The risk of transnational criminal networks exploiting political issues should unite Canada’s leaders to prioritise public safety over confrontations with India and its diplomats.
You (as well as Mr. Modi) deny India's involvement in anti-Sikh actions in Canada, notably the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, but offer no alternative explanation. Who else would be motivated to act in this way? Indian agents are accused of plotting the murder of a man in the U.S. and the Modi government is offering a far more conciliatory response in that case. Yet the two cases are obviously, inextricably connected. Kindly adjust your opinion to one that is more realistic, thank you.
I understand and appreciate your perspective. The RCMP would be well-advised to thoroughly investigate and prosecute all individuals implicated in the Hardeep Singh Nijjar case.
In the matter of Gurpatwant Singh Pannun in the United States, the second indictment has also named a former Indian government employee currently believed to be in India.
India’s diplomatic response here reflects a clear distinction: due process in legal matters remains unaffected by international relations, with India’s stance indicating a prioritisation of its relations with the U.S. over Canada. As the adage goes, “Foreign policy is based on priorities, not principles.”
Meanwhile, the rhetoric from Canadian politicians, particularly from Prime Minister Trudeau, appears more driven by domestic political imperatives—a familiar feature in any electoral democracy, and one we understand in that context.
The issue is not about a government involved in the assassination of a terrorist given refuge on foreign soil. This happens all the time, Osama Bin Laden's case being the easiest to recall.
The issue is that the Canadian government refuses to accept that Khalistanis are a terrorist organisation, and allow them free reign on Canadian soil to set up their operational base to plan attacks on Indian soil.
You (as well as Mr. Modi) deny India's involvement in anti-Sikh actions in Canada, notably the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, but offer no alternative explanation. Who else would be motivated to act in this way? Indian agents are accused of plotting the murder of a man in the U.S. and the Modi government is offering a far more conciliatory response in that case. Yet the two cases are obviously, inextricably connected. Kindly adjust your opinion to one that is more realistic, thank you.
I understand and appreciate your perspective. The RCMP would be well-advised to thoroughly investigate and prosecute all individuals implicated in the Hardeep Singh Nijjar case.
In the matter of Gurpatwant Singh Pannun in the United States, the second indictment has also named a former Indian government employee currently believed to be in India.
India’s diplomatic response here reflects a clear distinction: due process in legal matters remains unaffected by international relations, with India’s stance indicating a prioritisation of its relations with the U.S. over Canada. As the adage goes, “Foreign policy is based on priorities, not principles.”
Meanwhile, the rhetoric from Canadian politicians, particularly from Prime Minister Trudeau, appears more driven by domestic political imperatives—a familiar feature in any electoral democracy, and one we understand in that context.
Warm regards
My regards to you sir, and be well.
The issue is not about a government involved in the assassination of a terrorist given refuge on foreign soil. This happens all the time, Osama Bin Laden's case being the easiest to recall.
The issue is that the Canadian government refuses to accept that Khalistanis are a terrorist organisation, and allow them free reign on Canadian soil to set up their operational base to plan attacks on Indian soil.
Or do you not find that to be an issue either?
From our perspective, that’s a major issue— but you may like to read the following: ⬇️⬇️⬇️
https://open.substack.com/pub/kbssidhu/p/why-canada-refuses-to-extradite-sheikh?r=59hi9&utm_medium=ios