(Latest Op-Ed First; Verbatim Compilation of The Hindu
Op-Ed; Best to read in the order of oldest to latest article to get a
comprehensive understanding; Consider repetition to be revision)
A relationship adrift: on India-Canada ties (26.02.17)
The red flags had gone up long before Canadian Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau arrived for an eight-day state visit to India. For some
time now, New Delhi has been sending messages of protest to Ottawa — especially
after his Liberal Party shepherded a resolution in the Ontario provincial
legislature calling the 1984 anti-Sikh violence “genocide”; he went on to
attend a rally in Toronto organised by Khalistani groups. More recently, Mr.
Trudeau’s office and the Ministry of External Affairs differed over the details
of the visit. While New Delhi would have preferred a shorter, more
business-like itinerary beginning with the official engagement in Delhi, Ottawa
opted for a five-city tour, with a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi on
the penultimate day. New Delhi would have also liked the delegation to exclude
Canadian ministers suspected of sympathising with extremist Sikh groups in
Canada, especially as they had already been in India controversially in the
past few months — but Ottawa was adamant they be included. Finally, the
government wanted Mr. Trudeau to reach out to Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder
Singh well ahead of the visit, as the latter had been denied a trip to Canada
in 2016 and was understandably offended. But till his arrival, Mr. Trudeau’s
office did not confirm a meeting with the Chief Minister. As a result, the
controversies that followed the Canadian Prime Minister through the visit had
gathered their own momentum. The responsibility lies on both sides, on Ottawa
for its tone-deafness to Indian sensitivities, and on New Delhi for failing to
press its concerns or have the visit discreetly put off until the differences
were resolved. Mr. Modi’s decision to stick to protocol, and not welcome Mr.
Trudeau as effusively as he has tended to do for many foreign visitors, was a
signal.
The final straw in a visit steadily turning icy was
the appearance of Jaspal Atwal at an official reception, which
had an embarrassed Mr. Trudeau left explaining how a man who attempted to
assassinate an Indian minister in 1986 had slipped into his entourage. In turn,
the Indian government was left scrambling for answers on how Mr. Atwal was even
allowed into the country. The real casualty amidst all the controversies was
the India-Canada bilateral relationship, which has turned frosty after a decade
of excellent progress. In this period, the two sides had forged close
cooperation on energy and trade, including a civil nuclear cooperation
agreement and a commitment from Canadian pension funds to invest in India.
India and Canada have much in common as two pluralistic, diverse democracies
with very strong people-to-people ties: there is an Indian diaspora of 1.3
million in Canada, besides 100,000 Indian students. The handling of Mr.
Trudeau’s visit by both Ottawa and New Delhi doesn’t do justice to these ties;
both countries must work to repair the rupture.
XXX
Justin Trudeau’s discovery of India (26.02.18)
Through his week-long state visit, Canadian Prime Minister
Justin Trudeau tried hard to expand his understanding of India and foster
closer India-Canadarelations.
Controversies about the Khalistan issue and an unusual programme could make it
easy to portray this visit as a “disaster”, “fiasco” or “bad trip”. But, doing
so is neither fair nor accurate, judging by the immediate outcomes.
At age 11, Mr. Trudeau first visited India in 1983,
accompanying his father, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. On his India
mission last week, Justin Trudeau received valuable help from his family. From
the moment their plane landed in Delhi on February 17, with the Trudeau couple
and their three beautiful children giving a perfect ‘Namaste, India’ shot,
until their departure, the Indian public saw more of them than any other
foreign VIPs in recent years. Enhancement of awareness among Indians about
Canada through creative public diplomacy is
no small achievement.
The Trudeaus wore ethnic Indian costumes with grace and rare
ease. Many liked it, others did not. But, the motivation of Canada’s first
family was good. By doing this, they proclaimed their love for India, and
showed respect for its diversity and recognition of the significant role the
Indian diaspora plays in Canada’s economy and public life.
Central controversy
The Canadian delegation should have avoided the controversy concerning the Khalistan movement, but it was
self-inflicted. It stemmed from the ruling Liberal Party’s soft approach on
extremist and separatist activities in Canada. In its quest for votes of
sections of the Sikh community in Canada, India’s basic interests were
surprisingly given short shrift by the Liberals. The silver lining now is that
Mr. Trudeau returns home amply enlightened and chastened about India’s red lines.
