The rift between India and Canada has deepened following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s accusations regarding India’s involvement in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Khalistani terrorist, in Canada’s British Columbia.
Winston Peters’ Perspective:
Winston Peters, New Zealand’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, has expressed scepticism regarding Canada’s claims, highlighting the absence of evidence provided by Ottawa to support its allegations.
The Hardeep Singh Nijjar Case:
The focal point of contention between India and Canada revolves around the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, the chief of the banned Khalistan Tiger Force, who was fatally shot outside a gurdwara in Canada.
Trudeau’s Allegations:
Prime Minister Trudeau’s statements in the Canadian parliament, shortly after attending the G20 summit in India, fueled the diplomatic tension. Trudeau asserted that Canadian security agencies were actively investigating a potential link between the Government of India and Nijjar’s killing, prompting strong denials from India.
Deteriorating Relations:
The exchange of accusations led to a deterioration in bilateral relations, with Canada withdrawing a significant number of diplomats, citing concerns over diplomatic immunity. India, in turn, rejected allegations of violating diplomatic protocols.
Involvement of the United States:
The United States, a mutual ally of both Canada and India, has been involved in the dispute. Secretary of State Antony Blinken emphasized the importance of the Canadian investigation and urged India to cooperate. The US Ambassador to Canada, David Cohen, revealed the role of shared intelligence among Five Eyes partners in informing Canada’s statements.
New Zealand’s Inquiry:
Winston Peters, during his visit to India, addressed questions regarding New Zealand’s involvement in the Nijjar case. He noted that the issue was handled by the previous government, indicating a lack of clarity on the quality and value of the shared intelligence.
Challenging the Lack of Evidence:
As a trained lawyer, Peters raised fundamental questions about the absence of concrete evidence supporting Canada’s allegations. He emphasized the need for tangible proof to substantiate claims, highlighting the significant doubts surrounding the case.
Implications of New Zealand’s Stance:
Peters’ scepticism marks the first instance of a Five Eyes partner publicly questioning Canada’s assertions, potentially influencing the ongoing diplomatic discourse.
Conclusion:
The diplomatic friction between India and Canada persists as questions regarding the credibility of allegations and the absence of evidence continue to shape the narrative. Winston Peters’ scrutiny underscores the complexity of international relations and the necessity for transparency and accountability in diplomatic engagements.
– Prisha Jaiswal