How likely is it that the Indian government set up the murder of a Khalistani militant, in Canada?.It’s certainly not out of the question. As our friend and colleague Dave Makichuk points out, extrajudicial killings are part and parcel of the intercourse of nations. If you don't find James Bond novels completely implausible to begin with, at least concede that possibility..But as a headline-getting announcement for the prime minister to put out there as Parliament resumes, it was delightfully convenient. How better to take the steam out of opposition criticism of his second hopeless and helpless visit to India? ‘Ah you see, I stuck up for Canada against the Indian government and that’s why they shut me down. Now call me a flake, if you dare.’.Now, it is possible to pass judgment on things like this and in the absence of a full set of facts, be dead wrong. And there is a lot we don't know. However, let's look at just four things upon which some reassurance would be welcome..The first is how sure the PM is that the Government of India, or its agents, was indeed involved in the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. (Nijjar, an activist in the Khalistani cause, was slain three months ago in Surrey, B.C.) The PM's language was cautious: The possibility was under “investigation,” there were “credible allegations,” of a “potential” link to “agents” of the Indian government. .He should be cautious, of course. But, “credible allegations?” Allegations from whom? Based on what? Evidence collected by the RCMP? Or what everybody on the street “knows?” Credible enough to lay charges? How “potential” is the link?. Indian Prime Minister ModiIndian Prime Minister Narendra Modi .Second, the PM said he personally conveyed his “deep concerns” to his Indian counterpart, Narendra Modi, at the G20. If he says he did, presumably he did. But unless the 'credible allegations' were handed to him as he got on the ill-starred Polaris, why did he wait for a G20 summit to do it? He could have dealt with them at some other time and not prejudiced Canada's interests by poisoning that particular well..Third, if true this would indeed be an affront to Canadian sovereignty and well worth the PM's attention. On the other hand, allegations of Chinese electoral interference were equally an affront and the PM had to be pushed with goads to treat it as such. Why the differing standards? If one stirs the pot of electoral interests briskly enough, something would probably float to the top. However, affronts are affronts. If the Indian one matters, so does the Chinese one. .Finally, what was his son doing there? Set aside the slightly mean-spirited position that this was an unnecessary charge to the taxpayer; the incremental cost of Xavier's presence is not worth the argument. However, the G20 is a serious enough business to begin with and if the PM had intended before he left to take up the Nijjar killing with Modi, it was never going to be a jolly jaunt. Having the boy along was therefore a needless distraction. (And wasn't the plea when the prime ministerial marriage ended, that the children should not be in the limelight?).At the very least, it supports the narrative of the prime minister's painful-to-watch triviality. .Something here doesn't make sense. What we can say with assurance is that to call out a rising Asian power on slender evidence is not merely wrong but foolhardy on a scale that in our own times, only Mr. Trudeau attains. .India after all, is the world's most populous country and largest democracy. If Canada is forced to take sides in a future conflict with China, India is on our side. And until Mr. Trudeau came to power, it was potentially a valuable trading partner — heaven knows, Stephen Harper worked incredibly hard to develop that relationship. .There is so much that should bring India and Canada together..Bottom line: We should object in the most strenuous terms if evidence confirms that the Modi government killed a Canadian citizen in Canada. But, given the damage to Indo-Canadian relationships that the PM's allegations have caused, there had better be something there to the 'credible allegations,' more certainly, than the PM has given us so far. To be blunt, in the absence of charge, or even of public evidence, Mr. Trudeau's accusation is irresponsible..We wouldn’t of course expect the government to share details that would prejudice a police investigation. Still this government has a serious credibility problem and if some Canadians regard the prime minister’s cautious prose as no more than issues management, he really shouldn’t be surprised..And so we ask ourselves, do Canadians only get to know about prime ministerial suspicions that Canada's sovereignty has been seriously impugned, when a flubbed conference requires an alibi?.Even to ask the question, is to imply the answer.