Deeper friendship is possible when Canada reins in anti-India elements.
From the Indian viewpoint, the most important agreement
signed during the visit is the “Framework for Cooperation between India and
Canada on Countering Terrorism and Violent Extremism”. It commits the two
nations to combating this phenomenon in all its “forms and manifestations”, and
to facilitate “effective cooperation” on security, finance, justice, law
enforcement and operations. Through further interaction, New Delhi is certain
to ensure and monitor closely that Ottawa delivers on this commitment. Progress
in this realm will spur positivity in other domains of mutual cooperation. It
was reassuring that Mr. Trudeau reiterated his support for a united India.
Regional, bilateral issues
A close commonality of views emerged on several regional
issues. The two Prime Ministers called for dismantling the infrastructure of
support to terrorism “from across borders of Afghanistan”, a clear reference to
Pakistan. The Maldives government was urged “to ensure early resumption of the
political process.” On Myanmar, the need for voluntary, safe and sustainable
return of the Rohingya refugees was stressed.
More importantly, Canada and India showed a common
perspective on freedom of navigation and over-flight “throughout the
Indo-Pacific region” and respect for international law, including the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Canada implicitly shared India’s
reservations on China’s mega Belt and Road Initiative. The two sides agreed on
their analysis of the situation in the Korean Peninsula. They considered
peacekeeping as “an effective response to global challenges”. Finally, Mr.
Trudeau extended strong support for India’s membership of the Nuclear Suppliers
Group.
Bilateral cooperation, progressing fairly well on a wide
spectrum, is likely to blossom further, thanks to the joint initiatives agreed
during the visit. A business leader saw India-Canada cooperation anchored on
five Es: economy, energy, education, entertainment industry linkages, and
empowerment of women. While trade is rather limited (about $6 billion in 2016),
investment in both directions has been increasing steadily. Mr. Trudeau
announced that understandings reached last week would result in additional
investment of over $1 billion. Progress on two government-level agreements, one
on investment and the other on trade was minimal as expected, but the two
leaders directed officials to intensify their negotiations.
India’s need for continued uranium exports from Canada and
for state-of-art technologies relating to clean energy and renewables came
through vividly in discussions. The decision to expand the scope of Ministerial
Energy Dialogue is noteworthy. Besides, a new Canada-India Track 1.5 Dialogue
on Innovation, Growth and Prosperity was launched. This aims to establish
contours of convergence through sustained research and brainstorming among
experts, officials and business people.
The way ahead
As a capital, technology and innovation-rich economy and an
open, inclusive and multi-cultural society, Canada is highly relevant to India.
It is sharpening its role as a Pacific Ocean power. India’s commitment to peace
and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific should deepen geopolitical affinity. Thus
mutual interests are likely to impel the two nations to strengthen their
strategic partnership. However, for this vision to turn into reality, the
Canadian leadership needs to demonstrate greater sensitivity to India’s core
concerns than what Mr. Trudeau could muster last week.
XXX
Making up for lost time (16.02.18)
Justin Trudeau, Canada’s youthful, popular and telegenic Prime
Minister, begins his much anticipated seven-day, five-city state visit of India
on February 17. This is his first trip to India after he became Prime Minister
in 2015, but he has always had India and Indians around him. He is familiar
with Indian rituals and customs. He and his spouse are practitioners of yoga.
He can even perform bhangra. He has several friends, advisors and colleagues of
Indian origin, given that the Indian diaspora comprising 3.6% of the Canadian
population is well-educated, affluent and politically suave.
The Khalistan angle
He is particularly close to the Sikh community, which
affectionately calls him ‘Justin Singh’. Never in Canadian history have at
least 19 persons of Indian origin been elected to the House of Commons, of
which 17 (15 Sikhs) represent Mr. Trudeau’s Liberal Party. He has rewarded four
Sikhs with key Cabinet berths. As such these should have been heydays for
India-Canada ties, but for the fact that this phase has also coincided with a
resurgence in anti-India activities by emboldened Khalistani elements in
Canada.
In a first, the Ontario Provincial Parliament adopted a
resolution moved by the ruling Liberal Party’s MPP (Member of Provincial
Parliament) Harinder Malhi, on April 6, 2017, terming the 1984 anti-Sikh riots
as ‘genocide’. She was promptly rewarded with a cabinet berth. A peeved India
described it as a “misguided motion based on a limited understanding of India,
its Constitution, society, ethos, rule of law and its judicial process.”
