India-Canada relations: PM Modi, counterpart Mark Carney pledge to revive diplomatic ties after Hardeep Nijjar's row
Prime Minister Mark Carney, who assumed office in March, extended an invitation to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to join him in the Canadian Rockies as a guest at the Group of Seven (G7) summit. In a significant move, both agreed on Tuesday to return ambassadors to each other's capitals, turning the page on a bitter spat over Hardeep Singh Nijjar's assassination.
The two leaders agreed that the India and Canada would appoint new high commissioners, as ambassadors are known between Commonwealth nations and made the decision 'with a view to returning to regular services to citizens and businesses in both countries', according to the Canadian prime minister's office.
Last year, Carney's predecessor, Justin Trudeau, publicly accused India of being involved in the assassination of a Sikh separatist Nijjar on Canadian soil and expelled the Indian ambassador, prompting a strong retaliatory response from India. Nijjar advocated for an independent Sikh state called Khalistan and was shot dead outside a gurdwara in British Columbia in 2023.
The dispute had significantly disrupted diplomatic relations between the two nations, which shared $9 billion in trade in 2023 and maintain strong cultural connections through Canada's large Indian diaspora. Canada was forced to halt in-person services at all its diplomatic missions in India, except for the embassy in New Delhi.
PM Modi said, 'The relationship between India and Canada is very important in many ways.' While congratulating Carney on guiding his Liberal Party to an election victory, Modi stated, "I am confident that together...India and Canada will work together to make progress in many areas."
It was a "great honour" to welcome Modi to the G7 summit, Carney mentioned but made a passing allusion to the domestically sensitive spat with a reference to 'transnational repression'. He said he wishes to work with India on 'the issues that we look to tackle together, from energy security... the future of artificial intelligence, to the fight that we have against transnational repression and against terrorism'.
"I think today's meeting was important, but I would describe it as foundational, a necessary first step: an exchange of views-frank, open exchange of views around law enforcement and transnational repression, as two examples-an agreement to provide the necessary foundations to begin rebuilding a relationship based on mutual respect, sovereignty, and trust. We will move to appoint High Commissioners again...," ANI quoted Carney as saying.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
33 minutes ago
- The Hindu
India debunks claims of U.S. using Indian airspace for Iran strikes, PIB Fact Check confirms
India on Sunday (June 22, 2025) dismissed as 'fake' claims by certain social media handles that the U.S. fighter jets used Indian airspace to launch strikes against Iran. Also read: Israel-Iran conflict updates The U.S. bombed three nuclear sites in Iran on Sunday (June 22, 2025), with U.S. President Donald Trump warning of additional strikes if Iran retaliates. Several social media accounts have claimed that Indian Airspace was used by the United States to launch aircrafts against Iran during Operation #MidnightHammer#PIBFactCheck ❌ This claim is FAKE ❌Indian Airspace was NOT used by the United States during Operation… — PIB Fact Check (@PIBFactCheck) June 22, 2025 'Several social media accounts have claimed that Indian airspace was used by the United States to launch aircraft against Iran during Operation #MidnightHammer. This claim is fake,' PIB Fact Check said in a post on X. 'Indian Airspace was NOT used by the United States during Operation #MidnightHammer,' said the fact check unit of the Press Information Bureau that functions under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. It said that the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan Caine had explained the route used by U.S. aircraft during a press briefing.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Coding for the end
UK's assisted dying bill is a momentous law. The conversation must start in India Third time lucky. After rejecting versions of the bill in 1997 and 2015, UK lower house voted for a law to allow assisted dying in England and Wales. This means patients terminally ill, as defined in law, and likely to die within six months, can apply for an exit. The legislation will have to be set in motion within four years (2029). If delayed in the Lords – it's highly contested and the lower house win was by just 23 votes – the bill will lapse. It may not be done and dusted yet, but a historic social change has begun. Exhaustive debates and tweaks to the bill included dropping provision of a judge having to sign off on the decision. Importantly, no other person is 'obliged' to take part. Patients will have to administer the drugs, whatever is decided, themselves, so it's a first step to active euthanasia. Reportedly, UK govt estimates there may be 4,000 such patients. To legislate on assisted dying is never a straight road in any country. Fears and concerns are real that vulnerable, disabled and older people risk being coerced to use the law, to reduce the financial and care burden on the family. UK bill's penalty for coercion is a 15-year jail. While such fears have been voiced to reject assisted dying, the Indian reality is that terminally ill people and families are often left to fend for themselves as a result of lack of access to treatment and/or unaffordability of care. At the privileged end of affordability/access, there is little policy or regulations to limit life-sustaining interventions inappropriate at end-of-life stage. The Supreme Court upheld advanced directives, the right to refuse treatment: passive euthanasia. UK's bill is an opportunity to take further the conversation around a 360-degree end-of-life care that includes palliative care and covers assisted dying for the terminally ill. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
