Former Indian Ambassador to Canada on how Canada India Relations normalize?

Rupesh Patel (00:05.799) Hey, Rupesh Patel here, back with another episode. I'm really excited about this episode. I've been waiting to talk to this gentleman for such a long time. You know, with the Canadian election going on, there's a topic that I think we probably haven't talked about in a while or have discussed as sort of an electorate, and that's the state of Canadian Indian relations. If you remember a few years ago, there was a bit of riff in the relationship, and since that time, it's made world attention. And I thought we should revisit it because it is an important relationship. There's not just a huge Indian diaspora, but there's economic interests between the two countries. And, you know, both countries have had fairly a good relationship over many, many years. And so a really good person to talk to is one of the former ambassadors to Canada from India, Ajay Basaria. And so in today's episode, we're going to talk about the state of Indian relationship, the Indian relationship. We're going to explore challenges, opportunities. explore some past events and maybe what the government of Canada could have possibly done differently from the Indian government standpoint to other challenges that maybe the Indian government sees at home here in Canada. It's gonna be a fascinating conversation. So let's unpack this and I'd like to welcome Ajay Basaria to the show. Ajay, it's quite the honor to have you on the show today. Thank you so much for making time for me. Ajay Bisaria (01:27.896) Thank you, Rupesh. Great to be on your show. Rupesh Patel (01:30.291) Thank you so much. So maybe let's start with who Ajay Basaria is. I mean, I've researched you. I see that you have more than 35 years of foreign service experience. You've traveled the world. You write all the time about different topics that are so fascinating and interesting. But who is Ajay Basaria and how did you even get involved in the Indian Foreign Service? Ajay Bisaria (01:54.189) Well... Thank you for that. if I reflect on the 35 years I spent in government, I would say that I am a fortunate civil servant, a fortunate diplomat, because I landed up in interesting places at interesting times. So I was present in my first posting in the Soviet Union when it broke up. I was in Europe when it was unifying. Germany, right after German unification, I was in Europe, in Poland during the Brexit and then in Pakistan and in Canada in interesting times. So I think I would say I've been a fortunate civil servant and now I've reinvented myself for a second career, which is partly being a think tanker, partly being a corporate advisor and of course trying to be a good golfer, but not really succeeding at that. Rupesh Patel (02:58.217) Was being in government something you had always thought about or did you fall into that in some way or what's the linkage to government and then kind of thinking about, maybe I want to get into foreign relations. Ajay Bisaria (03:13.72) You know, I think it was there was some dilemmas as I considered it. My father was in the government, so I knew and I understood government. But I did an MBA from IAM Calcutta, and then I was really attracted to the private sector at that point. But what drew me finally to the Foreign Services, somehow I felt that the world was becoming a big village and my canvas should be broader. I felt that I should have a broader canvas of looking at the whole world and the Indian Foreign Service at a time when India was making its place in the world in the 90s and early 2000s. That sounded like a good idea. And you know, when you're in your 20s, you just sort of make an instinctive choice and grab it. Rupesh Patel (03:44.169) Hmm. Rupesh Patel (04:08.24) And so, you know, traveling the world, how did you sort of manage and balance, you know, family life and just the pressures of that? Like I imagine it's exciting time to kind of be a part of all these amazing moments. Like you said, the fall of Soviet Union, you know, the reunification of Germany to Pakistan, to Canada. How does it, how does it like, I think people don't quite understand the life of a diplomat and an ambassador. Like what is, what is that like as far as like family life and, and just, you know, the, the personal challenges or even just like the personal joys. Ajay Bisaria (04:37.868) Well, you know, it is a gypsy life. It is fun. And the good news is that you keep coming back home because, I spent about half my career in New Delhi. So it felt that one was grounded, but one was making forays and adventures in the world. And yes, of course, it is a stress on family life. But, you know, if you sort of factor it in and enjoy the ride, it is a great ride to to represent your country abroad. Rupesh Patel (05:09.801) Absolutely Now you see the world, know, said you're you're involved in the think tank now when you're doing other things You