By: Gouri Sankar Nag, & Manas Mukul Bandyopadhyay
The graphics of diplomatic bilateral between India and Canada have always been very flippant marked by sort of roller coaster mode. This lack of stability and difference of perception not only emanates from the gulf of East-West hiatus but also from the geo-politics of the Cold War and post-Cold War political matrix that virtually established the supremacy of the US, the most trusted next-door partner of Canada while sounding death knell to India’s foundational foreign policy embedded in Non-Alignment paradigm that never received Canadian favour.
As such their perceptional difference was one of clear pro-US tilt versus strategic autonomy that always silhouetted their relations in the chiaroscuro of half-trust and incomplete bonhomie, or to be more precise, it resembled sort of oscillations and fluctuations that can only be compared to Lenin’s famous formulation – ‘one step forward, two steps back’. On reaching 2023 one is awestruck that the chemistry of their mutual outreach after Nehru’s demise has not progressed an inch in the last four-five decades in the deeper substantial sense despite multitude of fronts of reciprocal engagement from economic cooperation, to data communication, from educational exchanges to cultural connections that stood the test of time. Yet, recent allegations leveled by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, accusing India of violating Canada’s sovereignty due to the alleged involvement of Indian intelligence in the dubious murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian citizen linked to the Khalistan Tiger Force amounts to the most obnoxious slander to target India. Undoubtedly it deals a blow to the traditionally conservative yet cooperative nature of their ‘special relationship’.
Related Posts:
Nowadays when the Ministry of External Affairs speaks loudly about India’s national interests to convey a message to other states or group of states, it has a pronounced sense of nationalism which is not so easy to digest on the part of other states. In the recent past, from the BBC to the Manipur comments at EU meetings, this manifest ultra-nationalism has been at display in various occasions and contexts. But the idea of nationalism cannot be overemphasized in the recent strong message from the External Affairs Ministry towards Canadian PM, Trudeau. Rather it exists in the right degree. Indeed, the consummate rebuttal of the charge and its magnitude in which Canada brought unfair, almost unprecedented accusations against India – was necessary; it was necessary to publicly censure and repudiate this ill-motivated behavior of Canada in the international arena. New Delhi has done that, at least tried to do so. If there is any such crisis between the two countries, it is neither polite nor wise to cast aspersion publicly at the state level. Moreover, there is considerable doubt as to how well-founded this allegation really is or is it deliberates provocation in tune with the post-truth world.
All in all, bilateral relations between India and Canada henceforth enter a critical phase of unprecedented recriminations leading to a cul de sac. It is unimaginable how Canada could directly accuse India and its Intelligence Agency RAW for mysterious killing of a separatist Canada- based Akali leader. Of course, in the past we have seen how Canada, due to its large chunk of Sikh immigrant population, has taken a soft approach by allowing the space to the extremist elements behind the separatist ‘Khalistan’ issue in violation of its commitment to violent extremism. This practically inflamed their acrimony during 1980s and the same, if not more, is happening again when it appears that the Nijjar case is a shrewd ploy well-timed to discredit India’s G20 image. Not only this, India’s prospect of drawing foreign investment after largely successful tenure of G20 presidency may also suffer due to Indo-Canadian bickering.
It is now well-circulated in social media platforms that Trudeau standing in the Canadian Parliament alleged that India was directly involved in the killing of someone called Hardeep Singh Nijjar who was a Canada-based Sikh leader. The matter, as claimed by Trudeau on the basis of reliable information, casts a shadow of serious concern and falls to the level of an unacceptable diplomatic attack on India. In this case, a question naturally arises, where did Mr. Trudeau find such ‘reliable’ evidence? Why did the Canadian administration make such a big complaint based on unverified news under the pressure of various political lobbies? It is not difficult to understand that sending this aggressive message in violation of diplomatic norms is actually the result of sort of revenge mindset injected among the Khalistani-minded immigrant community of Indian origin in Canada, since this group has a special power in that country for a long period. Currently the ruling leader has vowed to appease them.
On the other hand, the Canadian government has not heeded a single message from the Indian government about how this extremist group is engaged in separatist project within India; none of the Indian Government’s important messages were taken seriously by the Government of Canada. In a democratic country like Canada, anyone can promote his own opinion; he can even do it against other states too. It may not be possible to stop this trend simply by violating the principle of freedom of expression; but it cannot be sensibly thought of to give the official seal of approval to this disinformation to satisfy these dissidents, who are considered as urgent voters to retain the minority government in Canada. Trudeau should have remembered, he is not the leader of a club. He is the head of a large, very important democratic state, who is talking about another big democratic state.
In contrast, New Delhi’s response, while urgent and justifiable, made it amply clear that the allegations against India were “absurd”, “unsubstantiated” and purposive to “shift the focus from Khalistani terrorists and extremists, who have been provided shelter in Canada and who continue to threaten India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The inaction of the Canadian government on this matter has been a long-standing and continuing concern”. As evident from this semiotics, both countries stand the risk of loosening their reciprocal ties very quickly; the traction of bilateral understandings is being pulled down by expelling a senior Canadian diplomat and even going further to cancel visas for tourist-seeking citizens, or deny them visas at all. It cannot be a sensible solution. No matter how diplomatically the situation becomes worse, this kind of restriction on people’s movement and exchange does not fit the pattern of the modern world at all especially when we are living in a globalized world. Especially when India’s responsibility to pursue its own economic and diplomatic interests based on her relations with developed countries is so intense, this reaction on the part of India can become suicidal too. So at the current juncture of ongoing strife, we feel trust is indispensable to reset their relationship, hence rapprochement requires mutual care and patience above petty political calculus to navigate it properly. (The author Gouri Sankar Nag is a Professor in the Dept. of Political Science, Sidho Kanho Birsha University & Manas Mukul Bandyopadhyay is an Associate Professor in the Dept. of Political Science, Chandernagore Govt. College, West Bengal)
