Glimpse into India’s relation with its diaspora
INDIA is proud of its diaspora and its achievements. It sees individual achievements overseas as India’s success. We tend to believe that all Indians —whether they carry Indian passports or not — must bat for India. We don’t see them as ‘real’ Canadians,
On the face of it, the visit of Canada’s Defence Minister Harjit Singh Sajjan to India was nothing more than routine. Sajjan, whose father emigrated to Canada from Punjab when he was still a child, is a Canadian Sikh—one of the many Canadian-Indians to occupy governmental posts in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s oh-so liberal administration. Yet, this visit brought to the fore some of the tensions that influence India’s perception of the world and, equally important, colour the domestic Indian relationship with its large diaspora.
The first issue had little to do with Sajjan, but was centred on the political culture of the country he represents and the outlook of the ruling Trudeau-led Liberal Party. Despite its origins as the North American outpost of immigrants of British origin who still valued the links with the Mother Country, Canada has over the years evolved its own distinctive political culture. As immigration into the country became more ethnically diverse, Canada has come to view itself as an aggressive repository of virtue and a haven for those who left their ‘old’ countries to whiff the air of freedom and prosperity. This is somewhat akin to how the USA projected itself in earlier, less fractious times. But Trudeau has taken it to newer heights by going out of his way to pro-actively welcome the victims of persecution, most notably the refugees from Syria whose presence in many European countries has been less welcoming. This in turn has generated an overdose of preachiness in the political culture and a presumption that Canada has acquired the right to tell other countries how to conduct their affairs of state.
It was this mindset that explains the curious resolution of the Ontario state legislature to pass a resolution sharply critical of India’s human rights record, to which was added a sentence describing the 1984 Sikh riots as a “genocide”. India took exception to this resolution, not because of the mention of 1984, but because it sought to paint India in the vilest possible way, as a country whose democratic credentials are suspect. The resolution was sponsored and supported by the Liberal Party’s legislators.
When Sajjan was confronted with this resolution during his Delhi visit, he brushed it aside as inconsequential, an election-related grandstanding and not reflective of the Canadian government’s view of India. He had to. Otherwise how would he explain the irony of Canada seeking to sell defence equipment to a country that has scant respect for human rights? It was not a very credible explanation.
To be fair, it was not self-interest that was behind this resolution. What explains it is a philosophy that is grounded in a notion of superiority. It is not a phenomenon confined to Canada. Neighbouring United States has an impressive track record of gratuitous interference in the affairs of other countries. Each year, to cite an example, the US publishes reports on the state of human rights and religious freedom, reports that create the basis of moral crusades. In the United Kingdom, an imperial country that no longer has an Empire, every problem in some corner of the world is accompanied by pressure on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to do ‘something’. There are also Early Day motions that permit MPs to vent their grievances against foreign countries on behalf of motivated lobbies. And, finally, there is the European Union that sees itself as a force for the good. Last week, to take a random but typical example, it peremptorily demanded an inquiry into charges of electoral irregularities that the Opposition levelled against President Erdogan after the referendum in Turkey. It was quite needless and based on a visceral hatred of Turkey’s strong President.
India can well retaliate by initiating a culture of counter-interference. We can encourage MPs to use Zero Hour to question what we like or don’t like about foreign countries. Australia can be debunked for cutting down on one category of visas; the UK can be denounced for not handing over the wanted Kingfisher boss on demand and, instead, insisting on lengthy and expensive court hearings; and we can pillory President Zuma of South Africa for being beastly to those he doesn’t like. It would make for great speeches and even enhance the awareness of world affairs of our political class. But it would make us look as silly as we did when Jawaharlal Nehru preached goodness to the world, even as Indian citizens were crippled with shortages and inefficiencies.
Today, nosey-parker foreign policy has been further complicated by the use of the Indian diaspora to charm India. In the case of Canada, it backfired when Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh refused to welcome the Canadian Minister owing to the latter’s pro-Khalistan sympathies. The CM presumably knows a thing or two about how Khalistani extremists have a run of the gurudwaras in Canada and spread the poison that resulted in the Kanishka air disaster in 1984. He did right to flag the issue quite effectively.
Singh’s snub to Sajjan made another point that western capitals don’t often recognise. India is proud of its diaspora and its achievements. It sees individual achievements overseas as India’s success. India is also quite understanding of those Indians who, for different reasons, have acquired the nationality of their host countries. We have chosen to call them Overseas Citizens of India. At the same time, we don’t like it when any OCI represents their adopted country in any dealings with India. We tend to believe that all Indians— whether they carry Indian passports or not— must bat for India. We don’t see them as ‘real’ Canadians, Britons or Americans. We may do so in another 50 years but for the moment we expect every son or daughter of Bharat Mata to uphold the tricolour. The OCI fails that test and does no good to the cause of his adopted country.