The recent spat between India and Canada has reached rather absurd proportions. Indians are withholding visa facilities for Canadians while expelling diplomats, and the whole affair has raised questions about the motives of countries in such situations.
Do countries act out of clear motives, such as eradicating terrorism, or in the interests of wooing vote banks in their home territories?
Canada has a large Indian Diaspora, and there is no doubt that most Canadian politicians of any stature are courting Indian Canadians. But how far can this go? There is no doubt that some pacification of Diaspora sentiments is justified, but where and when does it all go overboard?
It’s hardly news that Trudeau is pandering to the Indian and Sri Lankan Diasporas in Canada. The following statistics show why: There are over 1.7 million Indian Canadians in Canada, making them the third largest visible minority group in the country. There are over 300,000 Sri Lankan Canadians in Canada as well. Both the Indian and Sri Lankan Diasporas are highly educated and affluent.
The Indian and Sri Lankan diasporas are also very politically active.
In the 2019 Canadian federal election, the Liberal Party won 40 seats in Ontario, which is home to the largest Indian and Sri Lankan Diaspora populations in the country. The Conservatives won only 10 seats in Ontario.
It is clear that the Indian and Sri Lankan Diasporas are a key voting bloc in Canada, and Trudeau is trying to shore up support from among these communities.
NATIONALISM
There are many examples of Diaspora-sensitive white Canadian politicians who have reached great heights in Canadian politics. One example is former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.
Chrétien was very close to the Quebecois Diaspora in the United States, and he often visited them and campaigned for their support. This helped him to win the support of Quebecois voters in Canada, and he served as Prime Minister for 10 years. There we go; being tuned-in to Diaspora sensitivities helps.
Another example is former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Harper was very close to the Jewish Diaspora in Canada and around the world. He often met with Jewish leaders and spoke out against anti-Semitism. This helped him win the support of Jewish voters in Canada, and he served as Prime Minister for nine years.
The Canadian Prime Minister could have used back channels to raise his concerns about the alleged Indian-engineered murder of the Sikh campaigner who India calls a terrorist. However, he chose to make a damning public statement condemning “India’s actions”. This could suggest that he was more interested in pandering to the Sikh Diaspora in Canada than in having a constructive dialogue with India.
The parallels between Canada pandering to the Sri Lankan Diaspora and then in turn to the Indian Diaspora are numerous. Both Diasporas are large, affluent, and politically active, and that last factor counts.
Both diasporas have a strong sense of nationalism — or ‘ethno-nationalism’ if you will — and are sensitive to criticism of their home countries.
In both cases, the Canadian Government is pandering to the Diasporas in order to shore up support from these communities. The Sri Lankan Government is not as assertive as the Indian Government when this sort of thing happens because Sri Lanka is a much smaller country and that’s not rocket-science when considered in the general context of international affairs.
India is a regional power with a large and growing economy. Sri Lanka, on the other hand, is a small island nation with a developing economy. However, it’s noteworthy that Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Ali Sabry has unequivocally condemned Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau’s statement on India in an interview with ANI, where Shabry has referenced similar behaviour by Trudeau towards Sri Lanka.
India is also a more important economic partner to Canada than Sri Lanka is. India is the tenth largest trading partner of Canada, while Sri Lanka is the 39th largest trading partner of the country, which offers quite the contrast. As a result of these factors, the Sri Lankan Government is less likely to stand up to Canada when it panders to the Sri Lankan Diaspora against the interests of Sri Lanka.
India’s assertiveness is likely to help India in the long run. India is a rising power, and it needs to be assertive in order to protect its interests. India’s unwavering stance is also helping raise the country’s profile on the world stage.
But Trudeau if he is primarily concerned about the Diaspora would count the benefits to India, privately, as a win-win to India and to him.
Justin Trudeau is a complex and by some appraisals at least, eccentric figure. He has been praised for his charisma, his commitment to progressive values, and his willingness to stand up for what he believes in. However, he has also been criticised for arrogance, his naivety, and his tendency to virtue-signal.
Trudeau’s eccentricity is evident in his personal life. He is known for his love of yoga, his eccentric fashion sense, and his willingness to try new things. He is also known for his sense of humour and his ability to connect with people from all walks of life.
However, Trudeau’s eccentricity — or at least ‘eccentricity’ as some people see it — can also be a liability. He has been accused of being out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Canadians. He has also been criticised for his lack of attention to detail and his tendency to make gaffes.
Trudeau’s virtue-signalling has been a huge source of controversy. He has been accused of being more interested in appearing progressive than in actually making progress. For example, Trudeau has been criticised for wearing a turban to an Indian event, even though he is not Sikh.
Trudeau’s decision to antagonise India could have serious consequences.
India is a major economic partner of both Sri Lanka and Canada. India is also a major source of investment and tourism for both countries. If India retaliates against Canada for Trudeau’s actions, it could have, potentially, a negative impact on the economy of Canada but the Canadian establishment isn’t relenting.
ACRIMONIOUS
In addition, India is a major regional power. If India feels that its interests are being threatened by Canada, it could take steps to legitimately monitor and then act with regard to Canadian interests in the region. This could have a negative impact on Canada’s profile vis a vis many nations both in the region and in a wider context.
For example, India could be an influencer on Sri Lanka or various countries in South Asia that may potentially be distancing themselves from Canada over the issue of the late Canadian Sikh gentlemen and similar instances of Canadian political pandering.
Back channel diplomacy by the Canadians could have avoided any such international repercussions.
Trudeau’s eccentricity, which is an entirely different matter, can be both a blessing and a curse for Canadians. On the one hand, it makes him a charismatic and popular leader. On the other, it can lead him to make poor decisions.
It is important for Trudeau to realise his actions have consequences, not only for Canada, but also for other countries. He should probably be more careful in the future not to take actions that could harm Canadian interests or the interests of Canada’s allies, but then Trudeau will be Trudeau, and that can be said judging from past experience.
It could be asked, so in the midst of this isn’t there any merit in a leader standing up for the nation if a man had been murdered by an external party on their soil? On that score, the problem is that few in fact believe Trudeau when he says the Indian Government had a hand in the murder of the Sikh leader. As Shashi Tharoor an Opposition Indian politician states, there is a history of the murdered man singling out Indian diplomats for vitriolic attacks. He also made various other enemies and anyone could have targeted him for those reasons.
Tharoor, a rather erudite gentleman is an example of an Opposition politician standing up for India on a national issue regardless of political persuasion, and he’s an example Sri Lankan Opposition politicians can definitely follow.
Tharoor is very clear: Canada is pandering to domestic political groups by bringing up the issue of the killing of the Sikh individual in such an acrimonious way.
Besides, Canada was never really bothered when Indian diplomats were being vilified on their soil.
