The latest Indo-Canadian diplomatic fracas has once again revealed the blow-cold-blow-colder nature of bilateral ties. Pundits on both sides are recycling familiar rhetoric. In Canada, the coming election has meant that partisan lines are being drawn, and ironically, the Liberals are trying to play the patriotic card by acting tough and accusing the Conservative Party of being in cahoots with the Narendra Modi government.
Meanwhile, in New Delhi, breathless anchors and experts are shouting, “How dare they accuse us of doing this,” followed by a slightly softer, “but even if we did it, they had it coming”. There is plenty to critique in this charade, but let us look away from the immediate to the more structural factors at play.
While Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s actions may seem sudden, or simply a cynical electoral ploy, they have to be understood in the context of deeper forces at play within Canadian society. Amid rising inflation and shrinking employment, anti-Indian racism is rising in Canada and the West.
Social media, and especially generative AI, has acted as a catalyst. Fake images (or deep fakes), which show Indians excreting on Canadian streets, or Indian men being generally dirty, smelly, and sexually aggressive towards Canadian (white) women, are being shared online. This has also led to the proliferation of the derogatory term “pajeet” being used for Indian men.
These stereotypes are being wielded and weaponised by sections of Canadian society to criticise Trudeau’s immigration policy. Since it cannot give back in the same racist coin, Trudeau’s Liberal Party seems to have used national sovereignty vis-à-vis the Indian government to assert its tough image to counter the Conservatives. However, regardless of the fact that Trudeau’s actions may have been positioned against the Indian government and not “Indians” per se, they may open a racial Pandora’s box in Canada.
Indians might find themselves on the receiving end of direct and indirect forms of prejudice. This may impact both Indian citizens in Canada as well as Canadians of Indian origin — as racists seldom observe nuance in these matters. To make matters worse, the hyper-nationalist online discourse emerging from India doesn’t help, as the much-trumpeted superpower status becomes the target of derision and scorn.
While race may seem far removed from the world of diplomacy, one needs to keep in mind that like the United States, Canada too was built on a bedrock of Anglo-Saxon domination and the violent erasure of native communities. Despite the considerable progress the country has made towards inclusion, whiteness is as much a structural feature of domestic society in Canada, as it is for alliances such as the Five Eyes which, not coincidentally, comprises countries that share the Anglo-Saxon bond. The other factor at play is the protection afforded by the American imperial umbrella. Thus, Indians may fume about Western double standards (“How come Israel is allowed to do what it wants”), but they must remember that despite the depoliticised language of “interests” and “multialignment” that is loved by the commentariat, race, empire, and capital form the invisible walls of international politics. They are in the in-group, we are in the out-group.
This brings me to the flip side of the coin, the political context in India. India’s own response has to be seen in a wider context of what I term “Israel envy”. For decades, India’s self-styled security experts have been afflicted by the fantasy that one day, India could be just like Israel — kill whoever it wants, wherever it wants, whether ghar mein ghuss ke or elsewhere. While the actual efficacy of this policy is up for debate, it does yield handsome domestic dividends. This domestication of foreign policy also means that diplomacy becomes a means to uphold national honour and avenge any slights. And, much like in Trudeau’s case, it helps the ruling party.
However, the shortcoming of an honour-based response is that the long-term ramifications, such as the impact of such a stance on India’s sizable immigrant population in Canada, are not considered. Moreover, the current crisis can also have domestic repercussions — so while official discourse may only name Khalistanis as a threat, majoritarian forces may be all too eager to conflate Khalistanis with Sikhs to bolster their politics.
On the external front, for reasons mentioned previously, India does not enjoy the same standard of impunity — it can do a Balakot against Pakistan all it wants, but playing Agent Vinod in the imperial core does have consequences. So, while the United States may continue to be friendly towards India, it may subtly allow Canada to do the dirty work on its behalf.
As some have observed, the kind of intelligence that the Canadian police investigation requires would be impossible without intelligence inputs from the Five Eyes. Essentially, the message for India is, “You are our friend, but don’t get too big for your boots”.
Where does all of this leave us? Foreign policy experts usually have useful policy prescriptions. Since I don’t have those, I will end with a sobering reality check. Both Canada and India have to reckon with the glaring contradictions that characterise their respective societies and states, and sitting on the high horse of honour doesn’t do them any favours. Tit-for-tat politics, whilst useful for narrow ends, can have profound societal repercussions and pundits sitting in Ottawa and New Delhi would be wise to remember this.
The writer is assistant professor of International Relations, Ashoka University. Views are personal
