On Friday (10th November), Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shrewdly evaded the question about the probe into the killing of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar.
During a ribbon-cutting ceremony in Sault Ste. Marie city in Ontario province of Canada, a reporter asked him a specific question about the status of the investigation process. Instead of responding to the question, Justin Trudeau went on a tirade against India.
“From the very beginning when we learned of credible allegations that agents of the Indian govt were involved in the killing of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil, we reached out to India to ask them to work with us in getting to the bottom of this matter,” he was heard saying.
Full exchange between the journalist and Trudeau on India and the Nijjar investigation
— Journalist V (@OnTheNewsBeat) November 12, 2023
Trudeau doesn't answer if there's been any progress in the investigation but sounds miffed pic.twitter.com/NJwrJylOih
“…If bigger countries can violate international law without consequences, then the whole world gets more dangerous for everyone,” he brazened it out.
“Think about it from our perspective, we have serious reasons to believe that agents of the Government of India could have been involved in the killing of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil,” Trudeau claimed.
It must be mentioned that the Canadian government has so far not provided any specific proof, which could remotely point fingers at India’s role in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar.
In fact, British Columbia Premier David Eby has gone on record to say that briefings provided to him by CSIS (Canadian Intelligence Agency) about the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar were ‘open source’ and based on material available on the internet.
The Canadian Prime Minister further alleged,”And India’s response is to kick out a whole bunch of Canadian diplomats by violating their rights under the Vienna Convention.”
This claim is also not rooted in truth. While it is true that the Indian government for a reduction in Canadian diplomats in the country, it did not violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
Article 11.1 of the Vienna Convention says [pdf], “In the absence of specific agreement as to the size of the mission, the receiving State may require that the size of a mission be kept within limits considered by it to be reasonable and normal, having regard to circumstances and conditions in the receiving State and to the needs of the particular mission.”
“We reject any attempt to portray the Implementation of parity as a violation of International norms,” the Indian Ministry of External Affairs clarified in October this year.
Melaine Joly dodges question about evidence sharing with India
On 19th October, Canadian Foreign Minister Melaine Joly failed to answer a direct question on whether her country shared evidence with the Indian government about the latter’s supposed involvement in the killing of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar.
During a press briefing, a reporter asked Melaine Joly, “Can you clarify (whether) have you shown them the evidence you are basing your claim on and have you walked them on how Canada reached this conclusion?”
The Canadian Foreign Minister initially fumbled but later said, “We had numerous conversations with India before Prime Minister (Justin Trudeau) went in front of the House and made his declaration. This was not a surprise to the Government of India. “
On being pressed about the ‘evidence’, she dodged the question and said that India was made aware of ‘credible allegations’ through ‘conversations.’
“And so based on that, India has decided to take their own decisions which are precedent-setting and revoking the diplomatic immunity of 41 diplomats is not only unprecedented but also contrary to international law. So in that sense, this is unprecedented and would put so many countries, and different diplomats around the world in danger. We decide not to reciprocate,” Melaine Joly went on a tirade.
The reporter pointed out that the Canadian Foreign Minister did not answer the question about ‘evidence’ being shared with the Indian authorities. In her defence, Melaine Joly said that there were meetings and ‘information’ was shared.