see what's going on in the state of the world right now. It's it seems like a very Interesting time and so quickly too. It feels like just in the last six months. What do you make of I have to ask and I'm sure people are wondering with with all your international experience when you see, know the latest happenings with the American government for instance and you know taking real strong stances against other foreign nations What do you make of that? Our current Prime Minister, Mark Carney, that this is gonna completely upside the change over the international trading system, for instance. How consequential do you think that these actions are from the United States right now? Ajay Bisaria (05:56.13) Well, hugely consequential. It's a dramatic upending of the global order as we knew it, of several parts of that order, not just the trading order, but the global governance order, the whole power system, the rules-based international order that was sort of working at least in terms of sympathy to it, that being changed to a power-based international order. has changed. And you know, if you look at the big picture, the world was changing after the Cold War ended. There have been several disruptions in the world. You take technology, you take climate change, you take the geopolitics, the rise of China, the second rise of Russia, if you will, in the 2010s. lot was changing even before Trump. Rupesh Patel (06:38.387) Mm. Ajay Bisaria (06:52.854) What Trump has done is put his foot on the pedal and accelerated this change. You this is the kind of change you would see in a decade, which he wants to bring in the first 90 days of his government. So it's a huge disruption. Of course, the epicenter is Washington, D.C., and you are closest to the epicenter as in Canada, and it perhaps hits you hardest, but it is affecting every country in the world. And it is not Rupesh Patel (07:06.121) Mm-hmm. Ajay Bisaria (07:22.798) necessarily positive disruption. is in many ways poorly thought out, hurried and flawed economically kind of disruption, but it's there and we all need to face it. Rupesh Patel (07:39.933) I remember when Trump, obviously during his first term and there was, you know, thoughts that he created a bunch of disruption there at the global stage. And then the Biden administration seemed to at least what we were hearing from the public was that there was a conscious effort to again, build those relationships, mend those relationships, reestablish America as sort of the country that needs to be involved in things and, you know, and so on as part of its history. now come back to Trump, is there a way that America comes back from this, no matter what the next election brings? Or do you think that countries are now seeing that America cannot be relied on as it maybe has used, especially for Western allies in particular? I'd love to hear the perspective that you think from India, but yeah, do you think that four years from now, even if it's a new administration that is saying, hey, we're back and we want to reestablish things. Do you think that other countries are moving away, I guess? Ajay Bisaria (08:43.854) Yeah, and I think there two questions there. One I would say is that Part of what is happening today is also a necessary correction because you know business as usual could not have continued. America had become an over consuming society and over consuming economy. China was an over producing economy. There was a huge deficit and an imbalance and perhaps there were some corrections required. But what is happening now is you know what we are debating is the manner of the correction. Rupesh Patel (09:20.585) Hmm. Ajay Bisaria (09:21.114) disruption, the way the stock markets are bleeding, the volatility, the uncertainty, the danger of a recession, you know, all that is adding up. And I think if you step back and analyze the Trump disruption of the last 90 days, it's not all negative. I mean, you see the negative impact of the April 2 tariffs in markets for countries, and people are reeling and reacting. Rupesh Patel (09:45.342) Mm-hmm. Ajay Bisaria (09:50.976) But one positive that we might see in 2025 is the end to the shooting wars. You know, we were facing two very serious conflicts in Ukraine and in Gaza. And Trump's instinct, and I won't even call it strategy, instinct is to end the shooting wars and start a tariff war in order to correct what he feels Rupesh Patel (10:06.483) Hmm. Ajay Bisaria (10:20.88) is a ripping off of America by the rest of the world. hopefully the landing point will be that this would be the first salvo of negotiation. That this is not a permanent condition, but a start of a negotiation which might take us to a better place, at least in terms of tariffs. So in an optimistic scenario by the end of the year, you may have some calm. in terms of the two shooting wars reaching peaceful ends and the tariff war reaching some kind of equilibrium, it's not