Saturday, May 29, 2010

The Canada-India Dustup: Some Context

These are the relevant points/opinions that I've been able to glean from news reports, so far.

From SIFY (this appears to be an Indian owned and operated website), May 27:
  • "Lt. Gen. (retd) A.S. Bahia, a decorated Indian Army officer who is now a member of the Armed Forces Tribunal in Chandigarh, was denied visa in May on grounds that he had served in a "sensitive location" of Jammu and Kashmir.
  • In yet another case, two brigadiers were denied visas in 2008 and another in 2009.
  • S.S. Sidhu, a retired IB officer, was denied visa on March 26, with the Canadian high commission contending that he belonged to the "inadmissible" category of persons.
  • In the rejection letter, the Canadian high commission said Sidhu could not be given visa as he had served in an organisation like IB and, therefore, he could "engage in an act of espionage or subversion", or "violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada"."
  • "(Indian) Home Secretary G.K. Pillai said when asked if Canadians would be denied visas to India as a retaliatory measure: "The home ministry made it clear that if the IB officer was not given visa, Canadian citizens wanting to go to the war-ravaged Afghanistan from India may face similar problems."

From the Globe and Mail May 28,'10

  • Fateh Singh Pandher's visa application was for immigration to Canada, not for just visiting. He had already visited Canada a few years earlier to attend a wedding.
  • Other Indian applicants have been denied immigration visas due to their association with violence in Amritsar, a city that figured prominently in the conflict that led to the Air India terrorist attack.
  • Canadian Immigration Minister Jason Kenney issued an apology on Friday.
  • India’s booming economy makes it a major target for attempts to build trade ties to the East.
  • At home, the visa flap won’t help Conservative efforts to woo a diaspora of more than one million Indo-Canadians; some were offended by the insult, others by the apology.
  • Civil servants in the Canadian embassy in New Delhi are being stabbed in the back and blamed for their decisions.

And from CTV:

  • "The issue has been a top news story in India, with editorial writers pillorying Canada for what one newspaper called "the foul language used by its officials against Indian security and intelligence establishments."
  • (Regarding the apology) "The government of Canada therefore deeply regrets the recent incident in which letters drafted by public service officials during routine visa refusals to Indian nationals cast false aspersions on the legitimacy of work carried out by Indian defence and security institutions, which operate under the framework of democratic processes and the rule of law."
  • "After that story (Fateh Singh Pandher's) emerged, others started coming forward and Indian newspapers and television reported on every new case, which included members of India's army, police, paramilitary and intelligence forces.
  • Their complaints were similar: that Canadian visa officials had broadly interpreted a rule forbidding entry for war criminals to unfairly encompass the Indian military and police."
  • "The visa officers' letters were taken by many as a national insult, written under official Canadian letterhead. Canada's high commissioner was summoned by the Indian government to explain.
  • Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna declared the Canadian actions "entirely unacceptable" and threatened retaliation if no corrective steps were taken by Canada."
  • "The Harper government is anxious not to offend India as it tries to tap into its powerhouse economy. But the apology is also likely aimed at the one million Indo-Canadians who have followed the controversy closely."

So. What have we got? Men from India's armed forces and policing services, people who are authorized to do violence on behalf of the state, who may or may not have stepped over a line with respect to the use of that violence in the performance of their duties, were determined by Canadian immigration officials to be inadmissible to Canada as a result.

Sounds to me like the Canadian officials were just doing their duty. However, the question as to whether these individuals applying for visas were wrongfully refused is left undetermined, at least by the media. Much deeper investigation would be required to satisfactorily resolve that question, but it would certainly not be beyond the realm of possibility to believe that human rights violations did indeed take place. (h/t SDA)

However, in the interests of maintaining good relations with a very important ally in a critical region of the world, the politicians have overridden decisions made by bureaucrats. Their rationale is reasonable enough. India is an important ally in the war on terror, and in particular, their cooperation with respect to Afghanistan is essential. India has it's own issues with violent Islamic totalitarianism and it's in their interests to be tough on it's practitioners.

The economic argument is also compelling. India is a rising star on that front, and Canada is home to a great many enterprising and innovative business people with family and financial ties to the ancestral homeland. That's an important link that needs to be nurtured and strengthened. In addition, the Indian Prime Minister will be visiting Canada very shortly for the G20 summit. Now is not the time to be complicating matters with unnecessarily ruffled feathers, but perhaps ongoing talks with India about immigration matters and fight against terror, human rights, etc., etc., etc. will follow and that would be very productive.

But...what if the bureaucrats were right? What if this interference in their work dampens future investigations?  Have we just opened a big gaping hole in our borders through which unsavory characters from the Indian sub-continent can slither?  We need to delve deeper, that's for sure.

In the meantime, as SDA's guest blogger, Mark, points out, there's some delicious leftie hypocrisy on display here. Grab some popcorn.

Labels: , , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home