In the world of international relations, the intricate dance of diplomacy often plays a pivotal role in maintaining peaceful coexistence among nations. However, from time to time, unforeseen events can disrupt the delicate balance of diplomacy. Such is the case in the ongoing tensions between India and Canada. In recent developments, India has taken a significant step by formally requesting the withdrawal of numerous Canadian diplomats from its territory. This move represents the latest episode in a crisis that unfolded following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s remarks, suggesting a potential link between New Delhi and the murder of a Canadian Sikh.

According to sources familiar with the matter, New Delhi has communicated to Ottawa that approximately 40 diplomats must be repatriated by October 10. In addition to this demand, India has issued a warning that diplomatic immunity could be revoked for any diplomats who remain beyond this deadline. While both the Canadian foreign ministry and the Indian government have refrained from making public statements, it is evident that India is seeking “parity” in the number and status of diplomats posted by each nation in the other’s capital.

The disparity in the number of diplomats between the two nations is partly due to the significant consular section Canada maintains in New Delhi. This section serves the relatives of the approximately 1.3 million Canadians who claim Indian heritage. Currently, Canada has more diplomats at its high commission in New Delhi than India has in Ottawa.

In this recent development, India has requested that Canada reduce its diplomatic presence in the country by 41 individuals. This move comes in the wake of India’s decision to impose a visa ban on Canadians, a measure that was announced the day after Prime Minister Trudeau’s statement.

The ongoing crisis between the two nations originates from Trudeau’s assertion that Ottawa was investigating “credible allegations” suggesting the involvement of Indian agents in the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Sikh separatist and Canadian citizen who was killed in a Vancouver suburb in June.

Trudeau’s statement followed a series of confidential diplomatic efforts aimed at securing India’s cooperation in the police inquiry into Nijjar’s murder. Despite these efforts, India did not admit involvement in the murder but neither did it deny the allegations.

The situation escalated further when India refused to cooperate during Trudeau’s meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the G20 summit. In earlier discussions, India had even urged Canada to halt the inquiry.

India’s Foreign Minister, S Jaishankar, stated in Washington that the alleged assassination was “not consistent with our policy” and accused Canada of supporting Sikh separatists advocating for an independent state in India.

Canadian media outlets have reported that Ottawa possesses intercepts of conversations involving Indian diplomats, hinting at official involvement in Nijjar’s assassination. However, India has denied any knowledge of such evidence.

The standoff between the two nations presents a challenging dilemma for Trudeau, who is already grappling with domestic issues, including rising living costs. Critics have accused him of pandering to Canada’s significant Sikh population and acting hastily.

While this crisis may not be occurring at an ideal time for Trudeau, the seriousness of the allegations and the need for transparency and accountability in international relations compelled him to address the issue. The situation remains fluid, and the diplomatic tensions between India and Canada continue to evolve.