countries with deep-rooted connections and a history of collaboration, now find themselves in a precarious situation.
Whether this diplomatic row will lead to a permanent fracture or a new chapter in their relationship remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: diplomacy is as much about managing perceptions as it is about managing facts.
For those who follow international relations, the Indo-Canadian diplomatic row offers a rich study in how diplomatic terms, intelligence, politics, and law enforcement intersect to create a complex, global narrative.
It’s a case study that underscores how even small incidents can have far-reaching consequences in a world where diplomacy, security, and politics are intricately linked. — The Statesman/ANN
Santhosh Matthew is associate professor at the Centre For South Asian Studies, Pondicherry Central University, India.
