Canada learns diplomacy the “Jaishankar Way”

Just hours after emphasizing at the United Nations General Assembly, that a select few nations should not make decisions on behalf of the entire world, Jaishankar gave lessons in diplomacy to Canada his own sweet way

The subject of his lesson was Hardeep Singh Nijjar, whose matter has the potential to strain relations between India and Canada beyond repair. When queried about this delicate topic, Jaishankar responded with finesse. He calmly stated that it was not the official policy of the Indian government to engage in such acts, deflecting any direct implication.

Moreover, Jaishankar extended an olive branch, expressing India’s “willingness” to assist Canada with any specific inquiries regarding the alleged “murder” of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. In his authoritative tone, Jaishankar also pointed out Canada’s “very permissive” environment concerning secessionist activities.

So, join as we understand the deeper meaning behind Jaishankar’s recent class on diplomacy to Canada, and why he is no mood for small talk.

“Have Specific Info, You’re Most Welcome”

Amidst the ongoing diplomatic tussle between India and Canada, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has shed light on a matter of paramount concern— the organized crime intertwined with secessionist forces, violence, and extremism that have found a haven in Canada, citing a worrying permissiveness, largely attributed to political considerations.

In a composed yet firm manner, Jaishankar articulated, “In the last few years, Canada actually has seen a lot of organized crime, relating to secessionist forces, organized crime, violence, and extremism. They’re all very, very deeply mixed up. So, in fact, we have been talking about specifics and information.”

Emphasizing the gravity of the situation, Jaishankar went on to underscore that the Indian government had diligently provided the Canadian authorities with substantial information concerning these criminal activities. Furthermore, India had submitted numerous extradition requests, a significant portion of which regrettably went unanswered or unaddressed by the Trudeau administration.

Also read: Jaishankar’s Agenda: Redefining the Global Order from Bharat

The EAM had raised his concern over these incidents of threats to Indian diplomats and attacks on Indian consulates, stating that these are “very permissive” because of political reasons.

“Our concern is that it’s really been very permissive, because of political reasons. So, we have a situation where our diplomats are threatened, our consulates have been attacked…A lot of this is often justified, as saying that’s how democracies work. If somebody gives me something specific, it doesn’t have to be restricted to Canada. But if there’s any incident which is an issue and somebody gives me something specific, as a government, I would look at it,” Jaishankar further said.

Early last week, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made an explosive statement accusing the Indian government of being involved in the killing of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar – a claim that India has outrightly rejected, calling it ‘absurd’ and ‘motivated’.

However, Jaishankar’s discourse didn’t conclude there. In a subtly pointed reference to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s credentials and his sources of information, Jaishankar remarked, “We told the Canadians that this is not the government of India’s policy. Secondly, we said if you have something specific and if you have something relevant, let us know. We are open to looking at it…The picture is not complete without the context in a way.”

No room for nonsense

However, it seems that S Jaishankar had no defensive bones, and certainly not in the context of the Canadian issue.

When confronted with inquiries regarding the Five Eyes group’s purported role in the intelligence surrounding the killing of Khalistani separatist leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar, as well as reports of the FBI cautioning US Sikh leaders about “credible threats,” Jaishankar firmly stated, “I am not part of The Five Eyes; I am certainly not part of the FBI. So, I think you are asking the wrong person.”

However, this was just one instance of Jaishankar’s diplomatic acumen. During a conversation at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an American-based think-tank, moderated by former US Ambassador to India, Kenneth Juster, journalist Daniel Block broached the subject of India’s downgrading in Freedom House and V-Dem democracy scores.

Jaishankar, not one to entertain digressions, promptly urged the journalist to get to the point, asserting, “I thought you had a question.” Block continued beating about the bush, and Jaishankar responded by addressing the underlying bias and factual inaccuracies often present in such reports. He simply stated, “I think it answers the question if you would be objective enough to understand it. I think it says very clearly that the people who are writing these reports have a strong bias, often they distort facts. Many of these reports are riddled”

Also read: Fact-Checking Trudeau: Canadian Media’s Perspective on Bharat

Moreover, Jaishankar didn’t shy away from highlighting the double standards of the Canadian administration. He pointed out that certain elements, motivated by political considerations such as vote bank politics, had been allowed to operate within Canada, even permitting the dissemination of calls for the assassination of Indian diplomats. Jaishankar made it clear that India had taken note of these occurrences and viewed them with a critical eye.

Recent revelations, including those from respected sources like The Washington Post, have cast doubts on the thoroughness of Canada’s investigation into the alleged “murder” of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. This highlights the evolving landscape of this diplomatic standoff. It demonstrates that India, under the leadership of Jaishankar, is determined not to let such matters pass without a rigorous examination.

In the ever-evolving world of international relations, where words can be as powerful as actions, Jaishankar’s steadfastness in articulating India’s position serves as a testament to his unwavering commitment to his nation’s interests. His measured responses, backed by a clear sense of purpose, reinforce the idea that India will not be passive when it comes to defending its principles and asserting its place on the global stage.