India and Canada Relations: Unraveling the Vienna Convention and Diplomatic Confusion

The ongoing tension between India and Canada continues to escalate, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accusing “agents of the Indian government” of involvement in the killing of Khalistan terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in British Columbia. The issue was raised again last week by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken during the 2+2 meeting in New Delhi. Trudeau not only addressed the investigations into the killing but also raised concerns over the “violation of the Vienna Convention” of Diplomatic Relations.

The treatment of diplomats and the maintenance of diplomatic ties between countries has also come into focus against the backdrop of the Nijjar case. While it may seem that both India and Canada are addressing the same issue, they are actually raising different points under the same convention.

India has argued for “parity” in diplomatic presence as the key point, while Canada has raised concerns over the “revoking of diplomatic immunity” of its personnel. India responded to Canada’s allegations by asking Ottawa to withdraw 41 diplomats from India, citing Article 11.1 of the Vienna Convention. This article allows the receiving state to require that the size of a mission be kept within reasonable limits. India concluded that its actions were not a violation of international norms.

On the other hand, Canada has not officially raised the issue of parity in diplomatic presence. Instead, it has raised concerns over the violation of diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention. Canada expelled one Indian diplomat in response to Trudeau’s allegations, and India retaliated by expelling one Canadian diplomat.

Articles 29-39 of the Vienna Convention deal with the issue of diplomatic immunity. Canada’s concerns over the revoking of diplomatic immunity are based on Article 29, which states that the person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable and not liable to any form of arrest or detention. Canada has not publicly disclosed the evidence it has regarding the alleged involvement of “Indian government agents” in Nijjar’s killing, while India has also not made public its concerns over the interference by Canadian personnel.

Expulsions or the recall of diplomats are often reciprocal actions in response to a fallout between two nations. In the case of India and Pakistan, both countries recalled their high commissioners in 2019 after the Pulwama terror attack. Diplomatic immunity has been a contentious issue in the past, as seen in the case of Indian officer Devyani Khobragade in 2013, where India protested against the violation of her diplomatic immunity.

While India and Canada continue to have major differences over the Khalistan issue, the consequences of diplomatic friction can have further complications and fallouts on both sides. Visa-related issues are one of the significant impacts, with Canada stating that the mass expulsion of diplomats will affect their operations and client services. The reduction in the size of the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) team will also affect service standards for residents of India.

It is important for countries to have a greater understanding of each other’s concerns on sensitive issues and the ability to resolve matters quietly without them becoming political fodder. Diplomatic maturity is essential in maintaining healthy diplomatic relations between nations.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author.