In an open letter, a group of former Indian diplomats accused Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of engaging in “vote bank politics” with his support of the Indian farmers’ protest.
The open letter was issued by the “Group of Ambassadors of India”, which included former diplomats Vishnu Prakash, Ajay Swarup, GS Iyer and SK Mathur. Expressing concern about the activities of pro-Khalistan elements in Canada, the statement said that they are also radicalizing Canadian youth with far-reaching consequences, which are being ignored at the altar of short-term political expediency.
“Khalistani elements in Canada control a number of prominent Gurudwaras, giving them access to substantial funds, some of which are allegedly diverted to the election campaign of political parties, especially liberal ones,” he said, targeting the country’s ruling party. . “At home, encouraged by Canadian support, the protesters have hardened their stance, taking an all or nothing approach,” said the former diplomats.
They added that cooperation between the Khalistani and Pakistani diplomatic posts has also taken place behind the scenes. Pakistani diplomats are notoriously involved in such pro-Khalistani events, and Canadian authorities look to Nelson, they said, adding that Canada removed all references to Khalistani radicals and Sikh extremism in the “2018 Public Report on Threat terrorist to Canada “allegedly bowing to their pressure and threats.
“This editorial juggling may be good enough for domestic purposes, but the fact is that neither Canada nor any other state can condone fundamentalism, violent extremism or terrorism under international law,” the statement said.
Former diplomats said such behavior, contrary to well-established diplomatic norms, will also damage Canada’s own position in the world. Furthermore, it carries the risk that other nations will pay Canada in the same way. India wishes to have the best ties with Canada. However, no relationship can be one-sided. Nor can any country, especially India, ignore actions that are detrimental to its country. interests and territorial integrity. The choice and the decision rests with the people of Canada, “he said.
Former IFS officials said the irony is that Canada is one of the loudest critics of India’s minimum support price (MSP) in the WTO and yet, driven by questionable reasons, it suddenly chose to express concern and support. to farmers.
Trudeau, speaking to the Indian community in Canada, had said earlier this month that he was concerned about farmers, most of them from the Sikh-dominated state of Punjab, camped out on the outskirts of Delhi in a protest against agricultural reforms. .
“His comments were unnecessary, disconnected from the realities on the ground and merely served to fan the flames … Such blatant interference in the internal affairs of India to appease a section of the Liberal Party voter base is completely unacceptable and it cannot but cast a long shadow over bilateral relations “” Said the letter, signed by 22 former diplomats.
Following Trudeau’s statement, India had summoned the Canadian ambassador and said the comments made by the prime minister were interference in India’s internal affairs and would seriously damage bilateral relations. The Foreign Ministry said in a statement that comments on “issues related to Indian farmers constitute unacceptable interference in our internal affairs.”
India and Canada have warm ties, but in recent years there has been concern in India that some Sikh leaders in Canada have ties to separatist groups hostile to India. Canada is home to an influential Sikh community and Indian leaders say there are some fringe groups there that still sympathize with the cause of an independent Sikh state called Khalistan, created in India.
India’s Foreign Ministry had said the comments made by Trudeau and other leaders had emboldened radical groups and were a risk to its Canadian-based diplomatic staff. “We hope that the Canadian government guarantees the maximum security of the Indian diplomatic personnel and their political leaders refrain from pronouncements that legitimize extremist activism.”
.
