Canada never got back with proof on Hardeep Nijjar killing, says Jaishankar

India is not ruling out an investigation into Canada’s accusation about the involvement of the Indian agents in the killing of Khalistani leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar though Ottawa is yet to provide evidence to back its claim, external affairs minister S Jaishankar has said.

Jaishankar made the remarks while participating in an event organised at Wilton Park, an agency of the UK foreign office, in London late on Wednesday. He was responding to a question during a conversation on the theme “How a billion people see the world”.

Noting that he had discussed the issue with his Canadian counterpart Melanie Joly, Jaishankar said: “And we have told them, if you have a reason to make such an allegation, please share the evidence with us. We are not ruling out an investigation and looking at anything which they may have to offer. They haven’t done so.”

Asked if there is any evidence of Indian involvement in Nijjar’s killing, he replied, “None.”

India-Canada ties cratered after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s alleged in September there was a “potential link” between Indian agents and the killing of Nijjar in British Columbia in June. India, which had designated Nijjar a terrorist in 2020, dismissed Trudeau’s allegation as “absurd”.

Both countries expelled a senior diplomat each and India suspended visa services for Canadian citizens. India’s call for parity in diplomatic presence has forced Canada to withdraw 41 diplomats.

Referring to the activities of Khalistani activists in Canada, Jaishankar said freedom of speech and expression comes with certain responsibilities, and the misuse of these freedoms and the toleration of such misuse for political purposes is very wrong.

He also referred to attacks on the Indian mission and consulate in Canada and the intimidation of Indian diplomats and said no action was taken by Canadian authorities against those responsible.

“We feel that Canadian politics has given space to violent and extreme political opinions, which advocate separatism from India, including through violent means. And these people have been accommodated in Canadian politics,” he said.

Last week, Trudeau said Canada didn’t want to have a “fight” with India, but reiterated his allegations and added that Ottawa wants to work constructively with New Delhi on the “very serious matter”.

Jaishankar also told a media interaction at the Indian high commission in London before concluding his five-day visit that he had discussed India’s concerns about the activities of pro-Khalistan elements and the safety of Indian diplomats at his meetings with British leaders. These matters figured in Jaishankar’s meetings with UK home secretary James Cleverly and National Security Adviser Tim Barrow.

“We have long-standing concerns about extremist and sometimes even violent activities of various forces, including those who propagate Khalistan,” he said.

“We have been trying to get the government here to understand that, while we as a fellow democracy certainly understand the importance of freedom of expression and speech, they should be on guard against the misuse of these freedoms,” he added.

India-China relations

In the context of the standoff with China on the Line of Actual Control (LAC), Jaishankar said at the Wilton Park event that the border dispute dated back to the time of China’s revolution but the Chinese side avoided engagement on the issue till the second half of the 1950s.

Following the 1962 border conflict, both sides discussed the issue and worked to stabilise the border in the 1990s. This included agreements on border management signed in 1993 and 1996, with very specific arrangements on not bringing large numbers of troops to the frontier. The agreements lasted till 2020 when the “Chinese did not continue to adhere to the agreement and we had a big movement of troops to the LAC and eventually, there was a clash”.

He added, “And what that has done is it has really vitiated the relationship.” This brought back sharp differences and raised questions about credibility and trust regarding China.

“What happened was we ended up with a number of points where there is very closeup deployment of troops, which is fundamentally dangerous…,” Jaishankar said.

India’s role in stabilising oil prices

Jaishankar also pointed to India’s role in stabilising global oil and gas prices through its strategic policy of purchasing Russian energy amid the Ukraine war.

“We’ve actually softened the oil and gas markets through our purchase policies. We have, as a consequence, actually managed global inflation. I’m waiting for the thank you,” he said. India’s approach prevented a surge in global oil prices and prevented potential competition with Europe in the market.

Referring to India’s stance on the Russia-Ukraine war, Jaishankar noted the balance between principles and interests. “We have learned the hard way that people speak of principles…But they are tempered by interest. In this particular case, we have a very powerful interest to keep our relationship with Russia,” he said.

‘More Indian, more authentic’

Jaishankar also noted that secularism does not mean being non-religious but having equal respect for all faiths. However, the “appeasement” policies of past governments made India’s largest religion feel it had to be self-deprecatory in the name of equality, he said.

He was responding to a question on whether India has changed since the Nehruvian era to become less liberal and more “Hindu majoritarian”.

“Has India changed from the Nehruvian era? Absolutely, because one of the assumptions of that era, which very much guided the thinking of the polity and its projection abroad, was the way we define secularism in India,” Jaishankar said.

India had got into “a sort of politics of minoritarian pandering” that created a backlash, he said.

Asked specifically if tolerance had gone down in India, he said: “I don’t think so. I think, on the contrary, people today are less hypocritical about their beliefs, about their traditions and their culture.

“We are more Indian, more authentic. We are not today either currying favour before a global audience or really trying to live up to some kind of left-wing liberal construct which a lot of Indians felt was not us.”