resolution. Rupesh Patel (10:59.848) Mm-hmm. Rupesh Patel (11:03.433) That's interesting. I mean, that's, that's, that's great to hear if, if I hope, I hope that happens. I mean, the, two, hot wars that we're seeing in Ukraine and Gaza is just unbelievable. And, so sad to see what's going on. So to think that there's potentially some optimism that may be those, those end, how, how do those, I mean, you might not, you may not know the answer this, but like, how, how do those end? I guess, like, what do you think he said? It's not his strategy. It's an instinct. So What leverage, I guess, does the Trump administration have that maybe the Biden administration did not? Ajay Bisaria (11:39.522) Well, I think it's a matter of both the capacity and the intent. And the intent and the instinct for the Trump administration is to end those wars. And it plays into his larger view of geopolitics that Europe was taking the US for a ride and his instinct to try and gut NATO. And it's also a larger geopolitical instinct which the analysts are Rupesh Patel (11:50.067) Hmm. Ajay Bisaria (12:09.616) a hemispheric instinct, that the US feels that it needs to manage its hemisphere, its sphere of influence, is Canada, Mexico, Panama, doing stuff in Greenland, know, a territorial real estate instinct in its region, and wanting to get out of troubles in Europe, in West Asia, what you call Middle East, and... Rupesh Patel (12:27.122) Mm. Ajay Bisaria (12:35.5) perhaps also focus on the main challenge to US power, which is China, and spend more energy on the Indo-Pacific. So it is early days in a new reordering of the US of strategies, and the US continues to be the most powerful country in the world with a military with the strongest reach. And I think what we are seeing Rupesh Patel (13:01.747) Mm-hmm. Ajay Bisaria (13:05.424) seeing is multiple instincts being expressed at the same time, leading to some chaos, certainly in the short run. But the optimistic scenario would be that the use of US leverage, which with both Netanyahu and with the Europeans and with Putin. Rupesh Patel (13:12.947) Mm-hmm. Ajay Bisaria (13:28.718) to get them to end the wars because Trump simply doesn't like wars where people kill each other and waste money. So I think that is part of the new world order that we get, which might be a more peaceful order even though the shooting wars may be replaced by some tariff wars. Rupesh Patel (13:54.889) You said that there is a focus, know, that they really want to focus, Americans really want to focus on China. You know, possibly seeing them as a threat, I guess. But how do they see India? Do you have a, do they see India as more of an ally or do they see them more as sort of this geopolitical threat? mean, you know, on the surface, you've seen Modi and Trump seem to have good relationships and And, you know, in this previous term, they're both both prime minister and the president had met each other a couple of times under very sort of jovial circumstances. Yeah. Does, do you think that the U S sees India as more of a geopolitical threat or an ally? Ajay Bisaria (14:39.342) Certainly the US sees India as a partner, as a strong partner. India doesn't like to be called an ally of anyone because India values its strategic autonomy, doesn't want to be. Rupesh Patel (14:43.635) Yeah. Rupesh Patel (14:52.617) Mmm. Ajay Bisaria (14:53.77) in too close a grasp or an embrace of any one major power because India feels that that doesn't serve its purpose. Some degree of equidistance is important. But having said that, I would argue that the India-U.S. relationship is in good health and a very strong one. And, you know, it's grown from administration to administration, whether democratic or republican. Rupesh Patel (15:00.306) Interesting. Rupesh Patel (15:23.113) Mm. Ajay Bisaria (15:23.264) from the 2000 since Clinton and Vajpayee signed the strategic partnership agreement, it's got better and better with each administration. And right now, you know, even though much of the global conversation because of the recent tariffs is about tariffs and the White House obsession, Rupesh Patel (15:38.941) Hmm. Ajay Bisaria (15:43.29) on trade and tariffs, the Indian-India-U.S. relationship goes way beyond. So there is a strong strategic element, there is a strong defense element, there is a strong technology element. And that is what India values. And, you know, for instance, part of the strategic element is the Quad, the coming together of the four Pacific democracies, which is U.S., India, Rupesh Patel (16:10.633) Mm-hmm. Ajay Bisaria (16:13.104) Australia, Japan. And that is something which might intensify it was the court was given a leadership level seriousness by Trump in his last administration. And I think when he's done with dealing with his immediate issues, he might show up in India in October to for a court summit to to actually sign an agreement, a bilateral trade agreement as well, which in his