The dust never settles on the Indo Canadian verbal tussle that started more than a week ago. We have had statements and repartees from the Canadian and the Indian governments respectively that have added little or no clarity to the citizens involved. Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made a statement last week which seemed to imply that he had enough evidence to nail the Indian government for the assassination of the Indian “activist”, quoting the Five Eyes” report et al, yet it has been more than a week and nothing substantial has come out to corroborate it any further. Meanwhile, aspiring students yearning for that “Canadian dream” are being denied a visa since the governments of both countries stand on their respective stated positions. The situation is far from resolved and with no solution in mind, the plight of such students is pitiable with some of them surely putting aside large sums of money in their bank accounts (or their parents”) for further education.

What happens next is anybody’s guess but here are a few scenarios:

* The Five Eyes partners (US, Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand) join together and review the report and find out that their preliminary reports are less credible than they initially thought it was. This options seem too far fetched for imagination.

* Canada does not go back on its initial position, given that Trudeau may have something to gain politically in the forthcoming elections. This is obviously if US and its allies support their position.

* India cooperates fully with Canada in the investigation and brings the investigation to an amicable end. In this option, India may however insist on certain conditions to control the flow and/ or continuance of such anti-India sentiment in Canada including repatriation of a list of identified individuals back to India.

* US which is the crucial player in all of this and have sworn support to Canada and yet want to be a strategic partner to India plays a mediatory role to bring this to a meaningful conclusion.

Regardless of any of the options that emerge in the next few weeks/ months, this is a rude wake-up call and highlights some obvious happenings globally. Countries should get rid of harboring elements that threaten the stability of another country; money laundering is real and countries that provide safe havens for people who indulge in this in any form are encouraging crime and hatred that will hurt them at some time; certain definitions of good and bad should be consistent globally – just to give an example, if a man is charged with killing in one country, he cannot be viewed differently by another country for any reason; countries need to “walk the talk’, in other words practice what they preach – if counter-terrorism is good for one country, then nobody has a right to question other countries that have followed this.

As the External Affairs Minister of India  mentioned in his address to the G-20 nations – Social welfare will longer be the sole prerogative of the western world; the notion that a few nations determine the rules will not go unchallenged; a country’s national objectives and global objectives need to be more closely aligned; we will all need to ensure that rule makers do not subjugate rule takers, all rules will work only if it applies to all; and political convenience should not determine any country’s or leader’s responses. We are one earth, one family, one future.

One wishes good sense and maturity will prevail and bring this debate to a reasonable end, meanwhile this serves as a reminder to the western world that that the new world order going forward may change – “the west doing what it wants and the way they want it, is a thing of the past”!

(The writer of this article is a resident of Canada)