• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sikh & India (Alleged) Shenanigans in Canada (split fm Non-Muslim terr thread)

Michael Higgins in the National Post.

For Trudeau this could be his finest hour. Or, if he fails, it could be the finish.

Canada held talks with its Five Eyes allies — the U.S., the U.K., Australia and New Zealand — over the killing. However, support has been muted and Ottawa’s attempts to get its allies to publicly condemn the murder have been “rebuffed,

Despite the sensational nature of the charge, the Canadian government appears to be going to great lengths to stress it is only an accusation. In a press conference Tuesday, Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly was at pains to talk about “the allegations” and that India “may have been involved” and how “if proved true” the killing would be troublesome.

It was as if Joly was not convinced herself.


And if Trudeau is having difficulty bringing Joly along with him.....

I note also




Michael Higgins: Does Trudeau have what it takes to wage diplomatic war with India?​

It's up to the prime minister to convince Canadians and allies of India's involvement in killing of Sikh separatist
Author of the article:
Michael Higgins
Published Sep 21, 2023 • Last updated 5 hours ago • 5 minute read


Foreign affairs are a minefield for Justin Trudeau but surely no one expected him to trigger an explosive diplomatic war with India.

This is now a defining moment for the prime minister who must prove himself either a strong and decisive leader or a weak and ineffectual politician. But does Trudeau possess the Churchillian spirit?

If India sent a hit squad to Canada to kill a Canadian then Trudeau must marshal all resources — political, diplomatic, and economic — to punish such a grave breach of national sovereignty.

India should be subject to the full weight of Canadian and international sanctions so it understands the world will not tolerate such gross criminal behaviour.

But for that to happen the prime minister must put forward a convincing case to Canadians and the world that clearly demonstrates India’s guilt.

It is not enough to say security agencies are “actively pursuing credible allegations” that Indian government agents killed Hardeep Singh Nijjar who was shot dead by two masked men as he left a Sikh temple in Surrey, B.C.

The prime minister does not have to prove India’s complicity according to the evidence requirements of a court of law. But for Canadians to support him he must present a convincing and factual case.

The usual rhetoric about confidential security reports and active investigations preventing any disclosure must be abandoned. Canadians need and deserve answers. If the Canadian Security Intelligence Service or the RCMP has credible evidence then they should come forward.

Because the stakes are very high. Not only is the allegation a very serious one, but the ramifications will be significant.

Canada has already halted trade talks with India. According to Reuters, the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) between the two countries would have yielded a GDP gain of $3.8 billion to $5.9 billion for Canada by 2035.

Trudeau can learn lessons from the U.K when people on its soil found themselves under attack from Russian assassins.

Britain responded robustly after Sergei Skripal, a former Russian intelligence agent, and his daughter, Yulia, were poisoned with a nerve agent by Russian agents in March 2018.

Twenty-three Russian diplomats suspected of being intelligence agents were kicked out within days, Russian assets were seized, and high-level contact between Britain and Russia was suspended.

The actions were in marked contrast to the timid U.K. response of the murder in 2006 of Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian agent, believed killed by Russian spies. In an analysis of that response, Duncan Allan, a former analyst with the British Foreign Office, said, “the UK government’s rhetoric was not matched by its actions.” Russian President Vladimir Putin was thus encouraged to attack again, leading to the attempted murders of Skripal and his daughter.

The danger of Trudeau being weak and ineffectual are clear.

After the Skripal attempted assassination, the U.K. publicly demonstrated its commitment to take the matter seriously. Wiltshire Police, the local force investigating the crime, was replaced by a counter terrorism investigative unit. And in order to persuade Britons that Russia was behind the attack, the British prime minister took the highly unusual step of releasing classified intelligence that provided evidence of Russia’s complicity.

The U.K. also got allies on board. Within weeks of the crime, dozens of countries, including the United States, had expelled over 100 Russian diplomats.

According to The Washington Post this week, in the lead up to this month’s G20 summit in India, Canada held talks with its Five Eyes allies — the U.S., the U.K., Australia and New Zealand — over the killing. However, support has been muted and Ottawa’s attempts to get its allies to publicly condemn the murder have been “rebuffed,” according to the paper. The White House has said it was “deeply concerned” about the allegation and that it was critical that Canada’s investigation proceed, reported The Post.

Such a lukewarm and indifferent response might indicate that our allies were not persuaded by the available evidence. Of course, their inaction might also be motivated by naked self interest, but that would have to be balanced against the international embarrassment that would be caused should Trudeau present a credible case that India was behind the attack.

Despite the sensational nature of the charge, the Canadian government appears to be going to great lengths to stress it is only an accusation. In a press conference Tuesday, Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly was at pains to talk about “the allegations” and that India “may have been involved” and how “if proved true” the killing would be troublesome.

It was as if Joly was not convinced herself.

