Foreign Policy Watch: India-Canada

What’s the news?

• The relationship between Canada and India has hit rock bottom with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s accusations of Indian involvement in the death of Khalistan activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar.

Central Idea

• The Canada-India relationship is in trouble after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s troubling allegations against India. Diplomats were sent home, and making up seems hard. Both countries need to talk honestly about how some Indian people in Canada are causing problems and making things worse.

The troubling accusations

• Unprecedented Allegations: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s statement before Canadian lawmakers, accusing Indian agents of involvement in the killing of Khalistan activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar, represents an unprecedented and game-changing development in Canada-India relations.
• Potential Motivations: The timing of Trudeau’s public announcement in parliament, before fully exploring other options, suggests either the existence of substantial evidence backing the claims or a willingness to jeopardize Canada-India relations for undisclosed reasons.
• Myopic Emphasis on Rule of Law: Trudeau’s emphasis on the rule of law in this context appears narrow, as it fails to consider the broader effects of Nijjar and his separatist associates’ activities in both Canada and India.
• Overlooking Victims: Trudeau’s focus on Khalistan activists’ plight neglects to address the harm they have inflicted, including propagating violence against Indian diplomats, celebrating the death of an Indian prime minister, vandalizing places of worship in Canada, and disregarding Indian lawmaking processes.

Historical Context of Canada-India Relations

• Cold War Cooperation: During the Cold War, Canada and India shared a positive rapport due to their commonwealth status and alignment on UN principles, multilateralism, and global development goals.
• Cold War Disputes: However, differences emerged during the Cold War crises in Korea, Hungary, and Vietnam, straining relations. India’s nuclear program further exacerbated tensions.
• 1980s Rekindling: In the 1980s, increased Indian immigration to Canada sparked renewed interest in India, but trade and security relations remained limited.
• Post-1998 Efforts: After Canada’s rejection of India’s nuclear power status in 1998, significant efforts have been made to revive relations, particularly in trade and investment.
• Toxic Diaspora Politics: The relationship has been consistently hampered by specific diaspora elements within Canada with extremist views who influence Canadian political parties, negatively impacting bilateral ties.

Canada’s Diaspora Politics

• Confounding Deference: Ottawa, particularly under the current government, has consistently displayed a confounding deference to Khalistani groups and other diaspora elements, a characteristic feature of its foreign policy.
• Both Political Parties Implicated: Notably, both major political parties in Canada, namely the Liberals and Conservatives, have been implicated in pandering to diaspora groups that utilize Canadian soil for activities detrimental to other nations’ interests and security.
• Short-Term Electoral Pressure: The influence of diaspora politics has prevented Canadian governments from prioritizing national security and foreign policy objectives over short-term electoral pressures.
• Impeding National Interests: Diaspora politics poses a significant impediment to Canada’s ability to safeguard its national security and foreign policy priorities from the pressures of short-term electoral considerations.

Challenges for India

• Pro-Khalistan Groups: India faces challenges stemming from pro-Khalistan groups within the Indian diaspora in Canada. These groups advocate for the secession of Punjab from India, creating a source of tension between India and Canada.
• Tensions and Resentments: The activities of pro-Khalistan groups in Canada have led to tensions and resentments between India and Canada. The Indian government is concerned about how these groups operate in Canada and their impact on bilateral relations.
• Foreign Policy Dilemma: India must navigate a diplomatic dilemma when dealing with countries like Canada that host diaspora elements supporting separatist movements. Balancing diplomatic relations with such countries while addressing the concerns of these diaspora groups can be challenging.
• Rising Transnational Currents: The rise of transnational currents questions India’s territorial integrity and treatment of ethnic minorities. These currents pose a significant problem for Indian foreign policy, potentially influencing global perceptions and diplomatic relations.
• Online Amplification: The digital age has amplified challenges associated with diaspora politics. Online platforms and social media allow diaspora groups to spread their ideas and mobilize support more effectively, potentially affecting India’s image and diplomacy.
• Caste Discrimination: Caste discrimination is a contentious issue within Indian diaspora communities in Canada and other countries. This adds complexity to India’s engagement with its diaspora and its image abroad.

