The cold war between India and Canada

The great distinction between a nationalist and a patriot is that a patriot is proud of what his country does but a nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does. India has been injected with a dose of hardcore nationalism since the time Prime Minister Modi came to power, nearly nine years ago. The world’s largest democracy and a secular state has been turned into an autocratic and authoritarian state and this Indian transition has come only through the Modi-injected dose of Hindu nationalism. In the words of the great American scholar Francis Fukuyama, “nationalism is the greatest remaining threat to liberalism” and to me the current India-Canada dispute is not a bilateral dispute between two different versions of democracies in the world but a dispute between two different ideologies in the world — liberalism and nationalism.

The ties between the two countries have ebbed to their lowest since the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar by masked gunmen in June this year. It is interesting to note that when viewed from an unbiased prism, the standpoint of both countries at the current stage seems very convincing. The Indians accuse Canada of harbouring terrorists as the Canadian government provides free rein to the Sikh community in Canada to engage in protests and provide lifeline to the Khalistan independence movement — a movement that started in the 1980s and only subsided as a result of the Indian government clampdown causing more than 22,000 deaths. Since then the Sikh community has been trying to stage a comeback and the India government doesn’t view favourably the Sikh diaspora anywhere in the world. Nationalist movements, even if for creation of an independent state, are seen as negative movements. It’s because they centre around the negative desire of separation from the motherland. In this context thus, all Indians excepts Sikhs view the Khalistan movement negatively. Wearing the Indian shoes, I will be inclined to question: if Nijjar was part of an Indian state-declared terrorist group (Khalistan Tiger Force has been declared a terrorist organisation by India) in India then why was he allowed to operate from a safe haven in Canada? Did Canada allow itself to become a safe haven for terror and terror financing? Wearing the Canadian shoes, one would imagine how a liberal democracy can allow the killing of a Canadian citizen by agents from a foreign government. All sovereign states take serious notice of such assassinations and even India wouldn’t tolerate foreign intelligence agencies operating in India and doing this to any Indian citizen.

The current India-Canada standoff is a typical example of how the future challenges and threats will be different from the challenges and threats of the past. Not the potential or actual use of military force in pursuit of policy and no more the conventional threat of one power against the another, but such challenges and threats as aggressive dictatorship, coercion of weaker states, subversion and fostering of civil unrest, economic pressures, political manipulation, influencing elections, counter narrative building through media control and hardcore acts of terrorism are likely to endure. In PM Modi’s authoritarian and nationalist democratic model his aggressive dictatorship might cost India a diplomatic embarrassment as much as the inability of Canadian leadership to stand up and defend the liberal democratic order may harm the very foundations of the existence of this order. Therefore, Canada must ensure that its citizens enjoy all rights to freedom including the freedom of religious practice. It is not only Canada but the entire liberal world which would not want to dismantle the very liberal international system that they have worked so hard to structure and create. An order that enforces international rules-based system in which unlike the decision of an individual or dictatorship it is imperative that the decisions come from the Parliament and have the popular public approval as well.

The lesser said about the US position in the matter the better. Compare the murder of Jamal Khashoggi in Turkey to this murder. President Joe Biden started his election campaign by accusing MBS of involvement in this murder and ended by the court in USA granting MBS sovereign immunity in the case being fought by the murdered Khashoggi’s fiancée. Similarly, if assassinating a terrorist is right and the US was right in doing this to Osama bin Laden then how can India be wrong in doing this to Nijjar?

There are two other aspects to this issue. One is how President Justin Trudeau’s poll numbers have consistently declined and Canada is home to the largest overseas communities of Indian region which number almost 1.4 million out of the total Canadian population of 40 million. If according to 2021 census, 800,000 Sikhs live in Canada then those votes are the votes that Trudeau has outright secured for his future electoral success. The other aspect is that maybe the liberal world led by the US has had enough of aggressive dictatorship of PM Modi. Maybe the global leadership sees an end of Modi era as India goes to elections in 2024 even though he is termed the most popular leader of the world with an approval rating of 78% as per the survey carried out earlier this year by the US-based consulting firm ‘Morning Consult’. It is may be for that reason that a process or course of action has been started with the mutual collaboration of the intelligence alliance of ‘The Five Eyes’. But it is one thing when PM Modi becomes a reason for India losing diplomatic face and Indian credibility in the outside world and another when the Indians go out to vote and consider otherwise.

Nationalist states created by aggressive dictators like PM Modi support populist leaders like him who consistently showcase a determinist attitude and a will and ability not only to deter but coerce the outside world. It is for this reason that the outcome of this India-Canada cold war will be very interesting. Its termination will decide what will become more trending and fashionable — an order of illiberal nationalism demanding blind loyalty to the country and its leadership or civic nationalism based on the promise of justice and equality of all citizens before the law.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 1^st, 2023.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.