Clinical Jaishankar calls the bluff as Trudeau’s game of smoke and mirrors pushes Canada to a dead end

As tension grows between India and Canada over Ottawa’s claims of New Delhi’s hand in the killing of Harjit Singh Nijjar, a Khalistani terrorist based in British Columbia, allegations that the Canadian prime minister has been unable to or unwilling to back up with evidence since levelling them from the floor of the Parliament, it seems increasingly evident that Justin Trudeau has been caught bluffing in a high-stakes game of geopolitical poker. Accusing a sovereign nation of complicity in murder, that too a fellow democracy and a friendly nation is not lightly done. It requires hard evidence. Levelling such a charge based on intelligence — howsoever “credible” or “high-grade” it may be claimed as — is an insanely tricky proposition. It is a measure of Justin Trudeau’s recklessness, immaturity, and venality that he took such an enormous risk with a bad hand. With each passing day, the lack of credible information to back up the serious charge against India is making Trudeau appear ridiculous and raising questions over Canada’s claim that it is a country honours the rule of law. Comments, such as the one made by former chief of Canadian Security Intelligence Service Ward Elcock that calling for assassination and putting up “kill lists” of Indian diplomats “is not necessarily a crime” are not helping either. On Tuesday, India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, who’s led the Indian delegation at the 78th Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York and is now touring Washington DC where he is slated to meet US secretary of state Antony Blinken, offered his first comments on the ongoing controversy. The seasoned diplomat that he is, two takeaways from the minister’s comments are immediately clear. One, Ottawa has so far failed to provide any evidence of India’s involvement in the murder of Nijjar. Two, India-US ties are far too important to be put on the altar to satisfy the ego of a leader who has bit off more than he can chew. As he embarks on a tour of DC where he knows the Canada question will repeatedly crop up — it came up thrice at a think tank event Tuesday — it’s important to observe the minister’s comments. He said that Canada “has not shared anything specific or relevant yet”. The words “specific” and “relevant” are doing the heavy lifting. This was Jaishankar laying his cards on the table. Asked by Kenneth Juster, former US ambassador to India, at an event organised by the Council on Foreign Relations on whether he had a response to Canada’s allegation, Jaishankar said, “Yes, I do have a comment. I will share with you very frankly what we told the Canadians. One, we told the Canadians that this is not the Government of India (GOI) policy. Two, we told the Canadians, if you have something specific, if you have something relevant, let us know. We are open to looking at it.” Jaishankar’s words were the first official reiteration of India’s position since New Delhi clarified through the Ministry of External Affairs on 21 September that “no specific information has been shared by Canada on this case, either then or before or after.” The spokesperson went on to add that India has made it clear to the Canadian side “that we are willing to look at any specific information that is provided to us. But so far we have not received any such specific information.” The chronology of the allegations and responses are worth noting to get a sense of how Trudeau is building a rhetorical castle in the air. On September 18, Trudeau said Canada is “actively pursuing credible allegations” and “potential link” of Indian government agents to the murder of a Sikh separatist leader in British Columbia in June, charges that India rejected immediately as “absurd” and “politically motivated”. This must be the first time in the history of such cases where before sharing any evidence or specific information with the country against whom charges were levelled, or making even one arrest related to the case, and even before the investigation was concluded, an Indian diplomat was asked to leave, his identity revealed to the public in contravention of protocol and a declaration made from the floor of the Parliament. Following India’s rejection of charges, and amid a clamour for more evidence to be released in public domain from the Opposition, Trudeau has steadfastly refused to do so, instead pursuing a game of smoke and mirrors through selective media leaks. We were told through purported “leaks” in Canadian and American media outlets that the allegations were based on “intercepted intelligence” of communications among Indian diplomats, and that US had provided Canada with the crucial intelligence, followed by back-to-back assertions in American media that “the specific US-produced intelligence was given to Ottawa after the alleged assassination occurred, the official said, and while considered helpful it was Canada’s interception of electronic communications among Indian diplomats that chiefly drove its conclusion and public accusation,” as a report in Wall Street Journal pointed out. More than 10 days since the shocking allegations, therefore, Trudeau has not only failed to furnish any evidence — leave alone credible, specific or direct information on India’s involvement in the murder of Nijjar, a designated terrorist who was put on ‘no-fly’ lists by Canada and the US and against whom the Interpol had issued a ‘red corner’ notice — the Canadian prime minister’s entire case against India is built on “intelligence”. That is bizarre. Intelligence is not evidence. This is not only India’s position, but also Canada’s. Let’s give two specific examples. During his interaction with Juster in New York on Tuesday, Jaishankar said the Khalistani issue cannot be understood if viewed without the context. “You have to appreciate that in the last few years, Canada actually has seen a lot of organised crime relating to secessionist forces. Organised crime, extremism, violence, they are all very, very deeply mixed up,” he said, adding that “India that had actually been “badgering” the Canadians and has given them “specifics and information…” “We’ve given them a lot of information