by Ritikaa HR 8 October 2023
The India-Canada diplomatic dispute has become a global issue of concern. It arose unexpectedly after a highly successful G20 Summit that emphasized building trust and consensus. Clues to this deteriorating relationship can be traced back to the recent G20 summit hosted by Delhi. During the summit, Prime Minister Trudeau had a notably tense and brief meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Furthermore, Trudeau faced the embarrassment of an extended stay in Delhi due to a technical fault with his plane. Following their meeting, both leaders made unambiguous statements. Trudeau emphasized Canada’s commitment to “freedom of expression” while opposing hatred. In contrast, the Indian government issued a sharp statement expressing its “strong concerns about continuing anti-India activities of extremist elements in Canada” and accusing them of “promoting secessionism and inciting violence against Indian diplomats.”
However, accusations of Indian involvement in the assassination of a Khalistani separatist in Canada changed the narrative. The issue gained global attention when three pro-Khalistan activists died in rapid succession in different countries earlier this year. Paramjit Singh Panjwar, chief of the Khalistan Commando Force, was shot dead in Pakistan in May. Avtar Singh Khanda, believed to be the head of the Khalistan Liberation Force, died in the UK in June. In British Columbia, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, also designated a terrorist by India, was shot dead outside a Sikh temple in June, prompting Canada to take a strong public stance against India.
The diaspora connection between the two countries has been jeopardized, with the Liberal Party of Canada playing a significant role in this. This diaspora comprises diverse segments, some of which sympathize with the anti-India Khalistan movement. Various Khalistani groups have received political backing from high-ranking officials, which has allowed them to gain influence and speak out against India. They are also able to raise funds and recruit personnel, often with considerable support from organizations and institutions. While these allegations are currently unsupported and seem to have political motives, they provide an opportunity to explore India’s ancient practices of intelligence and espionage. This tradition can be traced back to the insightful teachings of ancient writings such as Kautilya’s “Arthashastra” and Machiavelli’s “The Prince,” which continue to offer valuable insights into statecraft and diplomacy despite their age. Ultimately, these texts help shed light on the complexities of modern relations between India and Canada.
Kautilya’s Arthashastra: The Foundation of Indian Diplomacy
Kautilya’s Arthashastra, an ancient Indian guide to political strategy, is thought to originate from the Mauryan period (321 BCE-185 BCE). It incorporates the idea of internal security as a key element in achieving political objectives, emphasizing that the prosperity of a state relies on implementing a policy of non-intervention or overt action for safeguarding existing borders and expanding territory. Intelligence, both in-house and foreign, constitutes the foundation of statecraft. Kautilya emphasizes three kinds of intelligence: collection-centric (utilizing spies, double agents, informants, and agent recruitment), cognition-centric (involving knowledge generation through analysis and assessment), and action-centric (encompassing covert operations, active measures, psychological warfare, and destabilization). Interestingly, Kautilya’s notion of intelligence, which includes collection-centric, cognition-centric, and action-centric aspects, closely resembles the functions of modern intelligence agencies. The recent allegations leveled against India amid the Canada-India diplomatic row highlight the imperative for resilient intelligence capabilities to safeguard national interests.
The Arthashastra classifies internal security risks into four categories – outer-inner, inner-outer, outer-outer, and inner-inner, depending on the source of provocation and response. It recommends countermeasures that match the type of relationship and the intended audience. Success in outer-inner and inner-outer associations favors the non-respondent due to the potential cunningness of respondents. The current diplomatic dispute between Canada and India, revolving around Sikh separatism and the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, can be considered within the context of an ‘outer-outer’ scenario. In the Arthashastra, the ‘outer’ pertains to rural, frontier, and forest regions, as well as vassals. This indicates that the issue lies with those who incite sedition rather than the general population. It is crucial to acknowledge that there is no prevalent Sikh uprising in India presently.
Nevertheless, there is a recurring theme of the Sikh diaspora providing ideological and logistical support in line with the interests of foreign nations. From issues like the farmers’ protests to police actions against pro-Khalistani activists, statements from both Trudeau and Singh have contributed to a tense atmosphere in India-Canada relations. The impact of the evolving Canadian political environment has spread beyond its borders, with Pro-Khalistan groups emerging in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and Australia, alongside a significant presence in Canada. These groups, including “Sikhs for Justice” and the “Khalistan Tiger Force,” have received greater funding, institutional backing, and mobilization. The frequent referendums supporting the secession of a fictional Khalistan also indicate possible government involvement within Canada.
Justin Trudeau’s political future is closely tied to support from the New Democratic Party (NDP), led by Jagmeet Singh. This introduces complexity to the situation, as the Liberal Party’s slim lead over the Conservative Party in the previous election highlights the importance of maintaining NDP support. Of note, the NDP and some factions within the Liberal Party have publicly endorsed Khalistani elements. This political maneuvering may serve domestic interests but harms Canada’s relations with India. Incidents like the circulation of Khalistani posters targeting Indian officials, attacks on the Indian High Commission premises, and parades commemorating events like ‘Operation Bluestar’ have gone unchecked under the guise of freedom of expression. The influence of Sikh groups on Trudeau’s Liberal Party has hindered efforts to address these concerns. The growth of anti-India activities is linked to increasing financial mobilization, facilitated by individuals like Hardeep Singh Nijjar, utilizing dubious financial structures and institutions with insufficient oversight or audit.
