Anurag Kumar
NEW DELHI: By way of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, India stated on Friday that it was adhering to a measure to guarantee parity in diplomatic presence, which Canada had deemed a violation of international norms.
After a decision was made to “unilaterally remove” Canadian diplomats’ diplomatic privileges, Foreign Minister Melanie Joly of Canada announced on Thursday that 41 Canadian diplomats and their 42 families had been evacuated from the country of India.
After the diplomatic row that was caused by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s accusation that Indian government agents were involved in the killing of Khalistani leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar, the Indian side had sought parity in diplomatic presence by withdrawing 41 of the 62 Canadian diplomats who were stationed in the country. As a result of the diplomatic row, Canada withdrew 41 of its diplomats.
In response to Joly’s argument that India’s action amounted to a violation of the Vienna Convention and international norms, the ministry of external affairs issued a statement in which it said the following: “The state of our bilateral relations, the much higher number of Canadian diplomats in India, and their continued interference in our internal affairs warrant a parity in mutual diplomatic presence in New Delhi and Ottawa.”
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also stated, “We reject any attempt to portray the implementation of parity as a violation of international norms.”
Over the course of the past month, the Canadian and Indian governments have been in discussion over the matter of diplomatic parity in order to work out the particulars and mechanisms of its implementation.
According to the statement, India’s efforts in achieving the parity are completely compliant with Article 11.1 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. This information may be found in the document.
ALSO READ : New travel alert from Canada warns of terrorism in India.
This section states that “in the absence of specific agreement as to the size of the mission, the receiving State may require that the size of a mission be kept within limits considered by it to be reasonable and normal, having regard to circumstances and conditions in the receiving State and to the needs of the particular mission.” In other words, “in the absence of a specific agreement as to the size of the mission.”
