On September 22, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar arrived in the United States and had to deal with multiple crises. India and Canada's diplomatic hostility had boiled over and reached an impasse. It is now obvious that the relationship between Canada and India is unlikely to improve as long as Justin Trudeau is prime minister, regardless of the direction the alleged inquiry into the death of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar takes.
However, from India's perspective, the second-order repercussion—the impact of the crisis on India-US relations—is a far more significant event. When it seemed like India-US relations were set to take off, the debate has caused some confusion. The unspoken concern in both New Delhi and Washington is that the momentum will be lost. Complicating matters further are the unrelenting criticism in western media and the combative answers from India, where the problem has stoked a divided political system.
In India, some of the comments made by the Joe Biden administration regarding what are currently just claims (based on alleged "intelligence") of an extrajudicial killing on Canadian soil have caused confusion and even resentment. Evidence is not intelligence.
In terms of India's involvement, Trudeau has yet to provide any proof or precise facts to support his assertions. For a crime that took place in June, not a single arrest has yet been made. According to reports, the Canadian police botched the investigation, which is still ongoing.
In light of these facts, India has grown further hurt by reports that Canada used American intelligence to develop the accusations, despite later stories in American media claiming that Canada was the source of the key intelligence that gave rise to the charge. Whatever the case, sceptics of both the US and India have found a fresh lease on life.
This shared scepticism is fueled by critical misconceptions and informational gaps, which are expressed through outrage on one side and conspiracy theories on the other. These gaps must be filled if India and the US are to "work together" rather than just "deal with each other," as the external affairs minister stated in Washington on Friday.
Unfortunately, India does not fully comprehend the nature of the connection between the US and Canada. America's family includes Canada, which is also its closest treaty ally. A partnership based on shared interests, history, geography, trade, and business is supported by a strong emotional connection, creating unbreakable bonds that go far beyond FVYE and G7 membership.
Therefore, it would be hard for the Democratic-led Biden administration to disregard the substance of Trudeau's accusation without appearing to be on Canada's side. It is obvious that Washington is in a difficult situation.
Regardless of its own track record with extrajudicial executions, the US cannot be viewed as endorsing the crime (I have argued in my previous column that it lacks the moral authority to teach on this matter, and it plainly didn't enjoy being put on the spot by Trudeau based on faulty intelligence). As a result, it has made an effort to separate itself from the debate by stating via the media that "Canada provided the smoking gun."
Washington's response has also been noticeably different from that of the time of Jamal Khashoggi's murder, despite the fact that US national security adviser Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have made appropriately stern statements without appearing to balance India's concerns. This has led to accusations of unfairness in India.
Washington has so far taken a cautious approach in asking Canada to finish the inquiry and pleading with India to help. Sullivan's and Blinken's soundbites of outrage should be viewed in light of their insistence that "India is not Russia" (Sullivan) or that they will not engage in "private diplomatic conversations" despite media pressure.
Unintentionally, Trudeau's accusations against India have turned into a public test of US loyalty. If Washington fails to support its G7, FVYE, and closest ally at least partially, it sends bad signals about American commitment to alliances and would also teach India, its emerging strategic partner, a valuable lesson.
The odd dynamic of the US-Canada relationship, which came up as an aside during Jaishankar's conversation with American columnist Walter Russell Mead at an event at the Hudson Institute on Friday, is the second thing that has even less comprehension in India. The Canadians believe that they are morally superior to their neighbours and are so positioned higher in the social hierarchy. Canada's claim to preeminence is not a military power but a normative one within the implicit framework of Western exceptionalism. This idea is faulty, as are many ideas of this kind, yet it is an example of Western exceptionalism.
This background is crucial to comprehending the Western argument that India's actions (if verified) violate the "rules-based order" and that Canada couldn't have harboured a terrorist on its territory. This argument may sound gratingly self-serving and hypocritical to Indian ears. Many Americans have completely different opinions of Canada than do Indians, and their assessments of values reflect this.
It wasn't shocking to see Jaishankar attempting to close this perceived gap with the American public. "For Americans, Canada perhaps looks very different," the external affairs minister remarked at the Hudson Institute, a think tank in Washington, DC. What matters and where the shoe pinches depends on the interests. For India, though, Canada is a place where organised crime from India, coupled with human trafficking, mixed with secessionism, violence, and terrorism — it's a really poisonous cocktail of issues and people who have found operating space there.