Next, on April 30, 2017, Mr. Trudeau himself showed up at
the Toronto nagar kirtan where Khalistani flags and pictures of slain
terrorists like Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale were conspicuously displayed. Former
Prime Minister Stephen Harper had consciously shunned such platforms during his
years in office.
Not to be outdone, in December, self-appointed radical
leaders imposed a ban on the entry of Indian officials in Canadian gurdwaras,
which goes against all tenets of the inclusive, benign and liberal Sikh faith.
It is heartening that several sober and influential Sikh voices have criticised
and disassociated themselves from the move.
The ‘Khalistani’ issue has figured prominently between India
and Canada at all levels. However, Canadian political leaders and parties
continue to mollycoddle the Khalisanti elements in the quest for electoral
gains. What is incongruous is that the current Liberal government seems to be
going beyond the needs of political and electoral arithmetic in courting the
radicals. Naturally bilateral relations cannot but be impacted.
Sensing the delicacy of the situation, the Canadian
government appears to be strategising to contain the fallout. Infrastructure
Minister Amarjeet Sohi, who has impeccable credentials, stated: “Throughout my
life, I have been one of the strongest opponents of the Khalistani movement.”
It is high time to put the issue to rest, though this may be unlikely given
that Canadian leaders only seem to be looking at a tactical recalibration.
That said, Canada has truly been a land of opportunity for
the Indian diaspora. They have earned the affection and respect of Canadians,
who are very inclusive. There many iconic rags-to-riches stories, like that of
Prem Watsa, Chairman of Fairfax Financial Holding, who migrated from Hyderabad
in the 1970s with a few dollars and is now known as the Warren Buffett of
Canada. His company has invested over $1 billion in India during the last 30
months or so.
Another welcome development in recent years has been a spike
in investments by the well-endowed Canadian Pension Funds like CPPIB and CDPQ
into India. Together, Canadian companies have have pumped in some $12-15
billion Canadian in India in sectors including real estate, financial services,
distressed assets, modern logistics facilities and e-commerce.
Early conclusion of the bilateral Comprehensive Economic
Partnership Agreement (CEPA) and Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements
(BIPPA), which have been under negotiation for several years, would boost our
economic partnership. It would particularly open up the services sector
allowing highly skilled Indian professionals, for whom there is a ready demand,
to work in Canada. However, this is not likely to happen in a hurry. BIPPA is
closer to finalisation, but India would prefer that both agreements be operationalised
in one go.
A strategic
partnership
During Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Canada in
April 2015, both sides agreed to elevate their bilateral relations to a
strategic partnership. Truth be told, the strategic content remains wafer thin.
The ties essentially rest on 3Es — economy, energy and education. India has
started importing uranium from Canada, beginning 2015. Canada also has sizeable
reserves of oil and gas. Over time Canada could become a key partner in India’s
quest for energy security.
With declining interest in Britain and some uncertainty over
the U.S.’s policies, Indian students have begun heading for vocational and
higher education to Canada in larger numbers. An added attraction for them is
that Canada routinely provides a three-year work visa upon completion of
studies, which opens up avenues of gainful employment and citizenship. Canada
also continues with a liberal immigration policy. In 2016, some 40,000 Indian
immigrants were admitted into the country.
Till recently, knowledgeable Canadians would say with pride
that there was a little of their country in every Indian home, as significant
quantities of Canadian pulses were being imported by India. Both nations also
have some collaboration in agri-tech and much more can be done. We are
fortunate to have complementary economies and capable human resources. There is
enough potential for stepping up cooperation in areas like information
technology, science and technology, clean and green tech, aviation and outer
space, cold-climate warfare, cybersecurity, counterterrorism and tourism. The
need of the hour is to strengthen mutual trust and confidence, by taking a
long-term view of the relationship.
Vishnu Prakash is a
former Indian High Commissioner to Canada (2015-16)
XXX
How India & Canada manage diversities (26.04.2007)
Jairam Ramesh
India's approach to
managing diversities has been somewhat unique. In fact even as India's
electoral system produces new diversities, it is precisely this approach that
has kept the country together.