And in light of the allegation, the prime minister’s trip to India recently can be viewed not so much as an embarrassment but as totally inexplicable. If Trudeau had always planned during the trip to confront Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and lodge a protest about the killing, why did he take his son along instead of a coterie of high-profile ministers to underscore the seriousness of the matter? And if Trudeau skulking in his hotel room instead of attending Modi’s official dinner was intended as some form of statesman-like demonstration over the murder it was a spectacular failure.

It has been three months since the murder of Nijjar and the Liberal government is only now talking of “credible allegations.” It would have been better to keep concerns under wraps until such time as facts were available to support such an explosive accusation. Just because the Globe and Mail published a story about how India’s involvement was being investigated in the killing, doesn’t mean the Liberals had to respond, especially if they were not going to present a more persuasive case.

If Trudeau has evidence confirming the claims against India, he needs to make it public, convince Canadians that urgent action is needed, and follow up with a firm and robust response. The expulsion of one Indian diplomat is hardly appropriate.

For Trudeau this could be his finest hour. Or, if he fails, it could be the finish.
 
What’s going on here, is that a Trudeau lookalike or what.
Just a clip of some cowboy (not JT) noting the job (drawing attention away from China’s interference) got done…
 
Michael Higgins in the National Post.










And if Trudeau is having difficulty bringing Joly along with him.....

I note also

Finest hour?

More like Trudeau as Chamberlain, not Churchill, except he’s telling us that he talked to Xi, not Hitler, and he has assurances that there’s nothing untoward…
 

All of which may sound like a defence of the Prime Minister on this file. Quite the contrary. He is merely being accused of the wrong thing. Far from picking needless fights with a much more powerful adversary, as his critics contend, there is evidence to suggest that his government has been too unwilling to confront the government of India over its activities on Canadian territory.
According to independent national security reporter Sam Cooper, based on a top secret document prepared for the Prime Minister in 2019 by the National Security and Intelligence Commitee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP), “CSIS planned a major intervention in 2017 to shut down rapidly growing Indian intelligence networks in Vancouver that were monitoring and targeting the Sikh community.”
But the government blocked the operation, the NSICOP document states, due to “political sensitivity” and (as paraphrased by Mr. Cooper) “fears it would impact Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s upcoming trip to India.” This is an extraordinary statement. It suggests the security of the country took a backseat to, at best, improving relations with India, and at worst, politics.
Moreover, this is precisely the same charge the Trudeau government has faced in its dealings with China. It isn’t that it has been pusillanimous with the one, but overly confrontational with the other. It has been far too indulgent of both. All that is different is the attitude of the conservative opposition: hostile to China, keen on India.
This has changed my thinking on one point. Until now I would have preferred the public inquiry into foreign interference should be limited to China. The issue that warrants the inquiry, I’ve argued, is not whether or how China has interfered in Canada – that’s what the intelligence services are for – but what action or inaction of the Trudeau government might have enabled it.
I think the same questions need now to be asked of its handling of India.
I agree with Coyne on the first instance and disagree with him on the second. The egregious thing of this whole fiasco is the government kyboshed a CSIS interruption operation on Indian intelligence operations here. But I still think the public inquiry needs to focus on Beijing’s operations here since they are so interwoven into our politics at all levels here.
 
... Now do I think the logical thing would to have the PM wait, let the article come out and then comment saying that they where aware, and an investigation was being conducted and so no other information could be released yes ...
Unless someone in the political brain trust thought it was better to get out ahead of the story so it wouldn't be used to pummel Team Red Ottawa over the head. Guess that's why it happened like it did.
What is the true story on this?
Does he only have the basic security clearance of an MP? Do you lose your clearance after you are no longer a cabinet minister? What is the truth?
One version I've read (more) is that PP refused to be briefed on what the Johnson "probe" found, but he didn't want to get trapped into "we'll show you, but you can't say anything" rules of engagement.

Also, a reminder: Globe's Robert Fife was said to be ready to go, according to a podcast interview earlier this week ...
... with the story Sunday, attributing unnamed int sources, alleging India's involvement. Wonder if more people would believe the allegations if it came out first via the bought-and-paid-for media, like other allegations of interference attributed to unnamed int sources of late? NOW we'll never know - but hey, at least Team Red got the jump on the Globe ...
 
Hear me out.

China nor Pakistan have any love for The West and even less for India.

What if Pakistan was behind this? Perhaps with China’s “wink and a nudge”.
Where are the assassins? Either in their home country or met the same fate as their victim…

What’s the motive? To promote discord between the West and India so China profits.

Only a theory. No facts to support it.
 
Hear me out.

China nor Pakistan have any love for The West and even less for India.

What if Pakistan was behind this? Perhaps with China’s “wink and a nudge”.
Where are the assassins? Either in their home country or met the same fate as their victim…

What’s the motive? To promote discord between the West and India so China profits.