Way Forward

• Rebuilding Trust: The strained Canada-India relationship calls for a concerted effort to rebuild trust, acknowledging that distrust has deep historical roots.
• Shared Interests: Both countries have shared interests in defending the international order, balancing China’s rise, and cooperating on critical global issues such as climate change, global health, digital technology misuse, artificial intelligence regulation, and support for developing countries.
• Addressing Diaspora Challenges: To effectively address these challenges, a political consensus is required that addresses both countries’ perspectives on Canada’s Indian diaspora and mitigates its worst impulses, particularly those fanning separatist sentiments in India.
• National Interests at the Forefront: The path forward necessitates a clear commitment to prioritize national interests, security, and foreign policy objectives over the pressures of diaspora politics, especially in the era of social media and online activism.
• A Balanced Approach: Striking a balance between leveraging the positive aspects of diaspora contributions and effectively managing the challenges they pose is essential for both countries’ foreign relations.
• Diplomatic Dialogue: Engaging in a sincere, transparent, and multidimensional political dialogue is crucial for both Canada and India. This dialogue should address the role of Canada’s Indian diaspora, its politicization, and its impact on bilateral relations.
• Acknowledging Past Grievances: Recognizing and addressing past grievances and resentments is essential in the journey toward reconciliation and improved relations.

Conclusion

• The strained Canada-India relationship is a result of toxic diaspora politics. To mend this relationship, both countries must engage in a political compact addressing the role of Canada’s Indian diaspora and mitigating its divisive influences, especially those supporting separatism in India. Without this, geographical distance will be overshadowed by deep-seated dispositional differences between Ottawa and Delhi.

Also read:

The Khalistan shadow on India-Canada ties, over the years

Central Idea

• The recent pro-Khalistani parade in Brampton, Canada, featuring a tableau depicting the assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, has raised concerns about the glorification of violence and its impact on Indo-Canadian relations.

The Offensive Float: Glorifying Violence

• Depiction of Indira Gandhi: The float featured a tableau depicting a lady dressed in a white sari, symbolizing India’s former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The portrayal of her in a bloodied state aimed to evoke a sense of violence and brutality.
• Soldiers Training Guns: The tableau included two soldiers pointing their guns at the depicted figure of Indira Gandhi. This imagery conveys a message of aggression and threat towards a political leader.
• Board Text: The float had a board behind the figure of Indira Gandhi, reading “Revenge of attack on Shri Darbar Sahib.” This text suggests a desire for revenge for the attack on the Golden Temple (Shri Darbar Sahib) and implies a justification for violence.
• “Never forget 1984”: The side of the float carried the words “Never forget 1984.” This phrase refers to the anti-Sikh riots that took place in 1984 following Indira Gandhi’s assassination, further emphasizing the glorification of a violent event in history.

Indian Response

• External Affairs Minister’s Comments: During a media conference on June 8, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar indirectly addressed the offensive float. While he did not directly mention the incident, he referred to the larger issue of Canada providing space to separatists, extremists, and those advocating violence. He emphasized that such a stance is detrimental to the bilateral relationship between India and Canada.
• Condemning Hypocrisy: Jaishankar criticized Canada’s hypocritical approaches to human rights issues and its historical disregard for India’s territorial integrity. He pointed out the need for Canada to reassess its policies and give due consideration to the impact of its actions on the relationship between the two nations.
• Omission of Direct Mention: Although Mr. Jaishankar spoke out against the offensive float and Canada’s permissive environment for separatists, it is notable that he did not directly mention the name of the former Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi.
• Canadian High Commissioner’s Statement: While Mr. Jaishankar refrained from naming Indira Gandhi, the Canadian High Commissioner to India, Cameron Mackay, explicitly denounced the event through a tweet. He expressed his appallment at reports of an event in Canada that celebrated the assassination of the late Indian Prime Minister.

