INDIA ROARS, CANADA SNORES

by Cleo Paskal

Award-winning journalist Cleo Paskal has written for The Economist, The Sunday Times (UK), The Independent (UK), Columbia Journalism Review, Maclean's, Globe and Mail, Australian Financial Review, Japan Times and the Times of India among other leading newspapers and periodicals. She has produced and presented series for BBC radio and wrote an Emmy-winning TV series. She was a regular columnist for the CBC and the National Post and is currently writing weekly "Letters Home" for the Toronto Star, while working on a book about the geopolitical implications of climate change.

She can be reached through her website: www.cleopaskal.com.

While China is hogging the headlines, another Asian giant is quietly wending its way through the back pages, making friends and influencing economies. India has changed dramatically in the last decade. Its economy is opening up, it is a declared nuclear power, software and biotech industries are booming and it is increasingly being seen as a safe investment alternative to China.

In the past year alone, the Indian parliament passed a major medical patent law, an open-skies deal was signed with the U.S., domestic low-cost carriers are springing up like mushrooms after the rain and a bill was tabled in Parliament to allow the setting up of Chinese-style Special Economic Zones. The Zones would include tax concessions, their own law system, and their own infrastructure (including airports). If it passes, it will completely redefine the Indian investment scene.

The changes have not gone unnoticed. Recently a parade of high-level delegations (including ones from China, Japan, the U.N., and the U.S.) has passed through New Delhi trying to build ties. Not only do they want access to markets, they want access to people. India annually produces hundreds of thousands of high-tech and science graduates who are well trained, hard-working and, crucially, speak English. They are critical to the knowledge economy. And it is not just I.T. and call centres. In medicine alone, an estimated one-third of the UK's National Health Service is staffed by doctors and nurses of Indian origin.

Canada also came knocking, in the form of a visit by Paul Martin and a major trade mission led by the Minister of International Trade, Jim Peterson. The Canadians were keen to emphasize the ties between the two countries. One of the Indo-Canadian MPs joked that in the Canadian Parliament the most common languages were, in order: English, French, Italian and Punjabi. In September Canada partnered with India for the 11th Technology Summit and Technology Platform in New Delhi. And in October, the Indian Minister of External Affairs, Natwar Singh, came to Canada for a visit.

~

The problem is the Canadian government is far behind when it comes to truly understanding India. In spite of grand statements, it is consistently patronizing. We started off well, with strong relations between Lester Pearson and Jawaharlal Nehru. We were even involved with helping to set up India's civilian nuclear program. But when India (a democracy that had already been attacked by authoritarian neighbours China and Pakistan) conducted nuclear weapons tests in the early 1970s, we furiously cut off relations.

When tests were repeated again in 1998, Canada was one of the most vociferous countries condemning India. Canada's foreign affairs minister at the time, Lloyd Axworthy, went so far as to say that India would never be considered for the U.N. Security Council if it continued acting like that. This showed a stunning misunderstanding of geopolitics. One of the reasons India is being taken so seriously in international circles is because it is nuclear capable. And next door to China. It is seen not only as economically attractive, but also as a potential balancer of regional power.

Another impediment to Canada-India relations has been Canada's poor monitoring of potential security threats to India, most dramatically and tragically witnessed in the bungling of the Air India bombing investigation. If India had so poorly handled a terrorist attack on an Air Canada flight, think there might have been a few calls for Canadian investigators to take over the case? Canada is a relative latecomer when it comes to understanding the threats posed by terrorism, but since 1994 alone, according to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, an estimated 50,000 people have died in terrorism-related events in India. That includes attacks on the parliament, major religious buildings and, most recently, markets.

Also, at ground level, the Canadian High Commission in Delhi has an abysmal reputation when it comes to dealing with visa applications. In spite of all the talk about bringing in more high-skills immigrants, Canada hasn't even managed to sort out the normal tourism visa situation (educated Indian immigrants are being courted by most countries are less likely to move to ones they can’t even visit as a tourist).

~

I personally know three high-level Indians who have had problems (one an ex-government minister). What happened to Shirish Nadkarni, a well-to-do management consultant and business journalist who writes for, among others, Lloyd's List in London, is fairly typical. Mr. Nadkarni applied for a visa to participate in the badminton section of the World Masters Games in Edmonton (he was defending world champion). He already had multi-year visas for the other two destinations on his itinerary, the U.S. and the U.K.

He sent in documents showing that his wife, an oncologist, and his daughter were staying behind in India, and that he owns a flat and two offices in Mumbai. He had also submitted all income-tax documents, the invitation from the World Masters Games, proof of his previous World Masters' victory in Australia, return air ticket, hotel booking vouchers for Edmonton and tickets for an Alaska cruise ex-Vancouver at the end of the tournament. The Canadian High Commission sent him back a form letter that read (in part): "Based on the information provided in conjunction with your application, you have not satisfied me that you have sufficient ties to your country of residence to satisfy me that you would depart Canada if allowed to enter as a visitor." When he tried to go to the High Commission in person to explain his case, they would not see him.

