India and Canada have mutually beneficial political and economic linkages. The two countries should get together and find a solution.
The expulsion war should, in the meantime, be a guarantee against any deterioration of the situation, asserts Ambassador T P Sreenivasan, the first Indian head of mission to be ever expelled by any country.
The tension between India and Canada on account of Canada's open support for the Khalistan supporters in Canada reached a crisis stage when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced in the Canadian parliament on his return from the G20 Summit in New Delhi last year that there was evidence that agents of the Government of India were behind the murder of a known Sikh terrorist on Canadian soil.
India denied the charge and expressed willingness to investigate any evidence that Canada might provide.
Canada's Western allies, including the US, expressed solidarity with Canada as part of the 'Five Eyes' coalition for collective security in the West.
The US went even further and revealed that an investigation was in progress about a plot by India to murder a Khalistani leader, arrested a suspect and even listed India's national security adviser as a suspect.
Although the focus in both cases was on the resolution by mutual consultation, the Indian charge of support to terrorism in India and the counter charge that India was taking the law into its own hands in dealing with terrorists abroad, an under current of tension grew even without normal relations being affected.
The situation erupted on Monday when Canada announced that the Indian high commissioner in Canada was a 'person of interest' in the case of the murder of the Khalistani terrorist and India lost no time in expressing its horror not only by withdrawing the high commissioner, but also by ordering the expulsion of Canada's acting high commissioner and some of his colleagues.
A war of words followed between Canada and India, but no other options like suspension of visa or trade was exercised.
Such a situation is exceptional between democracies with strong interest in each other.
Clearly an unprecedented situation exists, which could deteriorate with grave consequences in bilateral relations.
The silver lining is that diplomatic expulsions by themselves do not affect business as usual except for the inconvenience caused to the diplomats and their families.
It is for this reason that expulsion of diplomats is recognised as an instrument of international relations in exceptional circumstances.
Although it appears to be a drastic measure, it is symbolic of displeasure, assertion of sovereignty and defence against perceived threats to prevent outbreak of conflicts.
Diplomatic expulsions can be traced back to ancient civilisations where foreign envoys were occasionally ordered out.
In recent times, expulsions are regulated and guided by international law and diplomatic conventions relating to diplomatic immunity.
Since diplomats cannot be detained, expulsion is a natural process which is resorted to in exceptional circumstances.
In other words, it is a way of dealing with an extremely difficult situation peacefully and in a measured manner.
Reciprocity is an essential element in expulsions and it is not uncommon for reciprocal expulsions even when one country expels diplomats for a reason and the other country expels the same number even if there is no charge against them.
There are also instances of reciprocal expulsions being ordered in a friendly way by choosing diplomats under orders of transfer and those who have already left.
Large number of diplomats were expelled by the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War.
The first case of a formal expulsion in history of an Indian high commissioner was mine from Fiji, where a military coup to disenfranchise Fijian citizens of Indian origin was opposed by the Government of India.
India imposed trade sanctions against the military government and refused to recognise it.
In the normal course, I should have been withdrawn or expelled by Fiji, but I spent two years supporting the restoration of the democratic constitution.
India even got Fiji expelled from the Commonwealth.
I had expected expulsion any day and we kept things packed for a quick exit.
Eventually, the expulsion came, asking me to leave within 72 hours, but I left within 48 hours, saying that I wanted to come back for 24 hours on a holiday when the situation improved.
In fact, I was invited to Fiji by one of the Indian associations 15 years later after democracy was restored and elections took place.
Sitiveni Rabuka, the coup leader, met me and said that we both were obeying the instructions of our masters and we had no animosity to each other.
Today, Rabuka is the elected prime minister of Fiji with the support of Fiji Indians.
If India had not supported them, Fiji Indians would have lost their democratic rights.
Like in the case of Fiji, often diplomatic expulsions are ordered by a weak State to assert their sovereignty against interference by a stronger State.
Once, one of the small island states in the South Pacific expelled Australia's high commissioner for showing a local project as part of the Australian aid programme just to show that it was not totally dependent on Australia for its development! Australia could do nothing but to appoint another high commissioner.
The Canada-India diplomatic crisis is deep and the situation will remain tense as the Khalistanis are crucial for Trudeau's government to continue in office.
Even a change of government in Canada may not alter the situation.
For India, it is equally important to have the grave charges dropped to save its reputation.
Moreover, India and Canada have mutually beneficial political and economic linkages.
Perhaps, just as it happened in the US case, the two countries should get together and find a solution.
The expulsion war should, in the meantime, be a guarantee against any deterioration of the situation.
Ambassador T P Sreenivasan is a long-time contributor to Rediff.com.
You can read his earlier columns here.
Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff.com
