Will Canada’s uneasy ties with India abate with the new Prime Minister Mark Carney appointing Anita Anand as the country’s first Hindu Foreign Minister?
For reference, Anand/Ananda in Hindi/Sanskrit means Joy/Happiness.
With the Gita (Hindu Holy Book) in her hands, she took oath last week (May 13), something she had done before while taking oath under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (she was the country’s defence, trade, and transport minister in the previous government).
The display of her “symbolism” of being a practising Hindu may be of significance in a country with sizeable presence of Indian diaspora, including the Khalistani extremists whom Trudeau was said to have courted unconditionally. And in the process, this could have been a signal to India for a change, because Trudeau’s excessive love for the Khalistanis had made him consider India virtually as an enemy country.
Born in Kentville, Nova Scotia, to Indian immigrants—her mother, Saroj D. Ram, from Punjab, and father, Sundaram V. Anand, from Tamil Nadu—Anand’s roots are steeped in the rich diversity of India’s vast cultural mosaic. She traversed from a small-town upbringing in a predominantly white Canadian province to the forefront of international diplomacy.
It was, therefore, not surprising to see India extending warm congratulations, with External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar highlighting their shared Tamil Nadu heritage. Equally unsurprising is that many retired Indian diplomats and analysts view her appointment as a diplomatic opening for strained ties between New Delhi and Ottawa.
However, based on global experience, there have been mixed results of leaders favouring the countries from which their families migrated. This depends on various factors such as their personal experiences, political motivations, and the specific context of the country’s global perspective.
Leaders with a strong connection to their country of origin may feel a sense of obligation or affinity, potentially influencing their policies and decisions. And that can help a lot by bringing the two countries closer.
The converse could also be the case. Leaders might prioritize their career goals and political standing, which could lead them to make decisions based on broader national interests rather than personal ties. In fact, they may see favoritism towards their country of origin as biased or discriminatory, potentially harming their reputation and political standing.
For example, former U. S. Vice President Kamala Harris was said to be not exactly a popular figure either in India or among the Indian Diaspora in the U.S. for her preference to be seen as a leader of the “Blacks” rather than of Indian-Americans. Besides, she found greater ideological affinity with a section of the American liberals who questioned India’s treatment of Muslims and policy toward Kashmir.
Similarly, British Conservative leader Rishi Sunak was a proud Hindu and made history by becoming the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He has perhaps the strongest Indian connection, with his wife preferring to remain an Indian citizen. But he could not conclude the much-debated India-British trade pact, which was eventually signed last fortnight under Sunak’s successor, Keir Starmer of the Labour Party.
Against this background, one has to wait before evaluating Anita Anand’s importance for India. In fact, it remains to be seen whether India will figure in her priorities. As Canada’s top diplomat, she has not yet spoken about India. Instead, she has stressed the need to support Ukraine and criticized Israel for using food delivery as a weapon in Gaza.
In any case, Canada’s immediate geopolitical and geoeconomic challenges happen to be the U.S. President Donals Trump’s “trade-war” and “dream” of making Canada the 51st American state.
Ultimately, Prime Minister Mark Carney will set the tone for what may become a pivotal redefinition of Canada’s role in the world. His speech at Rideau Hall (the official residence of the Governor General of Canada) on May 13 gave some indications in this regard.
Some analysts have referred to that speech as a precursor to what should be the “Carney Doctrine.” In it, he elaborated on Canada’s ability to “convene, contribute, and lead where it matters most.”
Canadian strategic elites argue that a Carney Doctrine should focus on “ trade, currency, and capital flows that now geostrategic weapons”, “defending democracy and human dignity”, “ climate and energy security”, “technological sovereignty and cyber defence”, and “revitalised multilateralism”.
There are also arguments for strengthening Canadian security by investing more. Last year, Canada spent less than 1.4 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on defense. During the electioneering, Carney had promised to meet or exceed NATO’s target of allocating at least 2 percent of its GDP to defense. That would mean a defense budget of approximately $13 billion (USD).
As regards India, Carney’s only significant remark in a press interview has been that “It’s an incredibly important relationship on many levels – personal, economic, and strategic”.
