By Mayank Chhaya-
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is going for broke in making the explosive claims in his country’s parliament about India’s alleged involvement in the killing of the Khalistani separatist leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar on June 18 in Surrey, British Columbia.
What is remarkable is that Trudeau chose to make this stunning announcement in parliament without providing any evidence and in the process opted to up the ante with New Delhi with which Ottawa’s relations have taken nosedive.
India had characterized Nijjar as a terrorist.
The way he framed his announcement was curious. He said his government was investigating “credible allegations that agents of the Indian state were linked to the killing of a Canadian citizen” but did not offer anything to support that claim.
This is the sort of claim he may find impossible to recover from politically if it turns out not to be the case in a Canadian court. It is possible that Trudeau has chosen not reveal any details behind the allegations in order not to hobble the ongoing investigations. However, his choice of parliament to make the announcement was perhaps a bit of political theater after his disastrous visit to India to attend the G20 summit.
It should not surprise anyone if turns out to be a case of political grandstanding by an embattled prime minister whose government’s survival depends on the very party, namely the New Democratic Party (NDP) of the Sikh leader Jagmeet Singh Dhaliwal with known sympathies for the Khalistan cause. By all accounts, Trudeau returned from New Delhi quite diminished and even apparently humiliated after his reportedly tough exchange with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
“We need to see more facts. The prime minister has not provided any facts. He provided a statement and I will emphasize that he did not tell me more in private than what he told the Canadians in public,” said Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre at a news conference today. Poilievre was asked about the consequences of the allegations not turning out to be credible. He thought a bit and said “Real.”
He was also asked what more facts he would need. He said, “We need to have the evidence that allowed the prime minister to come to the conclusion yesterday.”
It has surprised many that Trudeau went public without immediately backing it up with facts as he knows them. This has given rise to the perception that his statement is at least equally promoted by the politics the killing and how it might play out for him vis-à-vis Dhaliwal’s NDP.
Poilievre said something quite significant when he commented, “I do find it interesting that he knew about vast foreign interference by Beijing for many years at the same time as Beijing had kept two Canadians as hostage and he said nothing and did nothing. It is very interesting that was the approach he took in that case.”
What has also surprised many is the rush with which he briefed President Joe Biden, Britain’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and France’s President Emmanuel Macron about the Nijjar case. This was reported by Canadian public service broadcaster CBC News quoting a senior government source. It was almost as if he was getting even with the Indian prime minister in the aftermath of the Delhi visit.
There are clear risks in Trudeau’s going public and that too in such a high-profile manner in the context of another sovereign nation with whom his relations are particularly vexed. It is possible that he has thought through these risks and is confident that the allegations will be proved in a court of law. If that does not happen, there will be a serious question mark over not just domestic political future but even international standing.
Irrespective of the outcome of the investigations into “credible allegations”, it is expected that the case itself will serve the purpose of bolstering the Khalistani groups in Canada and elsewhere. The visual of a Canadian prime minister standing somberly in parliament and making those claims will have a signal effect on the way it can be used as a propaganda tool.