These anti-India activities, justified using the banner of freedom of expression, distort this fundamental democratic principle. While the importance of freedom of expression cannot be overstated, most democracies have instituted safeguards to prevent unfounded and escalatory rhetoric from causing harm to a nation’s internal cohesion and external relations. Leaders must demonstrate skillful statecraft when exercising these powers in democracies. The US Directorate of Intelligence expressed concern regarding the presence of 150,000 Sikhs in the US who provide financial support to extremist organizations in India. This highlights potential irritants in bilateral relations and threats to US interests in India.
Machiavelli’s “The Prince”: Modern Realism in International Relations
Machiavelli’s “The Prince” explores the art of statecraft and highlights the significance of pragmatism and realism in governance. His focus on the survival of the state, power politics, the segregation of morality in politics, perception management, and the deployment of force all conform to the fundamental principles of realism. While Machiavelli’s ideas may be contentious and sometimes lack morality, they provide a practical and realistic viewpoint on the intricacies of statecraft and international relations, rendering “The Prince” a timeless masterpiece with constant relevance in the realm of international politics. Assessing contemporary India’s approach to international relations, including its stance in the Canada-India dispute, requires objective evaluation without subjective interpretations. The relevance of Machiavellianism in this context is evident, where the ends justifying the means becomes a point of focus.
The ongoing crisis between Canada and India, triggered by accusations of India’s involvement in the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a prominent Khalistani figure, draws attention to several crucial issues. Firstly, it highlights flaws in Canada’s immigration process, which permits individuals with a controversial past to obtain citizenship and misuse their status to carry out actions against other nations. Secondly, Canada’s position on the matter aims to justify the state’s autonomy in granting separatist activities to foreign actors while feigning the protection of liberal democratic principles. The continuing tension between India and Canada illustrates that robust and secure global relations often hinge on intricate and sensitive matters in bilateral relations. It is necessary for leadership and diplomatic strategies to uphold stability while conveying apprehensions to the concerned party.
Trade and economic cooperation have suffered as a result of the strained relations between India and Canada. Both nations have expressed their desire to enhance their trade ties and negotiations for a comprehensive economic partnership agreement were already in progress. Nonetheless, the recent political turmoil has resulted in the suspension of these talks. This disruption impacts not only the economic interests of both countries but also their potential for collaboration in various sectors, including technology, agriculture, and renewable energy. Canada’s strained relations with India also have geopolitical implications, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. Canada has been actively seeking a role in the Indo-Pacific, aligning itself with like-minded nations such as the United Kingdom and Australia. China and Russia, watching the situation closely, may interpret this confrontation differently. Beijing may perceive it as an opportunity to hinder India’s efforts to forge closer ties with like-minded countries aiming to challenge China’s influence. Russia, on the other hand, may be content to see Canada embroiled in this crisis.
However, Canada’s credibility and effectiveness in the region may be compromised due to its domestic political considerations and strained relations with India. This could potentially have repercussions for Canada’s strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific and its ability to maintain regional stability. Unfortunately, Trudeau’s handling of this crisis has revealed a deficiency in traditional statecraft, despite his generational advantage in state leadership. This highlights Machiavelli’s insight into the significance of power in statecraft, and his central premise that a ruler’s primary duty is to guarantee the survival and security of the state – a duty that appears to have been neglected in this scenario.
Parallels in Contemporary India-Canada Relations
Finally, the crisis represents a challenge for India’s diplomacy. Although Canada’s decision to expel Indian diplomats was unfortunate, it called for a response from India. As India acquires more economic and political power, negotiating the rifts of the present global structure grows more complicated. The occurrence of these complicated choices, which test India’s reputation as a ‘soft state,’ is likely to expand.
India’s approach to Canada is an example of Kautilya’s concept of balancing interests. Similar to how Kautilya aimed to safeguard India’s interests whilst forging alliances, modern India is navigating its relationship with Canada to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The essentiality of intelligence and diplomacy is underscored in both texts. In the Canada-India dispute, intelligence has a key role in evaluating the situation and creating a diplomatic reply, consistent with Kautilya’s principles. This approach prioritizes national interests over idealism and emphasizes statecraft and leadership. Machiavelli’s realism resonates with contemporary Indian diplomacy, and the country’s practical strategy during allegations and political maneuvering reflects the teachings of “The Prince”. Both texts highlight the significance of statecraft and leadership. India’s reaction to the crisis necessitates effective statecraft to preserve diplomatic composure and articulate concerns without upsetting the balance. Kautilya’s stress on safeguarding sovereignty corresponds to India’s stance on the dispute. India should enforce its zero-tolerance policy on external abetment that poses a threat to national security.
In conclusion, the diplomatic spat between India and Canada underscores the necessity for adept statecraft and diplomacy in handling international relationships of fragility. It is clear that a turnaround in India-Canada relations is unlikely as long as Justin Trudeau remains in office. For now, the damage appears to be lasting, with both countries engaged in tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats. The need for mature diplomacy and a balanced approach to domestic and international concerns is paramount. While other nations like the UK and Australia have managed similar issues with India more diplomatically, Trudeau’s political desperation has jeopardized a once-promising partnership.
Furthermore, it accentuates the significance of protecting national interests while adhering to democratic values and principles. The enduring relevance of ancient wisdom in contemporary international relations is exemplified by elements from Kautilya’s “Arthashastra” and Machiavelli’s “The Prince” that have influenced the India-Canada row. As India maneuvers through the intricate diplomatic landscape, it references ancient texts to protect its interests, display diplomatic poise, and prioritize sovereignty in the face of adversity. These age-old insights remain a crucial guide to India’s statecraft in the complex domain of global diplomacy, solidifying its place as a prominent player on the world stage.