view is the most important thing to do. But I think India sees, unlike Canada, India sees this as an opportunity. And of course, unlike for Canada, it's not existential. What is happening in tariffs is just a few billion dollars, and India feels we can negotiate our way out of it. Rupesh Patel (16:45.416) Mm-hmm. Rupesh Patel (16:58.601) Hmm. Rupesh Patel (17:10.163) Right. Ajay Bisaria (17:10.722) So, you know, more broadly, if you see how countries are reacting to Trump's tariffs, it's either retaliate or negotiate or ignore, wait and watch. And India's decided to negotiate. And most of the countries, I think, will do both retaliate and negotiate. Rupesh Patel (17:21.609) Mm-hmm. Ajay Bisaria (17:31.522) Hopefully the best scenario is that Trump in the few days declares a moratorium on his tariffs and says, okay, let's negotiate then tells his home base that I got the best deals out of the rest of the world and everything is good. Rupesh Patel (17:45.991) Yeah. Thanks for that. I definitely want to come back to maybe near the end about, just how India views its relationships. Cause I think, I think, your point about, I think you use the word strategic autonomy. you know, that that's really interesting to hear and not necessarily wanting these relationships that are based on having allies. And I think that's, yeah, I mean, that's, that's different from, guess, how Canada has viewed relationships with other countries. You're absolutely right. As you know, like, you know, Canadians are And the government is definitely feeling very different about its relationship with the United States. And it is an existential threat for Canada, especially just the rhetoric, obviously the political rhetoric that the Trump administration is using. But also, mean, economically, as you know, huge amount of our exports go to the United States, and we haven't quite diversified perhaps as we should have. But just thinking about then, I think that's a good segue into India and Canada. When you think about, you know, there's a lot of talk about how do we diversify our trade. I think people maybe don't understand that we actually have, the two countries have a very strong sort of business relationship. think sometimes that supersedes sometimes the political tensions that happen. So maybe help people understand here in Canada, you know, why this relationship is important and sort of what's the and there are actually a lot of mutual interests and maybe understand that, help people understand sort of the, yeah, the nuance and the complexity of our relationship together. Ajay Bisaria (19:19.822) Sure, and you know, I think a good way of framing the India-Canada relationship is to divide it into three buckets. And you know, this is what diplomats often do. The P2P, the political government-to-government relationship, the B2B, the business relationship, and, or let's say the G2G government relationship, the P2P people relationship, and the B2B business relationship. Rupesh Patel (19:45.139) Hmm. Ajay Bisaria (19:46.094) And what we have is a situation where the G2G relationship plunged, particularly over the events of the last 18 months, starting with the Niger killing and the accusation by Trudeau. And the relationship plunged and reached rock bottom last year with the expulsion of the Indian diplomats and so on. So the governments are really speaking, were not Rupesh Patel (19:57.385) Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Rupesh Patel (20:10.089) Hmm. Ajay Bisaria (20:16.048) to each other and it was as bad as it gets. know, in diplomacy, expelling top diplomats is the nuclear option. You you get worse than that. But at the same time, the irony was that the business to business relationship, the investments by Canadian pension funds and firms went on as usual because both governments signaled to business and business got that message that, we won't Rupesh Patel (20:25.179) Okay, okay. Ajay Bisaria (20:45.808) screw it up beyond the point. and we will help business. So this time round, when we had the latest round of tension, the people to people relationship continued, the business to business relationship continued, the deals were being made, top Canadian business leaders were in India having conversations, even when, you know, we were there was bad news on the headlines about the political relationship. So I think the instinct on Rupesh Patel (21:06.685) Mm. Rupesh Patel (21:14.899) Mm-hmm. Ajay Bisaria (21:17.7) both sides is to preserve what is good. By contrast, in the India-China or India-Pakistan relationship, everything gets affected. Rupesh Patel (21:27.611) okay. Ajay Bisaria (21:27.754) you know, if the political relationship with Pakistan goes bad, we have zero business, zero people to people relationship. With China, after we had tension at the border in 2020, flights were stopped, business was affected in many ways. And, you know, with Canada, I think the deals were being made all