Only a theory. No facts to support it.
Honestly I think it boils down to nations don't fear or respect us, and know even when they are caught red handed doing something wrong, out 'allies' won't do anything significant to support us.

Recently they seen this play out in real time with the reprisals China did against us and the US largely standing on the sideline doing nothing , while they themselves put us in that situation.
 
Hear me out.

China nor Pakistan have any love for The West and even less for India.

What if Pakistan was behind this? Perhaps with China’s “wink and a nudge”.
Where are the assassins? Either in their home country or met the same fate as their victim…

What’s the motive? To promote discord between the West and India so China profits.

Only a theory. No facts to support it.
I’m guessing that the GoC has a lot of evidence. I’m further guessing the evidence is via SI Elint, and 5E related.
So it’s not going to be available for public release.
 
I’m guessing that the GoC has a lot of evidence. I’m further guessing the evidence is via SI Elint, and 5E related.
So it’s not going to be available for public release.

Like I said I have zero evidence. It’s just a theory.

Perhaps the very senior levels of the Indian government were unaware of the plot.
 
We as a nation need to grow the hell up and look outside of our broken glass house. We are footnote of irrelevance.

From the G&M


Omer Aziz is a former foreign policy adviser in the government of Justin Trudeau and the author of Brown Boy: A Memoir.

When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stood up in the House of Commons on Monday and made the unprecedented allegation that “agents of the government of India” assassinated a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil, I cannot say I was surprised. It was a brazen and violent encroachment upon Canadian sovereignty, done in public, meant to be discovered, and over one of the issues that the Indian government of Narendra Modi takes most seriously.

I should know. In 2017, I was the Policy Advisor in the Foreign Minister’s office, working closely with the Prime Minister’s Office on India. From the first briefing, it was clear that India-Canada relations were headed in the wrong direction. There had been rumours of Indian intelligence services operating in the Canadian suburbs for years (along with others). The Indians counter-alleged that Canada was giving shelter, if not encouragement, to Khalistani extremists – supporters of an independent Sikh homeland, partitioned out of India. Sikhs in Canada, meanwhile, have likened the Indian government’s violence against them to genocide. The two sides had been talking past each other for years.

The sore point in this, which young Canadians have no memory of, is the tragic Air India bombing of 1985. Until 9/11, this was the worst act of terrorism in the sky, whereby Sikh extremists planted a bomb on an Air India flight, resulting in the deaths of 329 passengers and crew.

By the time I served in government in 2017, two things had recently – and radically – changed. First was the election of Mr. Modi in 2014, and his Hindutva politics. Mr. Modi’s ideology sees India as a primarily Hindu nation, and it stokes ethnic chauvinism and grievance against anyone who dares criticize it. Mr. Modi was a strongman, and would no longer take lecturing from Canada.

The second factor was the election of Donald Trump, which moved everyone’s attention and focus to Washington dramas. India, meanwhile, had gone fully nationalist by this point. Since coming into office, Mr. Modi has silenced critics, targeted Muslims, locked up political opponents, and rewritten the Indian curriculum to blot out India’s syncretic history. Mr. Modi has rolled back India’s democracy, and remains an ally of India’s far-right. When I met with India’s greatest economist, Amartya Sen, last fall, he warned me that the regime was getting worse. There can be no doubt that Mr. Modi has used state violence against minorities in frightening and authoritarian ways.

Over the years, the politics of this issue in Canada had also grown more difficult. There are some 770,000 Sikhs in Canada, one of the most politically organized communities in the country. Canadian Sikhs have kept the issue of Sikh justice on the agenda by continually advocating and pressuring politicians. Because foreign policy in a democracy is ultimately informed by domestic public opinion, the Sikh issue has an enlarged influence on our bilateral relations with India. It came up in every meeting, in every talking point, in every pull-aside. Unfortunately, Canadian politicians then didn’t care enough about either Sikhs or India to give this the policy attention it deserved.

By 2017, when I worked in government, India did not take Mr. Trudeau or Canada seriously. They viewed Canada as a bit player in world affairs, America’s loud-mouthed neighbour. In Ottawa, at least in my experience, officials did not respect India, either – to our peril. Canada’s political establishment is old and white, and infused with an ignorant Eurocentrism that still affects foreign policy priorities. Western Europe and the United States were our focus, and some ministers could hardly see beyond London or Berlin. There’s a reason why, along with India, relations with China, with Latin American countries, with much of Africa have deteriorated. It was a great abdication of our long-term priorities, given where we have ended up.

When Mr. Trudeau went to India in 2018, the trip became a debacle for Canada. Mr. Modi did not greet him on the tarmac, Mr. Trudeau got a chilly reception in general, and the PMO was put on its heels after it was reported that Jaspal Atwal – a Khalistan supporter once convicted of trying to kill an Indian cabinet minister, had been invited to two receptions during Mr. Trudeau’s visit.