The High Commission just assumed the lure of Canada would be too much for him (in spite of the fact that many high-achieving ex-pat Indians are now flowing back to India to start up companies there, as the country offers more opportunity for growth).

Needless to say, Mr. Nadkarni now holds the view that the Canadian government is condescending, to say the least.

Understaffing is no excuse. Canada charges Indians approximately US$115 to apply for a tourist visa, and the money is not refunded if the application is refused. In total, in 2004, Canada issued 48,884 temporary visas to Indians (that includes all visitors, students, workers, tourists & business travelers). This may be good business for the government, but the out-of-hand rejections are costing the Canadian tourism industry untold amounts and sullying Canada’s reputation with the Indian middle class.

The visa problem is such a sticking point that, in early November, the Indian High Commissioner to Canada, Shyamala B. Cowsik, voiced her frustration at a Canada-India Business Council function attended by over 200 top executives of various Canadian companies (and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty). She politely pleaded that: "the process of issuing visas to Indian students, businessmen, and professionals should be more flexible and less time consuming."

~

Canada says it is trying to build bridges to the New India, but the government still doesn't really get it. During the recent visit by Natwar Singh, Canada signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with India that will allow for the sale of dual-use technologies (this was likely done, in part, to not miss out on a slice of the pie if the U.S. approves their own Indo-American nuclear cooperation deal).

Announcing the agreement with Singh at his side, foreign affairs minister Pierre Pettigrew said: "We are impressed by the progress that has been made by India." As if India, a multi-cultural, multi-lingual, democracy that went from being left for dead by the British in 1947, to bringing peace and prosperity to hundreds of millions, needs a pat on the head from Canada to prove it is doing well. Yes, India has a long way to go, but they have come incredibly far against incredible odds.

It is time for the Canadian government to take a serious look at the new India and to reevaluate how they treat it. To do that, it is useful to look at India in its regional context.

India's reaction to the tsunami disaster was particularly telling. Within hours, two of the affected countries, the Maldives and Sri Lanka turned to it for help. The Indians replied quickly and generously, sending drinking water, generators and medicines not only to those two countries, but to Indonesia as well. Controversially, India itself initially refused aid from other foreign governments, except from some of their smaller neighbours, like Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, in order to "respect their sentiments" (this same self-sufficient stand was also seen after the recent earthquake during which India refused international aid, but offered help to Pakistan).

The tsunami message was clear. Yes, we are having a hard time, but not only can we take care of ourselves, we can take care of our friends. This was in stark contrast to the relatively small amount of aid offered by the apparent dominant force in the area, China.

~

India's seemingly successful policy of making new friends is leading to some dramatic shifts in the balance of power in Asia. A case in point is the relationship between India and Israel. Fifteen years ago, there was no official diplomatic relations between the two countries. India, a leader of the non-aligned movement during the cold war, was close to the Soviet Union. Israel was close to the United States.

Individuals in both India and Israel saw the need for closer ties. One of the originators of the idea, Dr. Martin Sherman from Tel Aviv University, explains: "I was invited to a conference in New Delhi just after the Indians had exploded their nuclear device. The American ambassador for non-proliferation and I were the only non-Indians attending. He was very harsh with the Indians. I just applied the basic principals of balance of power and profitability of the Indian sector."

There were also strong commonalities between the two nations. Both were dealing with terrorism, both were developing high-tech economies, both were democracies surrounded by autocratic states. But, in part because of the Americans, it was difficult to bring the two countries together officially. So, a backdoor had to be found.

One of the main "carpenters" of that backdoor was Prof. Madhav Das Nalapat. Prof. Nalapat, once the editor of the Times of India, is now a professor of geopolitics at Manipal Academy, an elite private university. While an advisor to India's National Security Council, he has no formal role in government. Regardless, he is part Cassandra, part Machiavelli, and he predicts and helps shape policy at the highest level. If you could fingerprint foreign policy, his whorls and loops would show up everywhere, consistent eddies lurking near troubled waters (on September 11, 2001, he was in New York City, having just arrived from Washington where he had warned incredulous officials that there was to be an attack).

In 1992 Prof. Nalapat promoted the creation of lobbying networks amongst Indians settled in the U.S.. At his urging, Indian-Americans, one of the most prosperous and educated groups in the United States, formed organizations in Washington based in part on the successful Jewish-American lobby. It wasn't long before the Indian caucus became the largest on Capitol Hill.

As the Indian-American lobby became more influential in Washington, it became more influential in New Delhi. It was the perfect backdoor. Under Prof. Nalapat's prodding, Indian-Americans and Jewish-Americans then came together and started talking. The echoes were heard in India and Israel.