The larger issue is that American media, lawmakers, and discourse-shapers have been woefully blindsided, in part because of their opinion of Canada and their lack of understanding of India's serious concerns over secessionist movements and terrorism — scourges that have plagued the Indian state and left an indelible mark. This is why some of the outrage being displayed by American lawmakers is undoubtedly the result of electoral calculations.
Later that day on Friday, at a news conference in Washington, Jaishankar brought up the subject once more, but this time in much more detail.
In India, no one will be surprised if you tell them that there are people in Canada who are advocating violence, separatism, or that there is a history there, the minister said, referring to Canada's "very permissive attitude towards terrorists, extremist people who openly advocate violence." All Indians are aware of this, but I doubt many Americans are. I believe that many of the things I addressed in the meeting today were novel to Americans.
Jaishankar was talking about his talks with Sullivan and Blinken when he stated the topic of Canada came up and while they presented US viewpoints and assessments, he "explained to them" India's viewpoints and concerns "and hopefully we came out better informed".
He emphasised this during the presser.
"It's crucial that we discuss the issue with the Americans because when Americans look at Canada, they see something, but when we in India look at Canada, we see something else, and that's part of the issue. After all, they are close friends of ours and are located not far from India. Therefore, it's crucial that they understand our viewpoint as well.What we've done is a really sensible course of action. When was the last time one of our missions was so intimidated that it was unable to carry out its regular duties? You have a lot to consider if someone argues that this may occur in a G7 or Commonwealth nation.
Jaishankar stated, "My diplomats are unsafe going to the embassy or to the consulate in Canada," in reference to the circumstances the Indian diplomatic corps encounters there. They experience open intimidation. And as a result, I was forced to temporarily halt even my visa activities.
Interestingly, news broke from Glasgow, Scotland, on the same day that the Indian High Commissioner to the UK, Vikram Doraiswami, was prevented from entering a gurdwara by two Khalistani radicals who accosted the diplomat's car and filmed the incident to spread it on social media. Khalistani supporters reportedly shot at and vandalised the car of a Sikh restaurant owner in London. According to a News18 report, the UK has promised India that it will take action against the culprits.
It's vital to keep in mind that the public statements made by Jaishankar on one side and Blinken and Sullivan on the other are intended to address and lessen the extremely public character of the diplomatic fallout, despite the fact that the Canada-India conflict has brought attention to the West's Khalistan problem on a global scale.
Every indication thus far is that all three sides are now making a serious effort to contain the escalation. However, a very different dynamic would play out in private. While the US and India have made their respective adjustments, Trudeau has visibly softened his stance and reiterated that Canada is "serious about ties with India." On Friday, Jaishankar stated repeatedly at various fora that "if there is a requirement for us to look at something, we are open to looking at it."
It is impossible to predict how the crisis will end because it will probably take place behind tightly closed doors with details we may never fully understand, but when it comes to the bilateral relations between the US and India, it is instructive to pay attention to what the leaders do rather than what they say.
While the I2U2, an alliance of India, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States, unveiled a new collaborative space enterprise on the fringes of the UNGA, Jaishankar arrived in New York City for the meeting of the Quad foreign ministers during the height of the crisis.
The eighth US-India 2+2 Intersessional Dialogue was co-chaired on September 26 in Washington, DC, by the top Pentagon official Ely Ratner, US Assistant Secretary of State Donald Lu, India's additional secretary at MEA Vani Rao, and joint secretary Vishwesh Negi of the Union Defence Ministry. The conversation "advanced a wide range of ambitious initiatives across the breadth of the U.S.-India partnership, including defence and security, emerging technologies, people-to-people ties, clean energy, and supply chain resilience," according to a readout of the conversation. Jaishankar has spent more than a week in the US and has already met everyone he needs to on the American side.
Aside from his much-discussed meetings with Sullivan and Blinken, Jaishankar also met US Trade Representative Katherine Tai, US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, and US Secretary of Defence Lloy to discuss "progress that has been made under the US-India CEO Forum and US-India Commercial Dialogue as well as recent developments and positive momentum in the US-India trade relationship following the resolution of seven longstanding disputes at the World Trade Organisation."
The US Department of State's readout following the Blinken-Jaishankar meeting does not mention Canada at all, despite the fact that we are aware that the topic was brought up at the meeting.
Despite the public posturing, it appears that both parties are working to isolate the Canada issue so that the trajectory of overall bilateral relations remains strong and immune to infection. Both parties have put a lot of money into the relationship in an effort to keep it from being wasted on pricey moral pretentiousness.
0 Comments