(Ottawa) The federal government is trying to teach India a lesson despite the high tensions shaking the two countries.
Appearing earlier this month before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Assistant Deputy Minister for the Indo-Pacific Region Weldon Epp indicated that the Department of Justice and the RCMP had “already organized workshops with the Indian government to explain what would be [les] legal standards” that could justify the extradition of people accused of terrorism.
“The way India defines extremism or even terrorism is not always applicable in the context of our justice system,” Mr. Epp had explained.
India has for decades accused Canadian authorities of harboring extremists who demand the independence of a state called Khalistan encompassing certain regions of the country.
Ottawa has always defended itself by declaring that these activists had the right to express an opinion.
Tensions between the two countries reignited in June following the assassination of a Sikh leader, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who was shot dead outside a temple in Surrey, British Columbia.
Three months later, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau revealed that Canadian intelligence services believed the Indian government had played a role in the assassination.
These allegations led New Delhi to suspend visas for Canadian visitors and to expel the majority of Canadian diplomats present in this country.
Canadian authorities have requested greater cooperation from India, which criticizes them for having provided little evidence of the allegations.
Mr. Epp said he does not expect any significant developments before the RCMP lays charges.
He mentioned that Canada and India have long had discussions about terrorism, but the two countries do not have the same definition of extremism.
For example: Canada has twice rejected extradition requests against Mr. Nijjar. Indian authorities accused him of playing a role in a bomb attack on a movie theater.
Sushant Singh, a researcher at a policy research center in New Delhi, believes the Indian government wants to demonstrate that it will not be intimidated.
“We must always observe and analyze behind the political and ideological scenes when the time comes to explain the behavior of the Indian government,” he recalls.
Several members of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bodyguard were trained by the violence between separatist elements and the central government in the 1980s, mentions the researcher.
In Canada, some communities still revere people linked to certain terrorist acts such as the attack on an Air India flight which killed more than 300 people, the majority of them Canadian nationals, in 1985.
Other countries have accused Indian diplomats of behaving contrary to international rules. For example, Germany convicted one for spying on Khalistan independence supporters. Other similar cases in the United States and the United Kingdom have not led to trials.
Since India’s first outraged reactions to the accusations made by Justin Trudeau, the authorities of this country have started to backpedal, notes Mr. Singh. Today, they emphasize that extrajudicial killings are not state policy. The researcher anticipates that New Delhi will try to save face by blaming rogue elements within its intelligence services.
“This shows that they may be worried,” he says.
In such a context, the federal government’s workshops on the rules of law in Canada can be seen as a constructive help rather than a source of embarrassment for India, says Mr. Singh.
Vijay Sappani, a researcher at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, says the time has come for the two countries to restore diplomatic and trade relations.
They both share a lot in common. He cites the example of nuclear collaboration and Commonwealth values. The trade is rich in possibilities: India takes uranium, lentils and potash from Saskatchewan.
“Canada is India’s closest ally in the West,” says Mr. Sappani. The current conflict makes no sense. »