this while, because what India felt was that this was a mishap. situation by the Trudeau administration. And what could have been a quiet security conversation and a serious conversation became a political drama. And the result of which was that, you know, it all entered, got into the headlines, the front pages, and the diplomats did not have space to operate, to find a quick resolution. Rupesh Patel (22:10.473) Hmm. Rupesh Patel (22:24.073) Hmm. Ajay Bisaria (22:27.504) India, if you notice, was very careful in all its messaging to call it what it was that the Trudeau administration was erring in dealing with this problem the way it did, in very public way. And the contrast was clear with the US, which had similar issues. And what the Biden administration said, Biden didn't talk about it at that point at all, and said that we have a serious security problem with India in an otherwise excellent strategic partnership. So let's Rupesh Patel (22:41.897) Mm. Ajay Bisaria (23:02.872) let us security experts sit and sort it out. But here and in retrospect, think Trudeau was trying to gain political capital by grandstanding on India, the way he tried to gain political capital by grandstanding with Trump, going to Florida and trying to get a deal and then later by, you know, some other what were called political gambits. And now with Trudeau gone. Rupesh Patel (23:04.009) Hmm. Rupesh Patel (23:26.152) Mm-hmm. Ajay Bisaria (23:32.064) And that's hence the good news. With Trudeau gone, regardless of whether the conservatives or the liberals come to power, and I think what we are expecting is perhaps a majority government one way or the other, it is a natural inflection point for this relationship to recover. Because the rhetoric in India was never that we have a problem with Canada, it was that we have a problem with Trudeau and his administration. Rupesh Patel (23:50.633) Hmm. Rupesh Patel (23:59.145) Interesting. Yeah. And I mean, it seems like even the US side, once Mark Carney became prime minister for this time, you know, the rhetoric from Trump also kind of dissipated a little bit, right? And so there seems to be some, people issues with, with the former, with the former prime minister, maybe on, on just sort of what happened then, since you spoke about what happened 18 months ago, I guess I'm trying to understand from, and Ajay Bisaria (24:12.578) That's right. Rupesh Patel (24:27.441) We probably don't have the answer, but we can speculate. why would the former prime minister bring it up in parliament just like that? It seems like there would have been some, and I think I've heard security officials from Canada say that they tried to bring this up with the Indian government behind the scenes, but it was kind of almost falling, like it wasn't being taken seriously. And I think Trudeau even tried to bring it up when the G 20 happened in India. and still it wasn't, and you know, yeah. So it sounded like there were maybe some efforts taken and then at some point it was kind of like, well, we have to, we have to do something here. So I guess, yeah, I don't know. I don't know what the circumstances would have been, but what should have Canada done differently than you said? Like they should have maybe done this behind the scenes, but I can't imagine that the Canadians wouldn't have tried. Ajay Bisaria (25:23.202) You know, there two parts of this. One was the Indian claim that there was no convincing evidence, even in all the conversations that took place. There was no smoking gun evidence. And I think one must believe that because if there was smoking gun evidence of the involvement of Indian officials, it would have been out by now. And the second issue was that these conversations took place. once Trudeau had made it public. The problem for the Indian government and the Indian policymakers was that it was there wasn't space for having those security kind of conversations. So in retrospect, what happened was that Trudeau was trying to take a certain posture to not appear that he was sleeping on the wheel as he did with China as he was accused to have been doing. Rupesh Patel (26:08.531) Mm-hmm. Ajay Bisaria (26:22.992) with China and China's foreign interference in Canada. And he decided to take a grandstanding position on this case without at that point having sufficient evidence. So I think this would be the post-mortem of what may have happened. But in retrospect, what could have been done better is to have handled this issue like a similar issue was handled by the Americans, which is that we have a serious problem. Let R2 Rupesh Patel (26:38.483) Hmm. Ajay Bisaria (26:52.982) national security administrations and security systems sit down together, sort it out if India is at fault, let India acknowledge that and make amends and take action. And this is what did not happen in contrast with Canada. And I think the instinct now is to deal with this issue as a serious security issue