Canada should have at least begun to take steps to ensure our land was not used for terrorist financing – a reasonable demand, given that the overwhelming number of Canadian Sikhs are peaceful and uninterested in using violence to create a separate Sikh homeland. (Coincidentally, Khalistan is almost entirely a diaspora issue; there is little organized support, even among Sikhs in India, for a separate homeland.) By taking goodwill measures, it would have at least been possible to keep talking and find workable policy solutions. The only problem was, Mr. Trudeau did not want to lose the Sikh vote to Jagmeet Singh. So we dug in our heels.


What I saw in government was how Canada’s ethnic domestic battles were distorting our long-term foreign policy priorities, and politicians, who never understood South Asia or India anyway, were pandering in lowest-common-denominator ways in B.C. and Ontario suburbs, and playing up ethnic grievances to win votes. This was especially true within internal Liberal Party politics, meaning that we could hardly focus on foreign policy and strategy without factoring in which ridings might be lost because a certain group might be upset. Canada, as a country, has suffered great reputational damage by such thinking – and none of our allies are going to come to our help on this issue.

Not that Mr. Modi would have necessarily been a great friend to Canada. In my research on right-wing nationalist regimes, it is apparent that governments pursuing state violence internally – against minorities, against critics – will ultimately pursue such aggression externally. It is why the rise of the new authoritarians is so destabilizing for the world order. But Canada ultimately got the worst of all possible deals – nearly ruptured relations with India, and now a potential split in the Western alliance.

The global chessboard is shifting. The United States is strengthening its Asia alliances, something we could and should have been doing six years ago. The new influential club is the Quad – the U.S., Japan, Australia, and India. Canada is not part of it. At the G20, Canada is demeaned. The world powers will eventually face the contradiction between Mr. Modi’s Hindu nationalist regime and his foreign policy influence. What’s worrying is that Canada isn’t even at the table where those decisions are being made.

We have entered a critical period in world affairs. Major realignments are taking place – and now the murder of a Canadian citizen, allegedly carried out with the knowledge if not support of another country, could go many different ways. It is imperative the investigation continues, that its findings are made public, and that Canada seeks de-escalation with India. Canada may never be a major power in international affairs. But it can still be a serious one.
 
The only thing Canada provides internationally of relevance is resources, which we have done our best over the last decade to reduce. Like when Japan and Europe was asking for natural gas to reduce reliance on Russia and we said go cold.

Our military is weak. We don’t side with our allies when we might have to pay or it doesn’t suit our domestic politics at that particular moment (even if better for the long term). Our economy is reliant on other nations for just about everything. We like to talk a big game but as time progresses that means less and less without investment into what can potentially make us a big player.
 
First of all, Trudeau has to see Canada as a nation, as a state, inhabiting a country, with interests. His post-national urges seem to see Canada as gentler, kinder Antarctica - a territory belonging to all and to none.
 
First of all, Trudeau has to see Canada as a nation....
No, he sees Canada as his Fiefdom, secondly, a Liberal Party of Canada Fiefdom.

To repeat myself:
I don't trust Trudeau one bit. I think this all about changing the discussion, getting votes from a community and staying in power. To hell with Canada; it's the Liberal way.

It is all a calculated act. Trudeau's last trip to India where he rebuffed Moti, childishly refused to attend the closing dinner was Act 1.

Act II was Monday in the HofC.

Act III is his refusal to release evidence which keeps him in stage lights.
 
No, he sees Canada as his Fiefdom, secondly, a Liberal Party of Canada Fiefdom.

To repeat myself:
I don't trust Trudeau one bit. I think this all about changing the discussion, getting votes from a community and staying in power. To hell with Canada; it's the Liberal way.

It is all a calculated act. Trudeau's last trip to India where he rebuffed Moti, childishly refused to attend the closing dinner was Act 1.

Act II was Monday in the HofC.

Act III is his refusal to release evidence which keeps him in stage lights.
R62, I think you can shift those acts all one to the right.

One could make the case that Act 1 was Trudeau shutting down CSIS’ efforts in 2017 to map out and provide countermeasures to the Kalistani Sikh militant structure in Canada.
 
R62, I think you can shift those acts all one to the right.

One could make the case that Act 1 was Trudeau shutting down CSIS’ efforts in 2017 to map out and provide countermeasures to the Kalistani Sikh militant structure in Canada.
Ok so who’s prodding the PM into doing this? Sikhs?

I’m guessing China….
 
Ok so who’s prodding the PM into doing this? Sikhs?

I’m guessing China….
I’ll be characteristically cynical and posit that it was Trudeau’s own doing, primarily for votes and the support of the relatively significant Sikh diaspora in Canada (largest global Sikh population outside India).
 
Back
Top