• Already strained India-Canada bilateral relations,have worsened withCanada’s latest accusation that India has unilaterally revoked the diplomatic immunity of Canadian diplomats based in India.

• Canada has claimed that India has violated the international law and Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR).

The Series of Events Leading to the Current India-Canda Diplomatic Standoff

• Death of the Khalistan Tiger Force (KTF) Chief
• Hardeep Singh Nijjar, wanted by the Indian government, was killed in a shooting in June this year. He was shot dead outside a gurdwara in Surrey.
• In 2022, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) declared a Rs 10 lakh reward on Nijjar.This was after he was accused of conspiring to kill a Hindu priest in Punjab''s Jalandhar.
• Issue Raised on the Sidelines of G20 Summit
• On the sidelines the G20 Summit in Delhi, Canadian PM and the Indian PM had discussed Khalistani extremism.
• Canadian PM also raised the issue of foreign interference in this murder and asked India for cooperation in the investigation.
• On the other hand, during the meeting, the Indian PM had expressed his deep concerns to Canadian PM about the ongoing anti-India activities being carried out by extremist elements in Canada.
• Canadian PM’s Statement in Canadian Parliament and Expulsion of Indian Diplomats
• Canada''s PM accused "agents of the Indian government" in the killing of prominent Khalistani leader. 
• Canadian government did not stop at just accusations and expelled the top Indian diplomat, the head of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) from Canada.
• In a tit-for-tat move, the Government of India also summoned the High Commissioner of Canada to India and expelled a senior Canadian diplomat from India.
• India Invoked the Issue of Parity in Diplomatic Representation: Subsequently India had asked Canada to withdraw some of its diplomatic staff and threatened to remove their immunity if they remained in the country after the deadline.
• Canada’s Latest Accusation
• Canadian PM said that India’s decision to revoke diplomatic immunity for his country’s diplomats is against Vienna convention.
• He further said that India’s decision is against a very fundamental principle of international law and diplomacy.

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR)

• It is an international treaty that provides the framework for the conduct of diplomatic relations between independent countries.
• VCDR strives to balance the interests and imperatives of receiving states (the host country where a diplomatic mission is based) and sending states (the country that sends the diplomatic mission to another country).

Factual Assessment of Canada’s Accusations

• Canada’s Charge About Revoking Diplomats’ Immunity is Wrong
• India did not revoke the immunity of Canadian diplomats. India asked Canada to cut down the size of its mission by taking back several diplomats based on the principle of parity.
• India’s demand was communicated to Canada through regular diplomatic channels, and Canada was given adequate time to perform this task.
• At the most, it can be argued that had these diplomats continued to stay in India, they would have lost their diplomatic immunities.
• But this would be a logical outcome of the sending state (Canada) not taking back these diplomats despite the receiving state’s (India) demand. 
• India’s Action Does Not Violate the International Law
• India’s actions are different from Canada’s charge that India has revoked diplomatic immunities.
• India did not declare any of these diplomats, persona non grata (unacceptable person).
• However, as the receiving state, India has the right to do so under Article 9 of VCDR without explaining its decision to the sending state (Canada).

 Does India Have the Right to Ask Any Country to Cut Down the Size of its Mission?

• Yes, India’s Action is Fully Consistent with the Parity Clause
• As per Ministry of External Affairs, India’s action is in accordance with Article 11(1) of the VCDR.
• This provision regulates the issue of the size of a mission and provides that the receiving state may require that the size of a mission be kept within limits considered by it to be reasonable and normal.
• The test laid down in Article 11(1) of VCDR is subjective not an objective one.
• It gives the receiving state the right to unilaterally determine what is reasonable and normal considering the domestic circumstances.
• India has the Right to Unilaterally Decide
• As per MEA, India believes that the much higher number of Canadian diplomats in India, and their continued interference in (India’s) internal affairs necessitates a parity in the mutual diplomatic presence in both countries.
• International law gives India the right to make this determination unilaterally and come to the conclusion that it has reached.
• Under Article 41(1) of the VCDR, persons enjoying diplomatic privileges and immunities are obliged not to interfere in the internal affairs of the receiving state.
• Thus, if these Canadian diplomats were interfering in India’s internal affairs, it is a breach of the VCDR by Canada.This can also be grounds to restrict or withdraw diplomatic immunities.
• In Line with India’s Diplomatic Relations Act of 1972
• India enacted this law to give effect to the VCDR. Section 4 of this Act empowers the central government to restrict diplomatic privileges and immunities to a country that fails to comply with its obligations under the VCDR.

International Precedents That Support India’s Action

• The UK Imposed a Ceiling on Soviet Mission
• The United Kingdom imposed a ceiling on the Soviet Union mission in the UK when it found several Russian diplomats engaged in inadmissible activities.
• The UK cited Article 11 of the VCDR to back its decision.
• USA Action on Iranian Mission: In 1979, the United States used its power to limit the number of Iranian diplomats based in Washington.
• Estonia and Moldova’s Action on Russian Mission
• Earlier this year, Moldova and Estonia asked Russia to downsize its mission based on the principle of parity. Both Moldova and Estonia relied on Article 11 of the VCDR to justify their actions.
• Moldova alleged the involvement of Russian diplomats in destabilising the internal situation in Moldova and Estonia contended that Russian diplomats were actively undermining Estonia’s security.

Conclusion

• India’s actions are consistent with its international law obligations. But the larger picture is a lack of trust between Ottawa and New Delhi today.
• Both sides need to work towards adopting confidence-building measures. Allegations of breaching international law will only take bilateral relations to a new low.