and get on with it. know, stuff happens in relationships. We don't know, you know, we may never know the reality of what actually did happen. But the fact is that it was managed poorly and we should now have a, we have a natural inflection point to manage it better. Rupesh Patel (27:37.79) Mm-hmm. Rupesh Patel (27:43.081) I love the way you broke down sort of the G2G, the B2B and the PDP. think that's a really good way of organizing it. When you said that, despite what happened between the two governments, you said business kind of continued. Did businesses sort of have to advocate to the governments to say, like stay out of our way. Like we need to continue business here. Or do you think the governments did actually understand that we probably... know, need to preserve some of these business relationships? Or did it require a bit of arm twisting because of the political tension that was happening at the government to government level? Ajay Bisaria (28:20.866) You know, I would argue that businesses become natural points of advocacy in relationships, because particularly a relationship between distant countries, G20 countries, is primarily an economic one. And my motto when I was High Commissioner of India and Canada was, let the economics drive the politics. For too long, we let the politics drive Rupesh Patel (28:28.441) Mm. Mm-hmm. Ajay Bisaria (28:50.8) the we wanted business to drive the policy as well. So it works both ways. Governments are sensitive to business, but business needs to step up and do some advocacy, some public advocacy with governments to ensure that they get it. And, you know, we see in multiple other relationships, even with China, there are certain tactical adjustments that India makes because it has 130 Rupesh Patel (29:13.961) Mm-hmm. Ajay Bisaria (29:20.84) billion of trade with China. So you don't, you know, completely sort of blow up that part of the relationship, even if you have a military political problem. So I think in the India-Canada case, businesses acted smartly, had quiet conversations with the governments. The governments got it and said, okay, guys, let us try and fix this problem. And Rupesh Patel (29:33.427) Mm-hmm. Rupesh Patel (29:40.105) Hmm. Ajay Bisaria (29:50.642) I think we have a natural inflection point now with the elections to move it forward. I would predict we will stabilize the relationship this year and normalize it next year. Rupesh Patel (30:03.557) So moving forward, that's great to hear if that's the case. From an economic standpoint, as Canada is looking to diversify away from the United States, where do you see those sort of economic opportunities advancing with India? What does that look like? Ajay Bisaria (30:21.078) I think now in the new Trumpian world, there is an additional opportunity. In any case, the two economies were aligned and the Canadian business was investing in India, getting huge returns, excellent exits, particularly for the pension funds and the investment firms like Brookfields and Fairfax. But now I think there is an additional opportunity. We have a half-baked, almost ready bilateral trade agreement, free trade agreement, what we were calling an interim agreement, an early progress trade agreement. That could perhaps be revived. But more importantly, I think there is a, we were talking of India having a China plus one. opportunity because of a China plus one strategy of many global boards and global companies. And now there's perhaps a US plus one opportunity as well. Because do you want to put all your eggs in the US basket at a time of volatility, unpredictability, presidents might not see things the same way as their predecessors did, or would you like to diversify your interests? And I think India is a natural point of diversification. Rupesh Patel (31:21.171) Hmm. Rupesh Patel (31:40.809) Mm. Ajay Bisaria (31:41.088) for Canadian business as well. And what we demonstrated, if political relations are badly damaged, we try to revive them and we don't let it affect the business relationship. And I think that is something that Canadian businesses can perhaps learn for and in the medium term even benefit from this opportunity. Rupesh Patel (31:51.943) Mm-hmm. Rupesh Patel (32:06.089) Do you still see that Canada is an opportunity for young Indians to gain education experience? I think it's been a place that Indian students have come to for their vocational studies. Do you think that's still a continuing thing? I know obviously right now there's a bit of a cap on international students from Canada, but I imagine that'll kind of correct itself at some point. but yeah, do you, do you, is, there still that sort of need do you think for Indian students to, to come out to North America, particularly Canada, or do you think that that'll start to taper off at some point? Ajay Bisaria (32:44.27) I think that will continue. What we saw was a correction. Some have been arguing it was a necessary