Diplomatic standoff

Indo-Canada row may have unintended costs

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s accusations that India played a role in the assassination of Khalistani separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Surrey, Vancouver, in June this year have relegated Indo-Canadian relations to the deep freeze. This hardening of diplomatic ties initially appeared to have limited immediate repercussions for either country, given their below-par economic relations. Now, recent reporting from the United States and the United Kingdom suggests a broader paradigm to the controversy that may have unintended consequences for New Delhi’s emerging geopolitical interests.

On Sunday, The New York Times reported that the US provided intelligence for the “credible allegations” that Mr Trudeau claimed to have of New Delhi’s alleged role in the extra-territorial assassination of Nijjar. At the same time, the report said, the Canadian authorities appeared to have gathered “smoking gun” intercepted communications of Indian diplomats pointing to New Delhi’s involvement in the plot. The Financial Times, meanwhile, reported that US President Joe Biden and members of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network (US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) had raised the issue of Nijjar’s killing with Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the G20 leaders’ summit in New Delhi earlier this month. Both reports, coming soon after Mr Modi’s G20 triumphs, are significant for the geopolitical pointers embedded in them. The fact that two globally influential western media outlets, which have been critical of Mr Modi’s government, were chosen for select intelligence briefings could be viewed as an implicit critique by the White House. Both reports appeared just as New Delhi upped the ante, not without reason, on Ottawa’s tacit encouragement of the Khalistani movement — not least because of the tie-up between Mr Trudeau’s party and the New Democratic Party, whose Sikh leader had openly endorsed a “Khalistan Referendum” on Canadian soil (for which the government withdrew permission on September 10).

Although the US has chosen to maintain an outwardly neutral stance, recent statements by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Antony Blinken point to an unmistakable, if nuanced, message. Mr Sullivan, for instance, confirmed that the Biden administration was in touch with both the Canadian and Indian governments on the issue. More to the point, he unequivocally told Reuters that he disagreed with reports suggesting there was “distance between US and Canada on the issue”. Mr Blinken has called on the Indian government to cooperate with the Canadian investigation. This could be sage advice for the Indian diplomatic establishment since it would add credibility to New Delhi’s claim that Canadian allegations were “absurd”.

This controversy offers hints of where US diplomatic priorities may lie in the event of deepening Indo-Canadian tensions. Though the US has emerged as India’s largest trading partner, the fact is that Canada is the US’ largest trading partner, and has close traditional ties via the US-Mexico-Canada agreement (previously Nafta). There may be no contest when it comes to choosing between a close economic and cultural ally and a yet untested putative ally — with which the White House is culturally uncomfortable — to balance China’s rising dominance. More so when the US is exploring alternative options through trilateral alliances with Japan and South Korea, and with the Philippines. So, though India’s chagrin against Canada may be justified, New Delhi may have to explore a balancing act between domestic and foreign policy objectives.