THE latest difficult phase in the relationship between India and Canada is not restricted only to ‘diplomatic row’, so to say. Rather, there is a deeper issue of parity in relationship between two International players. The underlying issue that India has been pressing for -- of having mutual respect towards each other’s honour, dignity, and sovereignty -- cannot be confined to ‘diplomatic row’. As has been stated umpteen number of times, and reiterated by Dr S Jaishankar, External Affairs Minister, India called for the safety of Indian diplomats in Canada. Also, she took a firm stand against the Canadian diplomats meddling in the internal affairs of India. On the face of it, this looked like a ‘diplomatic row’ leading to Canada withdrawing 41 of its diplomats from India. However, as has been highlighted by Dr S Jaishankar, what India sought was ‘diplomatic parity’, which is very much provided for in the Vienna Convention and the International rules. Here, the word ‘parity’ has to be given a thinking deeper than focussing merely on its annotation with reference to diplomacy alone. For local vote-bank politics, Canadian Prime Minister Mr. Justin Trudeau has been sheltering the Khalistani terrorists for years.

 

But, his actions and words were not restricted to only sheltering them. As has been exposed recently, he has been tacitly using anti-India Khalistani terrorism as a tool of statecraft. On occasions, he took relationship with India granted to the extent of sermonising the latter about diversity and inclusion, with direct or indirect references in support of pro-Khalistan forces. Also, he overstepped and violated the International norms, which his country has been trying to blame India for, by allowing Canadian diplomats to extend their brief and interfere in India’s internal affairs. Mr Trudeau forgot that India has been a far more diverse and inclusive country, and she has better experience than Canada in handling diversity. Thanks to India’s rich cultural and spiritual heritage, several religions and sects and languages and cultural practices co-exist and each one is respected if there is no political overtone attached. In case of Canada, which has a dark history of slavery and supremacism, everything is being abused as a tool of politics and statecraft. The political appeasement in Canada has gone so out of hand that Mr Trudeau and the likes have actually started compromising their country’s interest by way of supporting terrorists and forces inimical to India, and in the process creating a potential risk to sovereignty of India.

 

Obviously, no country including India can tolerate disrespect towards own honour, dignity, and sovereignty. In case of Khalistani terrorism, it has been reduced to something operating from foreign soil, as domestically the peace-loving Sikh community is against the separatists. When a reference is made to Khalistanis operating from foreign soil, one must not forget the incidents of anti-India campaign launched by these nefarious forces in the US, the UK, Australia, and Canada. However, in case of other countries, India just had to express its expectation that those countries would respect her sovereignty and deal with threats to it accordingly. Hence, the difference between India’s stand on the issue in case of other countries and Canada. For, others understood that the International rules-based order called for mutual respect for one another’s integrity and sovereignty. Mr Justin Trudeau acted in contravention of that and created the risk of loss of face for Canada. So, whatever is playing out these days between India and Canada, is of Mr Trudeau’s own making. And, this is deeper than mere ‘diplomatic row’.