correction. Part of it was an internal correction in Canada, but of course the political relationship plunging played into it. So what we saw was a 41 % fall in 2024 over 2023 in the number of enrollments. But Rupesh Patel (33:03.561) Mm-hmm. Ajay Bisaria (33:08.622) I would say that the instinct and the desire for Indian students and even immigrants using the student path is very high. Canada, think at the other end of these disruptions will continue to be one of the most welcoming countries in the world. And for Indian students as well as potential immigrants, it will continue to be an attractive destination. I think what we're Rupesh Patel (33:35.721) Yeah. Ajay Bisaria (33:38.528) What we have is a short run disruption of maybe two or three years. What the Canadians say, we press pause to review rents, to review the way we were dealing with immigrants and policies and so on. Rupesh Patel (33:51.56) Hmm. Ajay Bisaria (33:52.15) And that's, from India's point of view, fair enough. I mean, that is a judgment that Canada would make. And I think the instinct of Indians to migrate to Canada for better economic opportunities or even as students will continue in the medium term. Rupesh Patel (34:09.501) Right. What's what's I don't know, really, I don't know the state of like higher education in India. Is there is there something like is the Indian post secondary system? And somehow has it been trailing, you know, other parts of the world? Or is it it is making advances? Like is there will there be a place where Indian students would be like, I don't actually need to go abroad because I have what I have what I need here in India? Like is it is it getting to a place or What's sort of the reason for why Indian students are going to other countries for their studies? Ajay Bisaria (34:46.1) It is getting better but painfully slowly. We had a new education policy a few years ago. We have a number of excellent private universities that have now come up and are coming up. We are allowing foreign collaborations for universities from overseas to set up shop in India. And all that is making a difference, but the numbers are large. The numbers, and there's a huge demand for medical, technical engineering, Rupesh Patel (34:49.213) Okay. Ajay Bisaria (35:17.646) education. So with all this disruption in the US and Canada, there are students going to Russia, for instance, and that number is surprisingly increasing. we so I think, you know, there are both student instincts here and immigration instincts looking for better opportunities overseas. But at the same time, the Indian system is also getting Rupesh Patel (35:44.649) Mm-hmm. Ajay Bisaria (35:47.52) way better. So, you know, we export or we send about a million students overseas at its peak, about 900,000 for a country of 1.4 billion. That's not really huge. So much of the challenge of educating young people is internal in India. Rupesh Patel (35:49.417) That's great. Rupesh Patel (36:00.209) Nothing. Yeah. Rupesh Patel (36:08.307) Yeah, yeah. You know, I think about the Indian diaspora here in Canada and my dad, he came to Canada in the 1960s, Ajay, and he told me that there, he could count the number of Indian people on his hand. Like there were really no one. And then to think that, you know, what we see now in Canada, it's, it's unbelievable. You have some cities that are more largely South Asian than, than, you know, the typical, you know, white Canadian, for instance, right? So, Ajay Bisaria (36:17.346) That's it. Rupesh Patel (36:36.585) Yeah. It's just really interesting to see the growth. you, when you came to, I don't know if it was the first time you came to Canada, would it have been when you were the high commissioner or had you come before? Ajay Bisaria (36:46.956) Well, really, really speaking, it was the first time as High Commissioner. I was posted in the United States. I was at the World Bank for four years and I did drive down to see the Niagara Falls from the Canadian side. But I guess that doesn't really count as visiting capital. Rupesh Patel (36:50.227) Yeah. Yeah. Rupesh Patel (36:54.46) Okay, yeah. Rupesh Patel (36:59.625) Hmm. Right, right. Yeah, that's the place where we take all of our family every trip. I was born and raised in Toronto. I'd been to Niagara Falls dozens of times because of all the family who wanted to see Niagara Falls. What did you think of just like, the Indian diaspora here in Canada? And yeah, just curious about your reflections and what you see here. Ajay Bisaria (37:26.508) You know, I think it's a very, very sharp and very important diaspora and it's playing a huge role. Rupesh Patel (37:35.881) Mm-hmm. Ajay Bisaria (37:36.692) including in promoting India-Canada relations, because I think there are leaders everywhere in politics, in business, in culture. And I had excellent interactions when I was there, even though it was COVID time, so many of my interactions were virtual, but I had great