India-Canada row: The murder case of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Khalistani terrorist, has stirred controversy, with New Zealand, a member of the Five Eyes alliance, expressing skepticism regarding Canadas evidence. Amid accusations by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau implicating India in Nijjars murder, questions have emerged regarding the reliability of the evidence presented. Lets delve into the details of this unprecedented development.Doubts Raised by New ZealandNew Zealands Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, has voiced doubts over the evidence provided by Canada in the Nijjar murder case. As a member of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, New Zealand holds a critical stance, questioning the veracity of the evidence linking India to the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Peters remarks, conveyed during an interview with The Indian Express, shed light on the uncertainty surrounding the evidence presented by Canada.Insights from Deputy PM PetersDuring his visit to India, Deputy PM Peters, who also serves as New Zealands Foreign Minister, expressed caution regarding the intelligence information shared by Canada. Reflecting on the nature of intelligence data, Peters highlighted the challenge of assessing its quality and value. While acknowledging the allegations made, he underscored the importance of concrete evidence to substantiate claims. Peters remarks underscore the complexity of navigating intelligence-sharing protocols and the need for transparency in high-profile cases.ContextThe murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar outside a Gurudwara in Surrey, British Columbia, in June 2023, sparked diplomatic tensions between India and Canada. Prime Minister Trudeaus allegations of Indian involvement in Nijjars assassination were met with vehement denial by India. Despite Canadas assertions, no conclusive evidence has been presented to support the allegations. The absence of suspects or arrests further complicates the investigation, leaving crucial questions unanswered.New Zealands skepticism regarding Canadas evidence in the Nijjar case marks a significant development within the Five Eyes alliance. As doubts linger over the veracity of the evidence and the absence of tangible leads, the case underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in cross-border investigations. With diplomatic tensions simmering, the quest for justice for Hardeep Singh Nijjar remains unresolved, highlighting the complexities of navigating international relations in the face of grave allegations.
