India-Canada diplomatic row: Ball in Ottawa's court to reset ties

Once Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau informed his country’s Parliament on 18 September that his country’s security and law enforcement agencies had found a “potential” link between the murder on 18 June of Hardeep Singh Nijjar and “agents of the government of India”, it was inevitable that bilateral relations would be badly hit. The Canadians compounded the allegation by declaring a senior Indian diplomat in the Indian High Commission in Ottawa persona non grata (PNG), thereby seeking his withdrawal. Finally, by asking that India cooperate to identify Nijjar’s killers, who had been declared a terrorist by the concerned Indian authorities, Canada was putting salt on the diplomatic wound it had inflicted on bilateral ties. India dismissed Canadian allegations as “absurd” and conveyed to those countries that raised the issue and supported Canada’s demand that it was not India’s policy to undertake such actions. In addition, India took concrete steps including suspending the issuance of visas to Canadian nationals declaring a Canadian diplomat as PNG and applying the principle of parity in the strength of the Canadian High Commission in Delhi with that of the Indian High Commission in Ottawa. India argued that Canadian diplomats were interfering in India’s internal affairs. Thus, the implicit grounds for requesting the withdrawal of Canadian diplomats were their interference in India’s domestic affairs. Under the Vienna Convention, no diplomat is permitted to do so. Canada dragged its feet in withdrawing its diplomats. It appears that Canada and perhaps its allies also made efforts to persuade India not to proceed with its parity demand, but India remained steadfast. It is unquestionable that India’s demand for parity was entirely in line with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations between states. A receiving state (in this case, India) can prescribe the number of diplomats it would accept in the sending state’s (Canada’s) embassy or High Commission. It can also demand parity as India was doing. While Canada had to accept India’s demand, it had the option to reduce the number of Indian diplomats, which would have further reduced the respective diplomatic missions’ strength. However, Canada did not choose this path. As Canada refrained from giving assurance that it would comply with India’s demand, India publicly stated that those in excess would lose their diplomatic immunity after 20 October. Earlier, India had indicated that the withdrawal should occur by 10 October. On 19 October, Canadian Foreign Minister Melanie Joly announced in Ottawa that Canada had withdrawn 41 of its diplomats from Delhi due to India’s decision that after 20 October, they would not be eligible for diplomatic immunities and privileges. The Canadian minister alleged that India had violated the Vienna Convention by taking this action. Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau also expressed regret over the Indian decision and echoed Joly’s charge of India violating the Vienna Convention. US and British authorities made it known that they agreed with Canadian allegations of India violating the Vienna Convention. All of this requires further examination. The usual practice is that if a receiving state quietly informs the sending state that it should withdraw a diplomat, the sending state does so. Both countries act discreetly to ensure that no shadow is cast on bilateral ties. The same holds true if a receiving state indicates that it wants a reduction in the diplomatic staff of the sending country; in that case, the sending state quietly effects a reduction. The objective, once again, is to at least limit the deterioration in relations. Clearly, India wished to do so. In addition, India also preferred not to name specific diplomats who should leave to avoid embarrassing them. This also meant that Canada had the choice of deciding which diplomats to withdraw. This demonstrated good intentions on India’s part. However, Canada chose to rely on the provision of the Vienna Convention, which requires that the withdrawal of diplomatic privileges and immunities is not permitted unless the diplomats concerned have been declared PNG. Consequently, India’s good intentions were misconstrued by the Canadians and their allies, leading to accusations of a breach of the Convention. The lesson to be drawn from this episode is that if a decision is made to downsize a foreign Embassy or High Commission, there should be no reluctance in adhering to the Vienna Convention in both letter and spirit, especially when the concerned country—in this case, Canada—is unwilling to comply with the tradition of accepting the demand. Once India had demanded parity, which was well within its rights to do so, consultations and discussions should have taken place with Canada. If this process revealed that Canada was effectively demanding that it would withdraw its diplomats only after India had invoked the PNG provision, then India should have done so. This would have ensured that no one could have accused India of technically violating the Vienna Convention. Undoubtedly, this would have garnered international attention, but India should not have sought to avoid it because it had already publicly accused Canadian diplomats of interfering in India’s internal affairs. On 22 October External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar defended India’s decision on wanting parity in the diplomatic missions because India had “discomfort” with the activities of Canadian diplomats but had chosen not to make them public. He went on to say that he expected that information on this issue would come out in time and people would understand the Indian position. This further underlines that there should not have been any reluctance to invoke the PNG provisions of the Convention. Jaishankar also said that India would resume giving visas to Canadian nationals once the security of Indian diplomatic personnel was assured in Ottawa. The fact is that Khalistani supporters have issued posters portraying Indian diplomats as targets. This is not covered by free speech. It is incumbent on Canada to take action against those who threaten or even give the perception of threats against Indian diplomats. It is true that the government would be under pressure because a large number of Canadian visa seekers are persons of Indian origin but ways can be found to address their concerns without compromising on national security. The concerns expressed by Canadian leaders about the difficulties now faced by Indians seeking visas for Canada are intended to pressure the Indian government. Canada’s closure of in-person visa facilities, except in Delhi, for Indians seeking Canadian visas, is part of these pressure tactics. The government should clarify its position fully to the people. For too long, India dealt with Canada with kid gloves. Now that India has decided to assert its position, it must stand by it. Simultaneously, it must be willing, and if Canada reciprocates, engage in a comprehensive and discreet discussion on all aspects of the relationship including where Canadian approaches are seen as racist such as the visa issue for serving or retired Indian security personnel. It must also convey strongly to Canada during any such discussion that India will never accept separatism and the glorification of violence against its leaders. If this requires a change in Canadian laws, India should be willing to do so. The writer is a former Indian diplomat who served as India’s Ambassador to Afghanistan and Myanmar, and as secretary, the Ministry of External Affairs. 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.