New Delhi: After Canada stopped in-person consular services at all its consulates after withdrawing 41 diplomats, India described this Canadian action as “unilateral”, asserting that it merely aimed to seek parity in diplomatic missions between Ottawa and Delhi, rather than extending it to outposts in other cities.On Thursday, Canadian foreign minister Mélanie Joly announced that 41 Canadian diplomats left India, leaving only 21 diplomats manning the high commission in New Delhi and the three consulates in Chandigarh, Mumbai, and Bangalore.Furthermore, she declared the suspension of in-person services at the three consulates. Although the Canadian high commission in New Delhi will still accept applications, Joly noted that the “service standards for residents of India” would experience disruptions.Canadian media also quoted officials mentioned in a background briefing that 27 officials from the immigration department had been recalled, leaving only five personnel remaining in India. This downsizing is expected to result in a backlog of approximately 17,500 applications, reported the Globe and Mail.India issued an official response on Friday afternoon that predominantly contested Joly’s portrayal of the Indian intention to revoke diplomatic immunity for all but 21 Canadian diplomats as a breach of international law.Late on Friday night, Indian official sources told reporters in the background that clarified that they had not been pursuing a reduction in staffing levels at the three Canadian consulates, which was the rationale behind Ottawa’s decision to suspend in-person consulate services.For the first time, Indian sources stated that “parity has been sought in the diplomatic representations of our Missions in Ottawa and New Delhi”.“There is no impact on Canadian diplomatic strength in their Consulates in Bengaluru, Mumbai and Chandigarh. The Canadian decision to cease operations of their three consulates in India, is unilateral, and not related to the implementation of parity,” said sources.Till now, the Ministry of External Affairs has never publicly said that the demand for parity was only limited to the main diplomatic missions in the capital cities. India has a high commission in Ottawa and two consulates in Vancouver and Toronto.On September 21, the MEA spokesperson had first announced that India had conveyed to the “Canadian government that there should be parity in strength and rank equivalence in our diplomatic presence, in mutual diplomatic presence”.Further at the October 5 media briefing, MEA was asked whether it anticipated that the demand for parity would lead to a deterioration in visa services, particularly in states like Punjab and Gujarat.The spokesperson had replied, “…let me also clarify in the context of the parity, it’s up to the Canadian side who they choose to staff their high commission with. So I would refer you to them, for any details. In this regard, our concerns are related to ensuring parity in diplomatic presence. And again, as I said, why? And I think, you know, that’s been our focus very clearly.”Official sources also confirmed Joly’s statement that New Delhi had given a deadline of October 10, which was extended till October 20. “Attempts by Canada to portray this as an ‘arbitrary’ and ‘overnight’ decision is factually inaccurate,” they said on Friday, adding that the extension was given as “details and modalities of implementation, including the list of Canadian diplomats who would continue to be accorded diplomatic immunities and privileges were being worked out in consultation with the Canadian side”.The Indian side also stated that Canada had been told that “in order to limit the size of the Missions in New Delhi and Ottawa, only a specific number of diplomats as per parity would continue to enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities”.Repeating the argument made in the official press release, sources said that India’s action was within the provisions of Article 11.1 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) which allows the receiving state to limit the size of a diplomatic mission. “Article 11.1 has been used in the past by other countries on many occasions,” they noted.The Canadian foreign minister had claimed that a “unilateral revocation of diplomatic privileges and immunities is contrary to international law, including the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations”.Describing this action as “completely unreasonable and escalatory”, she had said that India accredited each and every one of the Canadian diplomats they are now expelling. “Diplomatic immunities should be respected and cannot be unilaterally revoked by a host country. If we allow this norm to be broken, no diplomat anywhere would be safe. As such, the Government of Canada will continue to respect diplomatic norms and not reciprocate this action,” said Joly.Expanding upon the argument that India’s approach to achieving parity did not infringe upon the VCDR, Indian sources additionally contended that Canadian law empowers Ottawa to provide “comparable” treatment to foreign diplomats and to “withdraw any of the privileges, immunities and benefits accorded or granted”.
