Expulsions of Indian diplomats from Canada renewed concern about incursions from foreign governments into Canada. The Agenda gathers a panel to discuss this break in Indo-Canadian relations.
It's both ways. By hosting Sikh separatists, Canada is clearly asking for trouble. I mean the West invaded Afghanistan by the under pretexts that Osama Bin Laden committed the 9/11 attacks since the Taliban refused to hand him over.
So they cannot complain. Because as far as the Bharati government sees it, these Sikh separatists undermine Bharati sovereignty.
It's both ways. By hosting Sikh separatists, Canada is clearly asking for trouble. I mean the West invaded Afghanistan by the under pretexts that Osama Bin Laden committed the 9/11 attacks since the Taliban refused to hand him over.
So they cannot complain. Because as far as the Bharati government sees it, these Sikh separatists undermine Bharati sovereignty.
They see them as terrorists/criminals. Just as NATO countries saw Osama & the Taliban as criminals. In the end, one's terrorist is not another's terrorist. It's all subjective.
They see them as terrorists/criminals. Just as NATO countries saw Osama & the Taliban as criminals. In the end, one's terrorist is not another's terrorist. It's all subjective.
Asking for trouble is one thing - but would it give India the right to carry out targeted assassinations of Canadian citizens on Canadian soil?
I think Indian MEA and RAW are getting a bit bigger than their britches.
What if Canada did the same in India (if they really cared?). India couldn't do much of anything really, cards are stacked against them.
Turning over secessionists depends on power of the country involved and how friendly the relationship is.
Indians should think about this in an impartial, sober manner and not on jingoist terms. India cannot risk the downgrade of relationships with the entire "West", they all act and sound in unison, like bands of foxes and coyotes. As soon as proclamations from Trudeau were issued about found 'evidence', the US state dept. and half a dozen NATO countries all issued supportive official statements.
At stake are futures of millions of Indian foreign students and recent immigrants in Canada (deportation) and trade sanctions/embargoes if things really take a bad turn. All Indian arms programs will be affected. C-17s and Apaches will be sitting idle - among other things.
Bangladesh (Hasina) handed over Indian ULFA secessionist Anup Chetia at India's request, thereby helping India massively in the stability of the NE area. It was an "offer Hasina could not refuse" - given where the 'offer' came from.
Canada will not do this - they do not care about India's request (whether legit or not), they have their own legal precedents and principles. That is legally the crux of the matter.
India is not in the first world league, plain and simple. It depends on remittances from the West (and the Gulf, also stooges of the West) to run its economy. If instructed by the West - Gulfies will not waste a New York Minute before deporting hundreds of thousands of Indian workers - backfills from other countries will be very easy to find.
The sooner Indian politicians realize this and learn to control their bluster, the better (and smoother) their future will be.
They see them as terrorists/criminals. Just as NATO countries saw Osama & the Taliban as criminals. In the end, one's terrorist is not another's terrorist. It's all subjective.
Asking for trouble is one thing - but would it give India the right to carry out targeted assassinations of Canadian citizens on Canadian soil?
I think Indian MEA and RAW are getting a bit bigger than their britches.
What if Canada did the same in India (if they really cared?). India couldn't do much of anything really, cards are stacked against them.
Turning over secessionists depends on power of the country involved and how friendly the relationship is.
Indians should think about this in an impartial, sober manner and not on jingoist terms. India cannot risk the downgrade of relationships with the entire "West", they all act and sound in unison, like bands of foxes and coyotes. As soon as proclamations from Trudeau were issued about found 'evidence', the US state dept. and half a dozen NATO countries all issued supportive official statements.
At stake are futures of millions of Indian foreign students and recent immigrants in Canada (deportation) and trade sanctions/embargoes if things really take a bad turn. All Indian arms programs will be affected. C-17s and Apaches will be sitting idle - among other things.
Bangladesh (Hasina) handed over Indian ULFA secessionist Anup Chetia at India's request, thereby helping India massively in the stability of the NE area. It was an "offer Hasina could not refuse" - given where the 'offer' came from.
Canada will not do this - they do not care about India's request (whether legit or not), they have their own legal precedents and principles. That is legally the crux of the matter.
India is not in the first world league, plain and simple. It depends on remittances from the West (and the Gulf, also stooges of the West) to run its economy. If instructed by the West - Gulfies will not waste a New York Minute before deporting hundreds of thousands of Indian workers - backfills from other countries will be very easy to find.
The sooner Indian politicians realize this and learn to control their bluster, the better (and smoother) their future will be.
The fact that one country hosts secessionists of another country is asking for trouble. Canada is indirectly interfering with Bharat's sovereignty.
If those Sikhs came as refugees and agreed to cease their political activities, that's different. But by hosting people who call for the breakup of another country is asking for trouble.
I'm not arguing wheather Sikhs are right or wrong to ask for an independent Khalistan. What i'm arguing this is an issue for them to resolve.
Canada banned Hamas as a terrorist organization and so is Hezbollah deemed as such. So now why the double standard?
Suppose Bharat gave sanctuary to a wanted fugitive in Canada on terrorism charges, do you think Canada would see this as threatening their sovereignty?
All I am stating is this: Suppose BLA members were given sanctuary in another country. The ISI eventually seeks to eliminate them on that country's soil because they threaten Pakistani sovereignty.
The Pakistani military's argument will be is that since the country refuses to hand them over, they undermine Pakistani sovereignty by hosting them.
World Affairs