But he has not elaborated on that, though he has avoided any mention of the killing of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar, an incident that Trudeau exploited to sour the ties with India by alleging that the Indian government agents were involved in the killing. Carney has limited himself on that episode to only saying that the “strains on the relationship” could be addressed with mutual respect.
Incidentally, Carney got himself elected to the Canadian Parliament from the Nepean constituency after his Liberal party removed Indian-Canadian Chandra Arya as the party candidate. Arya, originally from Karnataka, had represented that constituency for as long as nine years. He has been a vociferous critic of the Khalistan activists in Canada and their nefarious influence on the Canadian government.
Arya was charged with being close to Indian Prime Minister Modi and thus facilitating foreign interference in Canadian politics. Arya has just launched the Hindu Public Affairs Council of Canada (HPAC), but that is a different story.
When one talks of the Indian Diaspora in Canada, Sikhs are no doubt the largest among them. But when oneviews people of Indian origin overall in Canada, it is to be noted that though Canadian Sikhs are the largest Indian Community, numbering nearly 800,000 people and accounting for 2.1% of Canada’s population as of 2021 census, they are still less in number if other people of Indian origin are taken to account. The approximate population of Indian Canadians is around 1.9 million or 19 lakhs, of which Sikhs are 8 lakhs.
Besides, not all Canadian Sikhs are Khalistan supporters. For most in the Sikh Diaspora in Canada, Khalistan is not a “hot” issue. Terry Milewski, who has authored a book titled “Blood for Blood: Fifty Years of the Global Khalistan Project (2021), says that support for Khalistan has dwindled within the diaspora over the years.
“There is a small minority that is clinging to the past, and that small minority remains significant not because of popular support, but rather because they are trying to keep up their political influence with various political parties, both from the left and the right. They can rally supporters en masse who will vote for the politicians who can sing their song,” Milewski points out.
Another point of Milewski is notable from a different angle. As he says, “(Today) the Khalistan movement is not about popular support … It is about geo-politics. Countries like China and Pakistan can well tolerate, subsidize, and assist in various ways the Khalistan movement on the basis that it is making trouble for their enemies in India.” Canada cannot afford to do this, he suggests.
When one talks of geopolitics, by annoying India, Trudeau harmed his government’s “Indo-Pacific Strategy” released in 2022. Terming the Indo-Pacific, to which it also belongs, as “a new horizon of opportunity,” Canada, through this strategy, has identified four regions to focus on – China, India, the North Pacific (Japan and Korea), and ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations).
And it is Trudeau’s government that had recognized the importance of India in this strategy. India’s growing strategic, economic, and demographic significance in the Indo-Pacific makes it a critical partner in
Canada’s pursuit of its objectives under this strategy, it had said, adding “Canada and India have a shared tradition of democracy and pluralism, a joint commitment to a rules-based international system and multilateralism, mutual interest in expanding our commercial relationship and extensive and growing people-to-people connections.
“India’s strategic importance and leadership—both across the region and globally—will only increase as India—the world’s biggest democracy—becomes the most populous country in the world and continues to grow its economy. Canada will seek new opportunities to partner and engage in dialogue in areas of common interest and values, including security”.
However, developments over the last three years have jeopardized all these ideas. Will Carney reconsider his predecessor’s policy?
The answer to this question can be found out shortly, depending on whether he, as the leader of the host country, will invite Modi to the forthcoming G-7 summit next month (June 15 -17) in Kananaskis, Alberta. At this summit, heads of the governments of the world’s top industrialised and developed countries will deliberate on global issues.
After all, the Indian Prime Minister has been a Special Invitee at every G-7 summit held since 2019, reflecting India’s rising global stature and the recognition of its role as a major economic and geopolitical actor.
- Author and veteran journalist Prakash Nanda is Chairman of the Editorial Board of the EurAsian Times and has been commenting on politics, foreign policy, and strategic affairs for nearly three decades. He is a former National Fellow of the Indian Council for Historical Research and a recipient of the Seoul Peace Prize Scholarship.
- VIEWS PERSONAL OF THE AUTHOR
- CONTACT: prakash.nanda (at) hotmail.com