LESTER PEARSON'S relationship with India was initially
close. The Canadian diplomat Escott Reid wrote in his memoirs "Envoy
to Nehru" that Pearson and India's first Prime Minister were largely
responsible for the Korean armistice signed in July 1953. They worked closely
in the Geneva Conference of 1954 on Indo-China and Korea. They also
collaborated to reduce tensions between the U.S. and China and to defuse the
Suez crisis of 1956, for which Lester Pearson was to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
To be sure there were mutual recriminations as well.
According to Reid, Pearson felt that "Nehru exaggerated Canada's influence
in international affairs and did not realize the limitations on Canada's
freedom of action imposed by its position between the United States and
Britain." On his part, it would appear that Pearson was unfair to Nehru
when it came to India's growing relationship with the Soviet Union, to India's
suspicions of U.S.-sponsored regional security pacts and to India's actual role
during the Hungarian uprising of 1956, the full story of which remains to be
told it is possible, for instance, that the life of Arpad Goncz, who later
became Independent Hungary's first President in 1991 was saved from the gallows
in 1956 because of Nehru's influence with the Soviet leadership. Mr. Goncz
himself declared in the Hungarian Parliament in 1991 that "in those months
(in 1956), the Indian Embassy in Budapest became the Embassy of the
Revolution."
How have the two countries dealt with the challenge of
diversity, while remaining anchored to the concept of a strong nation-state
functioning in a system of parliamentary democracy? Their approaches have been
distinctive, quite unlike that of the erstwhile USSR, U.S. and China. Both
Canada and India, as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar himself pointed out while piloting the
draft of our Constitution in the Constituent Assembly in December 1948, have federal
Constitutions but also call themselves a Union.
Canada is defined by linguistic diversity with English and
French as the two major languages. It is also defined by religious diversity
with a majority Christian but significant Sikh, Muslim and Hindu communities as
well. It is multi-ethnic in the sense that it has a considerable population of
indigenous peoples in addition to a substantial population of immigrants from
different parts of the world (around 3 per cent from India).
Diversity is part of India's DNA too. Indeed, it has been
its manifest destiny described most evocatively thus: kafile aate gaye,
karavan baste gaye, Hindustan banta gaya (convoys kept coming, caravans
kept settling, India kept getting made). Jawaharlal Nehru had an equally wonderful
description of our civilisation in his Discovery of India when he
referred to it as an "ancient palimpsest on which layer upon layer of
thought and reverie had been inscribed, and yet no succeeding layer had
completely hidden or erased what had been written previously." Indeed,
India has the greatest diversities seven major religions and numerous other
sects and faiths, 22 official languages and over 200 recorded mother tongues,
around 4,635 largely endogamous communities as revealed in the late K.S. Singh's
monumental People of India and 15 distinct agro-climatic zones.
Canada's great contribution to the discourse on managing
diversities is the concept of multi-culturalism, which it adopted in 1971.
Multiculturalism was originally a response to the grievances of Canada's
French-speaking population of Quebec province. The initial thought was to
recognise Canada as a bilingual and bicultural society. Indeed, the very name
of the committee that went into the issue suggests it it was called the Royal
Commission on Biculturalism. Bilingualism was acceptable to all but not
biculturalism. Largely on account of opposition from Canada's aboriginal
population, Lester Pearson's successor Pierre Trudeau promulgated the Announcement
of Implementation of Policy of Multiculturalism within Bilingual Framework in
October 1971. This was followed 17 years later by the Multiculturalism Act being
adopted by Parliament making Canada the first country to pass a national
multiculturalism law.
There appears to be another distinctive Canadian
contribution. Michael Ignatieff, the Canadian political leader and
intellectual, has written in his The Rights Revolution that no
country other than New Zealand has given such recognition to the idea of
collective group rights as Canada. This, of course, is in context of the
aboriginal populations. But with such a sweeping claim, Ignatieff betrays a
fundamental ignorance of the Indian Constitution which enshrines special
provisions for groups that suffer from accumulated disabilities and discrimination
the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the socially and educationally
backward classes. The Indian Constitution also provides for special provisions
for religious and linguistic minorities.
Multiculturalism has not been without criticisms in Canada
itself, the most influential of which has been Neil Bissoondath's Selling
Ilusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada that came out in 1994.