about organized crime and leadership which operates out of Canada. There are a large number of extradition requests. There are terrorist leaders who have been identified… There is an environment out there that is important to factor in if you have to understand what’s going on out there.” The minister was not talking in a vacuum. In 2014, according to a report in Hindustan Times, Ottawa had turned down intelligence from Indian security agencies on Khalistani terrorists who had been enjoying safe haven in Canada from where they conducted targeted killings, smuggling and secessionist activities in India under the pretext that “there was no institutionalized mechanism and that intelligence was not evidence.” The situation did not improve despite India’s NIA (National Investigation Agency) signing an MoU with RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) in 2020. In March this year when the Trudeau government came under increasing pressure from the Opposition to investigate “foreign interference” (read Chinese) in Canadian federal elections in 2019 and 2021 that re-elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, the RCMP, according to Canadian media outlet CBC, said “it wasn’t able to run a criminal investigation into the allegations of foreign interference in the 2021 election because intelligence reports don’t always translate into evidence.” The RCMP had a point. Intelligence, whether it is ‘HUMINT’, or ‘SIGINT’, must be authenticated, verified and its evidentiary value must be corroborated. The gap between “intelligence” and “evidence” is often substantial without the establishment of these factors because source-based or device-based intelligence may be easily manipulated. Former Pentagon official Michael Rubin, now with the American Enterprise Institute, writes in Firstpost: “When there is intelligence, for example, intercepts of phone calls, these are seldom cut-and-dry but rather open to interpretation. Intelligence provides puzzle pieces, but it seldom offers a clear picture. Nor would any operative speak clearly about their plans, even in the special rooms designed to avoid eavesdropping.” Rubin adds that Trudeau’s haste to skip the steps and blame India has been a source of frustration for the US. “Make no mistake: The United States is frustrated with Trudeau’s willingness to expose intelligence collection and capabilities especially at a time when the intelligence was murky at best.” So, it seems while Canada believes “intelligence is not evidence”, the country’s prime minister has nevertheless gone ahead and charged a fellow democracy with complicity in the murder of a ‘Canadian citizen’ based purely on “intelligence”. That is not a tenable position. It could still change if Canada comes up with something that meets the basic metric of ‘evidence’ and stands the scrutiny of legality, but chances of that look increasingly remote. Jagmeet Singh, the leader of Canada’s NDP which is propping up the minority Trudeau government, told reporters on Tuesday that he received a “classified briefing” that indicates “there is clear intelligence” that a “Canadian citizen was killed on Canadian soil and a foreign government was involved,” according to reports in local media. Note, however, that Singh’s words are part of the same rhetorical subterfuge that Trudeau, his political ally, is indulging in. The stress is on “clear intelligence”, not evidence. Moreover, according to a report in The Globe and Mail, Singh provided “no further details” and “noted” that what he was told was not “exhaustive. There was not a lot of specific information.” What in heaven’s name are we to make of this? If Singh’s motive was to fortify Trudeau, it ended up making the Canadian prime minister’s allegations look even more frivolous. That sense strengthens further when we note a Washington Post report that scrutinizes a 90-second close-circuit camera video showing the murder and talks to witnesses concerned. The overwhelming sense that emerges from the report is that the planned murder, that took place in June, resembled a chaotic gang war involving multiple killers, coordinators and unmistakable signs that Canadian authorities botched up the investigation. For instance, talking to witnesses on the spot, Post reports that “police were slow to the scene,” and “it took between 12 and 20 minutes after the gunshots for the first police officers to arrive. Members of the community described the interval as shocking, given what they say is the large number of police who regularly patrol the neighborhood.” The report adds that “there was an hours-long tussle between Surrey police and the RCMP. They couldn’t decide who would head the investigation, so there was a delay.” The newspaper “visited 39 businesses and homes along the path the assailants took during their escape. The majority of those interviewed said they had not been contacted by the authorities.” The RCMP has since refuted claims that cops were slow to the scene and got involved in a turf war after initially refusing to speak on the issue. It doesn’t seem as if the investigation was handled with any degree of competence or professionalism. All of which raises the inevitable question that if the murder investigation was botched up and all that the Canadians have is ephemeral “intelligence” that has no evidentiary value, on what grounds did Trudeau level such a serious allegation against India, and call into disrepute India’s credibility? By launching a media trial against India, Trudeau has not only triggered a diplomatic crisis that has engulfed Canada, India and the US, he has also ended any possibility of Indian cooperation in good faith that would have aided the active investigation. As Jaishankar has observed, India would act only when it receives credible, specific, and relevant information. In contrast with Trudeau’s cavalier attitude, India’s response so far has been measured and commensurate with the crisis. Trudeau has made it personal, perhaps driven by a sense of personal injury or profit motive. Whatever be the motivation, it is not a good idea to mess with India. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views. Read all the Latest News , Trending News , Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.