India expels Canadian diplomat in tit-for-tat move
New Delhi (PTI): India on Tuesday announced expulsion of a senior Canadian diplomat, in a tit-for-tat to Canada expelling an Indian official after alleging a "potential" Indian link to the killing of a Khalistani separatist leader in June.
Canadian High Commissioner to India Cameron MacKay was summoned to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and informed about the decision to expel the senior Canadian diplomat.
The actions marked a further deterioration in India-Canada ties as they came days after both sides decided to pause their negotiations for a bilateral free trade agreement.
The relations between the two countries have been under strain over increasing activities of pro-Khalistani elements in Canada.
The MEA said the decision to expel the Canadian diplomat reflects India's growing concern at the "interference of Canadian diplomats in our internal matters and their involvement in anti-India activities"
"The concerned diplomat has been asked to leave India within the next five days," it said in a statement.
Earlier in the day, India outrightly rejected as "baseless" Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's claim of a "potential link" between Indian government agents and the killing of Khalistani separatist leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar in June
After Trudeau made the comments in Parliament, Canadian Foreign Minister
M lanie Joly announced that a "top Indian diplomat" has been expelled from Canada.
Joly's office said that the diplomat is Pavan Kumar Rai, the head of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), according to Canadian broadcaster CBC news.
In a statement in Parliament, Trudeau claimed that there were "credible allegations of a potential link" between Indian government agents and the killing of Khalistani leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar in June.
In strong reaction, the MEA said the allegations of the Government of India's involvement in any act of violence in Canada are "absurd and motivated".
"We have seen and reject the statement of the Canadian prime minister in their Parliament, as also the statement by their foreign minister," it said.
It said "such unsubstantiated allegations seek to shift the focus from Khalistani terrorists and extremists, who have been provided shelter in Canada and continue to threaten India's sovereignty and territorial integrity."
"The inaction of the Canadian Government on this matter has been a long-standing and continuing concern," the MEA said.
The MEA said similar allegations were made by the Canadian Prime Minister to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and were completely rejected," it said.
Prime Minister Modi and Trudeau had a bilateral meeting on September 10 on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Delhi.
"We are a democratic polity with a strong commitment to rule of law," the MEA said.
It said Canadian political figures have "openly expressed sympathy" for such elements and that remains a matter of deep concern.
"The space given in Canada to a range of illegal activities including murders, human trafficking and organised crime is not new," the MEA said.
"We reject any attempts to connect Government of India to such developments," it said.
"We urge the Government of Canada to take prompt and effective legal action against all anti-India elements operating from their soil," it added.
In a statement in the House of Commons on Monday, Trudeau said Canadian security agencies have been "actively pursuing credible allegations of a potential link between agents of the Government of India and the killing of a Canadian citizen, Hardeep Singh Nijjar."
"Any involvement of a foreign government in the killing of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil is an unacceptable violation of our sovereignty," he said.
In his talks with Trudeau' on September 10, Modi conveyed India's strong concerns about continuing anti-India activities of extremist elements in Canada as they are promoting secessionism and inciting violence against Indian diplomats and threatening the Indian community there.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Stray dogs case: SC refuses to go into allegation of harassment of women dog feeders
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Friday said it would not go into the allegations of harassment of women dog feeders and caregivers by purported anti-feeder vigilantes since it was a law-and-order issue and the aggrieved persons could lodge FIRs about it.
Hearing arguments in the stray dogs case, the apex court also refused to go into the claims about certain derogatory remarks being made about women in the issue.
A three-judge special bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria observed that some of the arguments made before it were "far from reality" and there were a number of videos of stray dogs attacking children and the elderly.
The top court was hearing arguments on pleas, including the ones filed by dog lovers, seeking modification of its earlier orders and those for stringent compliance with the directives.
Senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani highlighted the plight of women dog feeders and caregivers and said anti-feeder vigilantes have assumed the role of enforcing the apex court's order passed earlier in the matter. "Under the garb of this, they are harassing women, they are molesting women, and they are beating women," she said.
Justice Nath observed, "Lodge an FIR against them. Who stops you?"
The bench said that if anyone was harassing or molesting women, it was a crime, and the aggrieved person could set the criminal law in motion by lodging an FIR.
When Pavani referred to an incident where a dog feeder was attacked in her house, the bench said, "All this is a criminal offence. You lodge an FIR against that".
"We can't take up these individual cases where something is going wrong somewhere. This court is not going to monitor that. That is a law-and-order problem," Justice Nath observed.
Pavani said that in Haryana, certain societies hired bouncers to remove dog feeders, and a woman was slapped in Ghaziabad, but no FIR was lodged.
"We are not going to accept this. If a criminal offence is committed, an FIR will be registered. There are procedures available to you, remedies available, and how to get it registered," the bench said.
The senior advocate flagged the issue of unregulated breeding and exotic imports.
"Again, this has nothing to do with the stray dogs issue. There are remedies in the Act and the rules. Don't make this a platform for other objects. You address us on the issues which we are dealing with in this matter," the bench said.
It said the import of the top court's order was very clear, and it was restricted to stray dogs only. "Tomorrow, you will say why Cheetahs have been imported to Kuno (national park). Why not take care of the local breeds? This is too much. Sorry," Justice Mehta said.
When Pavani argued that derogatory remarks were being made regarding women in the matter, the bench said, "How is that relevant in this context?"
"Even though we are being criticised in very derogatory language, we don't react," Justice Nath said, adding that one can take action on this issue.
"We have not given any kind of licence to people to talk like this. If they are talking like this, you take action against them," the bench said.
The bench also heard submissions of other lawyers, including senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Shadan Farasat, in the matter.
When one of the lawyers referred to a dog at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), the bench asked whether it was taken even to the operation theatre.
"Any dog on the street is bound to have ticks. And a dog with ticks in a hospital, do you understand what disastrous consequences would befall?" the bench posed. "Don't try to glorify that there was a dog at AIIMS".
Singhvi said this was now not entirely a matter about dogs or humans, and it was about certain constitutional principles.
At the fag end of the hearing, a lawyer said he has put up videos if the court would like to see them. "There are 'n' number of videos on YouTube of dogs attacking children, dogs attacking old people," the bench observed.
The hearing in the matter remained inconclusive and would continue on January 13.
While hearing arguments on Thursday, the bench said it had not directed the removal of every dog from the streets, and the directive was to treat stray canines according to the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.
It had earlier flagged the non-compliances of rules and directions by civic bodies and said people were dying not only due to dog bites alone in the country but also because of accidents caused by stray animals on roads.
Taking note of the "alarming rise" in dog bite incidents within institutional areas such as educational institutions, hospitals and railway stations, the apex court on November 7 directed relocation of stray canines forthwith to designated shelters after due sterilisation and vaccination.
It also said stray dogs picked up shall not be released back in the place they were picked up. It directed the authorities to ensure the removal of all cattle and other stray animals from the state highways, national highways and expressways.
The top court is hearing a suo motu case, initiated on July 28 last year, over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.
_vb_27.jpeg)