~

It wasn't long before they were working together on specific legislation. By 2003, the relationship was so strong that the Indian-Americans and Jewish-Americans combined to successfully lobby the American government to allow Israel to sell Phalcon early warning radar planes to India. 2003 was also the year the new security relationship came out in the open. Prof. Nalapat hosted a high level trilateral Indo-Israeli-U.S. security conference in New Delhi. Top strategic and defense figures from all three countries came. The following year the conference was held in Israel; attendees included the former head of the counter intelligence division of RAW (India's CIA), the former U.S. deputy Ambassador to the U.N., and the former head of the Mossad. A third conference was held this March in Washington. It has become a process made permanent.

In ten years, India and Israel have gone from the skimpiest official relationship, to Jerusalem being the second largest defense supplier to India after Russia.

The geopolitical matchmaker, Prof. Nalapat, then turned his gaze towards Taiwan, a country he considers important to the balance of power in Asia. It was, as with Israel in the past, no coincidence that there were inconveniences in the way of an official relationship between Taiwan and India. This time it was China who would not be delighted. So, again, it was the Indian-Americans who made the first approach.

In October 2004, Prof. Nalapat coaxed a delegation of Indian-Americans into going to meet with Taiwanese officials. There were many similarities with the start of the Indo-Israeli process. Again, commonalities were stressed. It was reiterated that India and Taiwan are both democracies, something important to the Americans. India excels in software, Taiwan dominates in hardware. India needs investment, Taiwan is looking to diversify. What the professor left unspoken: both Taipei and New Delhi are concerned about China.

But Prof. Nalapat was very clear: India supports the one China policy

- though New Delhi has never said that Taiwan is part of that One China. India is unquestionably developing strong relations with China, but they also want strong relations with Taiwan.

The situation, explained Prof Nalapat, is that China is already investing billions in India and is keen to invest more. China knows that the more they invest, the more influence they will have. So far India has been impeding China's efforts to become involved in building major infrastructure components in India. For strategic and philosophical reasons, India would prefer the Taiwanese to come in and help with those. That said, the message to Taipei, though unstated, was clear: while the Taiwanese would be preferred, India's patience has limits, in large part because India's development needs don't.

~

Wherever he goes, Prof. Nalapat gives a quick over-view of the surging Indian economy, the 4th largest in the world in Purchasing Power Parity terms. It will soon have a middle class of 250 million, he told the Taiwanese. India also excels in what he called the 'inspiration' industries of the high value-added knowledge economy (especially I.T.), as opposed to China's 'perspiration' industries (manufacturing). From a purely financial point of view, it would make sense for Taiwan to shift some of its investment to India.

Major new projects were discussed, including the unprecedented setting up of a Chinese-style special economic zone for Taiwanese industry in Southern India, not subject to Indian taxation or labor laws, in exchange for large-scale Taiwanese investment. The Indians would also be willing to collaborate with the Taiwanese on biotech, nanotech and other civilian innovations.

There was also talk of the desirability of a balance of power in Asia, both economic and strategic. It was clear to the Taiwanese that the more they invested in India, the more India would be involved in its future. And they were a good friend to have, as India is not only a good investment, but it is a nuclear power and has several hundred thousand troops on the Chinese border.

The delegation left the Taiwanese with a lot to think about. And, within months, the Taiwanese started coming to India on trade missions. Recently the first India-Taiwan security conference was held in Delhi, It was attended by a stellar array of high-ranking officials from both sides. The game is on.

But Prof. Nalapat has moved on to bigger stakes. One that even has a role for Canada. His new plan is for a North America-Asia Treaty Organization (NAATO). It would be a U.S. and India anchored security system for Asian democracies (and Canada). The Americans seem to be listening. The "Core Coalition" announced by President Bush for fighting the effects of the Tsunami comprised of - surprise, surprise - the very same countries that would form the core of an Asian NATO: the US, India, Australia and Japan.

Turns out, the relationship with Israel has itself proved a backdoor into a closer military relationship with the United States. Already India is proving its value. According to Prof. Sherman, "Who controls the Indian Ocean is very important. It is a major passage for smuggling arms and equipment for terrorist activity. It is preferable for India to control it than Iran. A strong Indian navy in the Indian Ocean is important for Israel and the United States. India is a strong source of stability in the area."

Prof. Nalapat's NAATO would only include democracies, isolating countries such as Saudi Arabia and, yes, China. It would be the true balance of power that many are looking for. Informal elements are starting to come together. The Singaporean military now trains in India and India and the U.S are conducting joint military exercises.

~

Five years ago, the idea of an Indo-Israeli-American security summit seemed absurd. Five years from now, Canadians might be sending troops on joint training exercises in India. If we are lucky. As it stands our government has a long way to go, but we do have one advantage. We may not be able to offer the markets of the U.S. or Europe, but there are around 700,000 Indo-Canadians who are fast becoming a strong political force and could act as a potential bridge between the two nations.

India is changing, fast. And we have the potential to hitch along for the ride. We just have to be willing to accept New India on its own terms, and not to try to dictate how a proper 'developing' country should act. The New India is looking for equal partners. The question is, do we match up?