Bissoondath is an interesting figure Trinidad-born of Indian descent as the
name suggests (a nephew of V.S. Naipaul incidentally) and you would think his
background would make him more sensitive to the imperatives of
multiculturalism. Not so. He argues that multiculturalism actually weakens
national unity and cohesiveness, increases competition and rivalry between
ethnic groups and instils a "separatist" mentality in immigrant
communities. He has gone further and the weekly magazine The Economist in
its issue of November 16, 2006, has him proclaiming that Muslims are the first
group to challenge Canada's notions of multiculturalism and tolerance.
In India the mantra has been "unity in diversity"
which has been its gift to the political lexicon, much like the
multiculturalism of Canada. According to Sunil Khilnani, it was Rabindranath
Tagore who first used the phrase in 1902 in a Bengali essay Bharatbarsher
Itihas. Actually, a reading of the original Bengali reveals that Tagore had
actually used the phrase " unity through diversity." Unity through diversity
is actually a more powerful thought than unity in diversity. In my view, the
word "through" connotes celebration of diversity, while the word
"in" implies mere acceptance. Amongst our political leaders, it was
Jawaharlal Nehru, more than anyone else, who kept coming back to this theme
again and again. Today, Nehru's critics look at his "magnificent
obsession" with planning and the public sector in narrow economic terms.
But the larger political context in which planning and the public sector were
embedded in Nehru's thinking and their role in welding a nation of great
diversity (and I should add, disparity) is not fully appreciated these days.
Neither, for that matter, is his role in riding out linguistic chauvinism that
threatened to tear India apart in the 1950s. It has been left to an American
academic, Robert King, to capture Nehru's contributions in this regard most
sensitively in his Nehru and the Language Politics of India.
India's approach to managing diversities has been somewhat
unique. In fact even as India's electoral system produces new diversities, it
is precisely this approach that has kept the country together. Assimilation has
certainly not been on the agenda, while integration has been pursued.
Uniformity and homogeneity have been eschewed. Individual identities have been
preserved and protected.
The nature of affirmative action as an instrument to give
representation to and reflect diversities in India too has been different in
India. No other country enshrines quotas as part of public policy to manage
diversities as India does. These quotas, it should be acknowledged, have
produced a more egalitarian India and have provided numerous opportunities for
both personal and collective empowerment. And going by the experience of
peninsular India, they have certainly not impeded efficiency and excellence.
Can India and Canada learn something from each other? On
November 27, 2006, the Canadian House of Commons passed a motion by an
overwhelming majority that said " That this House recognize that the
Quebecois form a nation within a United Canada". Mr. A.G. Noorani, the
noted lawyer-commentator, has written elsewhere that this Resolution holds
lessons that India can apply to Kashmir, Nagaland and other areas where
separatist movements are endemic. Mr. Noorani is being very unrealistic but it
is still worth recalling that till November 1964, the head of state in Jammu
and Kashmir had an elected Sadar-e-Riyasat and the head of government
was called Wazir-e-Azam. Even today, J&K has a separate Constitution
and flies its own flag along with the Tricolour. And speaking of separatism, it
bears mention that sections of the Indian diaspora in Canada have contributed
to the discourse of diversity, as for instance, in relation to the Khalistan
movement.
India's approach to managing its extraordinary diversity
needs to be better understood and given higher marks than has been the case so
far. Instead of demonising Islam, Canada should look at how Kerala particularly
has prospered with religious plurality. How the India as we know it today
politically and geographically has survived and moved ahead is indeed a
remarkable achievement. Many prophets of gloom, many epitaphs of doom have been
proved wrong. Our approach to managing diversity has consequences for economic
performance, for the pace of economic reforms as well. In my own anthology of
2005 Making Sense of Chindia: Reflections on China and India, I have
argued that it is the way we have managed diversity that makes a comparative
evaluation of the two Himalayan neighbours unfair, even though a look at their
comparative evolution is instructive.
(The author is the Union Minister of State for Commerce.
These are edited excerpts from the 13th Lester Pearson Memorial Lecture he
delivered at Delhi University on April 23.)
(All of the above articles have been taken straight from The
Hindu. We owe it all to them. This is just an effort to consolidate opinions
expressed in The Hindu in a subject-wise manner.)
No comments:
Post a Comment