Why not? If the evidence can be fact-checked on both sides, then its credibility can be established. All this depends on what kind of evidence Canada has (if at all they do).
I don't get how you folks believe Canada's allegations right off the bat, when there is no factual proof or evidence provided by them.
As long as there is no evidence provided by Canada, India is the victim here, with Canada leveling baseless allegations on her.
That's why I said, India has to confirm Canada's factual evidence first, because it can be any politically motivated bullshit for all we know.
Or the attacks may have been carried out by a rogue agent, with no hand of the Indian government in it. But even then the Canada has jumped the gun and claimed that the killings were state sponsored. In that case too India is the victim with Canada making false accusations against her.
> I don't get how you folks believe Canada's allegations right off the bat, when there is no factual proof or evidence provided by them.
I don't get how you infer support of Canada's allegations from a statement that the Indian government doesn't need to rely on Canada's evidence to determine whether or not they carried out an assassination, since they either know that they did it or know that they didn't do it.
> Or the attacks may have been carried out by a rogue agent, with no hand of the Indian government in it.
What do you think I meant when I said, "Third party evidence is relevant only to the extent that they didn't do it as a matter of state policy but a rogue agent or group might have done it."
It would be nice if your responses to other people's posts showed some sign that you were actually reading those posts rather than going off on a canned tirade that isn't in any meaningful way relevant to what it is nominally a response to.
If India is guilty, it knows that it is guilty. If India is innocent, it knows that it is innocent.
In either case, India wouldn't need evidence from anybody else to determine its own innocence or guilt, because surely it knows whether it did what it is being accused of doing.
That's because India is not 1 person, if you haven't noticed.
Even if this murder thing is true, it could have been some rogue agent in the government. In that case the evidence would flush them out. India does have a lot to lose, reputationally, in this case. But not enough to lose that they would simply accept whatever Canada says.
From the Indian point of view Canada has also brushed off situations where India approached them with evidence against Canadian citizens. So if Canada now approaches with demands of their own, dismissing these is perfectly alright without precise evidence.
India has no obligation to preserve whatever sources some 5 eye(I) country has within their government, and just cooperate with Canada no questions asked.
I have indeed noticed that a government is not a single person, but I simply would not think of a rogue agent as representative of the said government, and what they did as what the government had done.
From my perspective, the crime would need to be officially sanctioned by the person or people in power, for it to be called "done by the government". Just like if a US government employee is turned rogue, deciding to act against the US government, I wouldn't say that the US government is now against the US government.
Would you need to review someone else’s evidence to decide if you committed a murder?
Third party evidence is relevant only to the extent that they didn't do it as a matter of state policy but a rogue agent or group might have done it.