Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau revealed that the conversations held with India surrounding the killing of Khalistani activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar at the 2023 G-20 Summit in New Delhi were based on intelligence, not conclusive evidence. Trudeau shared these insights during a federal commission inquiry into foreign interference in Canada, reiterating his stance on India’s alleged involvement.
On Wednesday, October 16, 2024, Trudeau once again pointed fingers at India, asserting that the country was involved in Nijjar’s assassination. The decision to make such sensitive information public, according to him, was necessary to demonstrate to Canadian citizens that the government was taking their security seriously. “We wanted the public to know that we were taking action…” said Trudeau during the hearing. His statement came in the backdrop of continuing diplomatic tension between the two nations over the incident.
The murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a known Khalistani separatist, has been a contentious issue in India-Canada relations. The Canadian Prime Minister doubled down on his claim, stating that India’s alleged role in the assassination was a “massive mistake if India had done it.” He added, “My government had reasons to believe that India did it.” The inquiry, however, did not delve into any concrete evidence during this session, as the focus quickly shifted to other matters.
Addressing the fallout from the incident, Trudeau explained that the deterioration in diplomatic relations between India and Canada was never the desired outcome. He maintained that Canada’s official stance continues to uphold India’s territorial integrity, emphasizing the country’s “One India” policy. “There are a number of people in Canada who argue otherwise,” Trudeau acknowledged, likely referring to pro-Khalistan groups, “but that does not make it our policy. It is also not something that is illegal in Canada.”
However, he pointed out that India’s reaction to these allegations was disappointing. “India’s response when the concerns were taken up with it was to attack Canada, undermine our government, and the integrity of our democracy,” he said. These remarks shed light on how strained the diplomatic ties between the two nations have become in the aftermath of the Nijjar case.
According to Trudeau, the intelligence-gathering efforts regarding Nijjar’s killing were spurred by concerns raised by South Asian Members of Parliament (MPs) in Canada. The inquiries from these MPs prompted his government to seek more clarity on the potential involvement of foreign actors in Nijjar’s murder.
As soon as Canada gathered intelligence hinting at Indian involvement, Trudeau stated that they immediately reached out to Indian security agencies. “Our immediate response was to communicate with Indian security agencies…” Trudeau emphasized. He further explained that Canada’s initial aim was to ensure that the incident would not destroy bilateral relations. “At the G-20 summit… we did not want to make it uncomfortable for India,” he said, adding that he directly discussed the matter with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the summit.
Despite these attempts at communication, India has remained steadfast in denying the allegations. Additionally, India refused to waive diplomatic immunity for its officials implicated by the Canadian government. Addressing this refusal, Trudeau remarked that it wasn’t unexpected. “It was not surprising that India refused to waive diplomatic immunity for its officials,” he said, adding that even Canada would likely take the same stance if the roles were reversed.
The diplomatic fallout from this incident has continued to unfold, with both nations maintaining hardened stances. On Thursday, October 17, 2024, a spokesperson from India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), Randhir Jaiswal, criticized Trudeau’s comments and reiterated that no evidence had been provided by Canada to back up these serious allegations.
“What we have heard today only confirms what we have been saying consistently all along – Canada has presented us no evidence whatsoever in support of the serious allegations that it has chosen to level against India and Indian diplomats,” said Jaiswal in his response. He placed the blame for the worsening relations squarely on Trudeau’s shoulders. “The responsibility for the damage that this cavalier behaviour has caused to India-Canada relations lies with Prime Minister Trudeau alone.”
Jaiswal’s statement reflects India’s ongoing frustration with the allegations and Canada’s handling of the situation. From India’s perspective, Trudeau’s public accusations have severely damaged what was once a more cooperative and friendly diplomatic relationship between the two nations. The absence of concrete evidence to substantiate these allegations has only deepened India’s discontent.
As tensions persist, the fallout from this case has reverberated beyond the halls of diplomacy. In Canada, the incident has raised concerns about the influence of foreign governments on its political processes, a topic that has increasingly come under scrutiny in recent years. The federal commission inquiry into foreign interference, which provided the platform for Trudeau’s recent testimony, has been tasked with investigating such matters, including the alleged role of India in the Nijjar killing.
Despite the diplomatic deadlock, Trudeau maintained that his government’s actions were necessary to ensure the safety and security of Canadian citizens. “We wanted the public to know that we were taking action…” he reiterated during the commission hearing, defending his administration’s decision to go public with the information, even though it was based on intelligence rather than hard evidence.
Looking ahead, it remains unclear how or if the diplomatic rift between India and Canada can be healed. The Nijjar case has clearly cast a long shadow over the future of India-Canada relations, and with both sides standing firm on their respective positions, a swift resolution seems unlikely.
While Trudeau continues to assert that Canada’s allegations were made in the interest of national security, India remains adamant that it had no involvement in the killing. The accusations have left a significant diplomatic scar, and unless new evidence or diplomatic breakthroughs emerge, the current state of tension between the two countries seems set to endure.