India wary about Iran's nuclear project: Voted against in 2005, abstained in 2024
Almost 20 years after India voted against Iran's nuclear programme for the first time, Delhi's careful balancing act — between Israel and the US on one side and Iran on the other side — has come into play. While India has always tried to walk the diplomatic tightrope walk, its discomfort over Iran with a nuclear weapon was apparent then. On September 24, 2005, India voted with 21 other countries on the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) resolution (GOV/2005/77) which found Iran in non-compliance with its safeguards agreement. This was seen as a departure from the past, as India had voted with the US and the western bloc against Iran, which was in its extended neighbourhood and with whom it has a historical and civilisational relationship. This was the time when India had just started negotiating its agreement with the US on its civilian nuclear programme, and Washington was able to lean on Delhi to vote against Tehran. Delhi, which was keen to portray its responsible behaviour as a nuclear power, went along with the idea that voting against Iran's nuclear programme would burnish its reputation. However, the resolution did not refer the matter immediately to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and India was one of the countries which urged the western bloc of European countries — UK, France and Germany (EU-3) — to keep the issue at the IAEA. According to Indian officials, India voted for the resolution at that time, against the majority of NAM members who abstained, because it felt obligated to do so after having pressured the EU-3 to omit reference to immediate referral to the UNSC. Months later, on February 4, 2006, India again sided with the US when the IAEA Board of Governors voted to refer Iran's non-compliance to the UNSC. 'As a signatory to the NPT, Iran has the legal right to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy consistent with its international commitments and obligations… (But) it is incumbent upon Iran to exercise these rights in the context of safeguards that it has voluntarily accepted upon its nuclear programme under the IAEA,' then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told Parliament on February 17, 2006. Over the years, as India negotiated the nuclear deal with the US, Delhi came out of the pressure to vote against Tehran as the issue went to the UNSC. Sources said that once the matter went to the UNSC, India did not have to take any position on Iran's nuclear programme between 2007 and 2024. In between, the US administration under President Barack Obama negotiated the JCPOA (joint comprehensive plan of action) with Iran in 2015 — which was a deal between P-5+1 and Iran. US President Donald Trump walked out of the JCPOA in 2017, and Iran's nuclear programme once again came under scrutiny. India was forced to stop oil imports from Iran, although its Chabahar port project development was going on. While it did not have to take any firm position against Iran's nuclear programme, that changed last year when the US brought in a resolution against Iran. In June 2024, India abstained from a vote at the IAEA regarding Iran. The vote, initiated by the US, aimed to censure Iran for its nuclear programme. While the resolution passed, with 19 out of 35 board members voting to censure Iran, India was among the 16 countries that abstained. This decision reflected India's balancing act between its deep defence and security relationship with Israel and its historical ties with Iran. In September 2024, India again abstained from voting on a resolution at the IAEA Board of Governors that censured Iran for its lack of cooperation with the agency's investigations into its nuclear programme. The resolution, brought by France, the UK, and Germany (E3) along with the US, followed an IAEA report noting Iran's increased uranium enrichment. In June this year too, India abstained on the IAEA Board of Governors' resolution strongly criticising Iran's nuclear programme and declaring it in breach of its 1974 Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement. This time, India's decision to abstain from the vote reflected its balanced stance — recognising Iran's right to pursue a peaceful nuclear energy programme while calling upon Tehran to adhere to its non-proliferation commitments. While the change, from voting against to abstention, marks Delhi's shifting positions as geopolitical alignments changed, India's concern about the Iranian nuclear programme was evident. Shubhajit Roy, Diplomatic Editor at The Indian Express, has been a journalist for more than 25 years now. Roy joined The Indian Express in October 2003 and has been reporting on foreign affairs for more than 17 years now. Based in Delhi, he has also led the National government and political bureau at The Indian Express in Delhi — a team of reporters who cover the national government and politics for the newspaper. He has got the Ramnath Goenka Journalism award for Excellence in Journalism '2016. He got this award for his coverage of the Holey Bakery attack in Dhaka and its aftermath. He also got the IIMCAA Award for the Journalist of the Year, 2022, (Jury's special mention) for his coverage of the fall of Kabul in August 2021 — he was one of the few Indian journalists in Kabul and the only mainstream newspaper to have covered the Taliban's capture of power in mid-August, 2021. ... Read More