Concerns about the glorification of violence

• Promotion of Hatred and Conflict: Glorifying violence perpetuates a culture of animosity, division, and hatred. It can fuel tensions between different communities or groups, leading to further conflicts and hostility.
• Erosion of Social Cohesion: The glorification of violence undermines social cohesion and harmony within societies. It deepens divisions, exacerbates grievances, and creates an environment conducive to violence and social unrest.
• Undermining Rule of Law: Glorifying violence goes against the principles of the rule of law and peaceful resolution of conflicts. It encourages a mindset that justifies resorting to violence as a means to address grievances, disregarding established legal frameworks and peaceful mechanisms for dispute resolution.
• Impact on National Identity: The glorification of violence can tarnish the image and identity of a nation. It reinforces negative stereotypes, perpetuates cycles of violence, and can lead to emotional distress for individuals or communities associated with the affected events.
• Impediment to Reconciliation: Glorifying violence hampers efforts towards reconciliation and healing. It deepens wounds from past conflicts, making it harder to foster understanding and dialogue between different groups or communities.
• Strained International Relations: The glorification of violence can strain relations between countries, particularly when it involves controversial historical events or political figures. It can lead to diplomatic tensions, a breakdown of trust, and hinder cooperation and collaboration in various domains

Implications for Indo-Canadian relations

• Diplomatic Strains: The incident can strain bilateral relations between India and Canada. The portrayal of violence and the glorification of a historical event that caused significant pain and turmoil within India can lead to a breakdown of trust and cooperation between the two countries.
• Perception of Insensitivity: If Canada is perceived as not taking appropriate action to address and condemn the glorification of violence, it may be viewed as insensitive to India’s concerns. This perception can damage the mutual understanding and goodwill that are essential for fostering strong bilateral relations.
• Impact on People-to-People Connections: The glorification of violence can negatively affect people-to-people connections between India and Canada. It may deepen divisions and breed resentment among different communities, hindering social cohesion and understanding.
• Economic and Trade Consequences: In extreme cases, if tensions escalate due to incidents like the offensive float, it can have economic and trade consequences. Trade and investment flows may be affected, hampering economic cooperation and growth between the two nations.
• Cultural Exchanges and Cooperation: Glorifying violence can hamper cultural exchanges and cooperation between India and Canada. It may discourage collaborations in areas such as education, arts, tourism, and other forms of cultural exchange, limiting opportunities for mutual understanding and appreciation of each other’s cultures.

Way forward

• Dialogue and Diplomacy: Both countries should engage in open and constructive dialogue at various levels, including government officials, diplomats, and civil society organizations. This dialogue should aim to address concerns, clarify misunderstandings, and find common ground for cooperation.
• Condemnation of Violence: It is important for both India and Canada to unequivocally condemn the glorification of violence and any acts that undermine peace, harmony, and social cohesion. Clear statements from government officials and community leaders can send a strong message against violence and promote a culture of non-violence.
• Cultural Exchanges and Understanding: Encouraging cultural exchanges, educational programs, and people-to-people interactions can foster greater understanding and appreciation between the two nations. Efforts should be made to showcase the rich cultural diversity of both countries and emphasize shared values of respect, tolerance, and harmony.
• Enhanced Cooperation: Exploring opportunities for enhanced cooperation in various fields, including trade, investment, technology, and research, can strengthen the bilateral relationship. Collaborative projects, joint initiatives, and mutually beneficial partnerships can foster closer ties and promote shared prosperity.
• Promoting Mutual Respect: It is crucial to uphold the principles of mutual respect, sovereignty, and territorial integrity in bilateral relations. Both countries should demonstrate respect for each other’s historical narratives, sensitivities, and concerns, while working towards resolving differences through peaceful and diplomatic means.
• Engagement with the Indian Diaspora: Canada should ensure that its policies and actions do not provide support or platforms for separatist or extremist elements. Engaging positively with the Indian diaspora in Canada, which includes Sikhs and other communities, can help build bridges and promote a better understanding of India’s diverse perspectives.

Conclusion

• While the Brampton parade highlights the need for Canada to address its hypocritical stance on separatism and violence, and for India to navigate its engagement with the diaspora sensitively. Both countries must strive to strengthen their relationship while respecting each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Also read: