In a recent development that has stirred diplomatic tensions, the Indian High Commissioner to Canada, Sanjay Kumar Verma, has firmly rebutted allegations implicating India in the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Nijjar, labeled a terrorist by Indian authorities, was a prominent figure in the Khalistani movement—a campaign seeking a separate Sikh state in India.

Verma's dismissal of these claims came during a pointed interview with CTV News journalist Vassy Kapelos. Emphasizing India's stance, he stated that the nation is open to examining any "relevant and specific evidence" related to Nijjar's killing, should such evidence exist. This statement is a subtle nod to India's willingness to engage in cooperative investigative efforts, albeit with a hint of skepticism about the allegations' substance.

The High Commissioner's remarks took a critical turn when the topic of India's supposed non-cooperation in the investigation was broached. He poignantly questioned the premature judgment passed on India, highlighting a potential lapse in due process. “There are two points on that. One is that even without investigation being concluded, India was convicted. Is that a rule of law?” Verma’s words, bold and italic for emphasis, reflect a deep concern over the apparent rush to judgment and the implications it carries for international law and diplomatic relations.

Verma's statement raises crucial questions about the dynamics of international justice and the role of evidence in such high-profile cases. It underscores the tension between the need for swift justice and the foundational principle of presumed innocence until proven guilty. The Indian High Commissioner's remarks challenge the narrative presented by Canadian authorities, suggesting a more complex and nuanced reality behind the scenes of international diplomacy and law enforcement.

Continuing the charged dialogue on CTV News, the Indian High Commissioner to Canada, Sanjay Kumar Verma, responded to a probing question by journalist Vassy Kapelos regarding the nature of India's alleged conviction in the case of Hardeep Singh Nijjar's assassination. His response was a sharp critique of the language used in international diplomacy and law enforcement, particularly in the context of this high-profile case.

“How was India convicted?” Kapelos inquired, seeking clarity on the accusations leveled against India. Verma, in response, articulated a nuanced perspective on the semantics of criminal investigations in the international arena. He stated, “In typical criminal terminology, when someone asks to cooperate, it means you have already been convicted and you better cooperate.” This statement, marked in bold and italic for emphasis, encapsulates a deep concern about the presumption of guilt that can be inferred from requests for cooperation in such cases.

Verma's insight reveals the delicate balance between seeking assistance in a criminal investigation and inadvertently implying culpability. His words suggest a perceived infringement on India's sovereignty and reputation, stemming from the manner in which the cooperation was sought. This interpretation, as Verma noted, differed from the expectation, yet India maintained a stance of conditional openness: “So we took it in a very different interpretation but we always said if there is anything specific and relevant and communicated to us, we will look into it,” Verma concluded.

The situation is further complicated by the lack of concrete evidence provided by the Canadian government. Despite the serious nature of the allegations, there has been no specific proof presented that directly implicates India in Nijjar’s killing. This absence of tangible evidence raises questions about the basis of the accusations and the integrity of the investigative process.

The High Commissioner’s statements and the unfolding situation reflect the complexities of international relations, where accusations can be both a diplomatic tool and a source of significant tension. The case of Hardeep Singh Nijjar's death, thus, becomes more than just a criminal investigation; it transforms into a narrative about the interplay of justice, diplomacy, and the presumption of innocence in the global arena. As this situation develops, it will likely continue to challenge and redefine the boundaries of international cooperation and legal diplomacy.

In an intriguing turn of events, British Columbia Premier David Eby revealed a significant detail regarding the intelligence briefings on the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. According to Eby, the information provided by CSIS (Canadian Intelligence Agency) was not based on covert or classified intelligence but rather on "open source" material, primarily gleaned from the internet. This revelation casts a new light on the investigation, suggesting that the allegations against India may not be backed by substantial or exclusive intelligence.

This development raises questions about the depth and credibility of the investigation. The reliance on publicly available information to form a narrative about a high-profile killing like Nijjar's could be seen as an indication of either a lack of concrete evidence or a preliminary stage in the investigative process. It also highlights the challenges faced by intelligence agencies in distinguishing between credible information and mere speculation, especially in the age of digital media where vast amounts of data are readily accessible.

Further adding to the complexity of the situation, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau faced scrutiny over the investigation's progress. On 10th November, during a ribbon-cutting ceremony in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Trudeau was directly questioned about the status of the probe. However, he notably avoided providing a clear answer. Instead of addressing the inquiry, Trudeau diverted the conversation to launch a critique against India.

Trudeau's evasion of the question and his subsequent criticism of India have added another layer to this diplomatic conundrum. His reluctance to speak on the investigation's progress, coupled with his shift to a different subject, raises questions about Canada's stance and approach in the matter. This behavior could be interpreted as a strategic move to deflect attention from the investigation's details or as a means to navigate the delicate intricacies of international relations.

The unfolding narrative of Nijjar's assassination and the subsequent international reactions reveal the intricate web of diplomacy, intelligence, and politics. The lack of clear-cut evidence, the reliance on open-source information, and the evasive maneuvers by high-ranking officials all point to a situation fraught with uncertainty and diplomatic sensitivities.

In a recent display of what some might call diplomatic theatrics, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made statements regarding the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar that could be seen as more of a performance than a pursuit of truth. “From the very beginning when we learned of credible allegations that agents of the Indian govt were involved in the killing of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil, we reached out to India to ask them to work with us in getting to the bottom of this matter,” Trudeau proclaimed with a flourish. Now, this would be commendable if it weren't seemingly steeped in irony – the notion of “credible allegations” appears almost comical, given the Canadian government's reliance on 'open source' internet material as their prime source of intelligence.

But wait, there's more. Trudeau, perhaps in a bid to audition for a role in a global political drama, declared, “…If bigger countries can violate international law without consequences, then the whole world gets more dangerous for everyone.” One can't help but wonder if this is Trudeau's way of injecting a touch of Hollywood into international diplomacy. The veiled insinuations against a nation like India, without concrete evidence, seem less like a pursuit of justice and more like a script from a sensational political thriller.

And for the grand finale, Trudeau adds, “Think about it from our perspective, we have serious reasons to believe that agents of the Government of India could have been involved in the killing of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil.” Now, this is where the plot thickens – or rather, tangles. These "serious reasons" appear to be as elusive as the Loch Ness Monster, with Canada's refusal to provide specific evidence. It’s almost as if Trudeau is playing a game of Clue, but forgetting to provide the players with any actual clues.

In this narrative, India is portrayed as the convenient antagonist, convicted in the court of public opinion without the messy inconvenience of a trial or, heaven forbid, actual evidence. It’s a tale as old as time: allegations are thrown, the media laps it up, and the truth becomes a casualty in a game of international one-upmanship.

Trudeau's statements and the Canadian government's approach could be perceived as a masterclass in how to weave an international incident into a tapestry of intrigue and insinuation, all the while maintaining an air of righteous indignation. It’s diplomacy with a dash of drama, a pinch of paranoia, and a sprinkle of speculation. One must applaud the creative effort, even as we await the substance behind the style.

Melaine Joly dodges question about evidence sharing with India

In a scene reminiscent of a comedy skit, Canadian Foreign Minister Melaine Joly recently provided an Oscar-worthy performance in evasion. On the 19th of October, when faced with a direct question about whether Canada had shared any evidence with India regarding the latter's alleged involvement in the killing of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar, Joly seemed to be auditioning for a role in a political satire.

During a press briefing, a reporter, playing the role of the persistent truth-seeker, asked Joly, “Can you clarify (whether) have you shown them the evidence you are basing your claim on and have you walked them on how Canada reached this conclusion?” This was the moment for a grand revelation, the climax of the story, but alas, it was not to be.

Joly, perhaps inspired by the great escapologists of our time, initially fumbled, a classic move in the political dodgeball game. But then, she found her footing and said, “We had numerous conversations with India before Prime Minister (Justin Trudeau) went in front of the House and made his declaration. This was not a surprise to the Government of India.” Ah, the old 'we-talked-about-it' gambit, a timeless classic in the annals of diplomatic ambiguity.

This response, while admirably agile in its avoidance, raises more questions than it answers. It's akin to saying, "We've talked a lot," without ever really saying anything. The art of saying nothing while appearing to say something is a skill, and Joly seems to have mastered it.

One could imagine a behind-the-scenes scenario where the Canadian government, armed with their 'open-source' internet dossier, engages in a game of charades with India, gesturing wildly but never quite conveying the message. "We've had conversations," they say, but the content of these chats remains as mysterious as the plot of a David Lynch film.

In this episode of international intrigue, Canada appears to be playing the role of the enigmatic storyteller, weaving a narrative full of suspense but light on substance. As for India, cast in the role of the bewildered audience, one can only assume they're still waiting for the big reveal. The plot thickens, but the evidence, it seems, remains as elusive as ever.

Joly's performance at the press briefing might not win her any journalistic accolades, but in the world of political theatre, it was a performance worthy of a standing ovation. Bravo, Foreign Minister, bravo! The world awaits the next act in this unfolding drama with bated breath.

In a recent episode of the ongoing diplomatic saga between Canada and India, Canadian Foreign Minister Melaine Joly performed a masterclass in the art of deflection. When pressed about the elusive 'evidence' concerning India's supposed involvement in Hardeep Singh Nijjar's killing, Joly's response was a dance around the question. She mentioned that India was informed of 'credible allegations' through 'conversations.' It's a response that would make even the most seasoned politician nod in appreciation of its ambiguity.

Joly, not missing a beat, then launched into an impassioned monologue. “And so based on that, India has decided to take their own decisions which are precedent-setting and revoking the diplomatic immunity of 41 diplomats is not only unprecedented but also contrary to international law. So in that sense, this is unprecedented and would put so many countries, and different diplomats around the world in danger. We decide not to reciprocate,” she declared. This tirade, while high on dramatic flair, seemed to be more of a distraction tactic than an actual answer. It's like watching a magician – the more they gesture wildly, the less you look at what the other hand is doing.

The reporter, playing the role of the persistent inquisitor, pointed out that Joly did not answer the question about the 'evidence.' In a move that would make any novelist proud, Joly responded that there were meetings and 'information' was shared. This vague notion of 'information' being shared is akin to saying, "We talked about things," without specifying what those things were. It's diplomatic speak for, "We're saying something without really saying anything at all."

As we conclude this chapter of international relations theatre, it's important to offer a bit of advice to our Canadian friends. Political diplomacy, like any relationship, thrives on truth and transparency. It's the foundation upon which trust is built and healthy relationships between nations are fostered. Remember, these interactions aren't just about the politicians in power; they involve the lives and futures of millions, affecting trade, growth, and the fulfillment of national needs.

Moving with delicacy is key. Throwing around accusations on a world stage without solid evidence is not just reckless; it's like nursery kids playing a blame game – except the consequences are far more serious. Diplomacy isn't a playground; it's a complex dance of nations where every step, every word, carries weight.

In a world where misinformation can spread like wildfire, it's imperative to hold onto the truth as a guiding star. Before pointing fingers, ensure your hands are clean. Before making accusations, ensure your evidence is solid. The future of international relations depends on this integrity. The health and prosperity of nations are at stake. So, dear Canada, let's move forward with a commitment to truth, transparency, and the careful handling of the delicate tapestry of global diplomacy. The world is watching, and history will remember the steps we take today.