conversations. Rupesh Patel (37:54.013) Mm-hmm. Right? Right. Ajay Bisaria (37:59.79) So I think it's a great diaspora to have and their connections with India seem strong because many were recent migrants. But the problem, of course, happens to be that... Diaspora radicalism is also a problem that India faces, not just in Canada, but globally. And the worry is that this very small minority of diaspora radicals, they, and extremists, they have an impact on domestic politics as well, and on domestic law and order as well. So the conversation that India has with with, for instance, with Canada was about not giving space to the extremists and not giving space Rupesh Patel (38:54.535) Hmm. Ajay Bisaria (38:58.03) particularly and, you know, working with countries to change laws if necessary, to not give space to extremists who are both inciting violence and executing violence, threatening Indian diplomats. That became a bit of a problem in Canada, also elsewhere. But I think by and large, I saw the diaspora as a huge resource. Rupesh Patel (39:27.849) Hmm. Ajay Bisaria (39:27.984) and particularly driving the economic partnership in a strong way. Rupesh Patel (39:35.879) When you talk about, you said diaspora radicals, you talk about extremists. I imagine you're talking about, you know, folks who like the Colistan movement, right? That's, that's an India in particular and in Canada, sorry, in particular. I'm curious about, I, in, you know, in a previous podcast I had and people can check that out. I had that with Stuart Beck, is the former, you know, ambassador to India from Canada. And, you know, he was telling me that in India actually, that same sort of separatist movement actually doesn't quite exist in India. And I was kind of actually surprised by that because it's not something I track so closely, but maybe can you help people understand whether the Kalistan movement is something that is unique outside of India or is it actually, does it exist in India just maybe to a very small degree compared to what you see in Canada, the UK? America, know, other countries like that. Ajay Bisaria (40:37.07) You know, I think that's spot on. In India, there is no traction for this whole Khalistan conversation. was a trauma, a tragedy of the 1980s. It was handled. Punjab moved on. And, you know, we've had, in fact, multiple elections in Punjab where there is no traction for any party that talks about Khalistan, even, you know, Rupesh Patel (40:50.014) Mm. Ajay Bisaria (41:07.104) said Khalistan. And if you see the origins of the movement, and I've written about this, we, you know, there is a lot of Pakistan element in this. You know, it was in the 1970s and 80s, it was promoted, stoked by Pakistan as a proxy warfare in Punjab. And even the current manifestation of it in diaspora communities, and what we see Rupesh Patel (41:28.926) Hmm. Ajay Bisaria (41:36.896) what you in Canada are beginning to see as tribal conflicts. These are conflicts in the mind of those people or those vested interests. And they are often stoked by Pakistan and its agencies because it's a useful proxy way of trying to irritate India. So I think that is the way India sees it, the conversations India has with multiple partners, and many of them very close partners, like the US, like Australia, like Canada, is to say that, please find ways of giving less space to those extremists because they're not just dangerous for our society, they're also dangerous for yours. Rupesh Patel (42:30.569) Okay, so that's interesting. So you used to talk about how this could be a way for Pakistan to, you know, have proxy influence and irritate India through this. If that's the case and this is happening in Canada in this way, is the irritation with the Canadian government is that, like you said, giving the space to... to the Kalistan movement and conversation. I I imagine there's also some respect for the fact that Canada allows for free speech and allows for free thought and opinion, right? So there's gotta be some balance there, right? So what's the line to where you see it's a problem? Like when you say that it's giving space, what does that really mean? Because there can be situations in Stuart Beck, Canadian officials who might go to the Punjab community, the Punjabi community, and maybe they're there to celebrate, to help celebrate Vasaki or something like that. And all of a sudden there's something around Kalistan, but they can't read Punjabi, right? But they get caught up in a picture or something like that, but they're not intending to necessarily give it space. But obviously they're also going to celebrate the Punjabi community, right? Ajay Bisaria (43:27.949) me. Rupesh Patel (43:55.495) So when you say give it space, you maybe help us understand what those kind of things look like, I guess? Ajay Bisaria (44:02.951) You know, I think it's a nuanced conversation that security agencies should have. We totally get it that there are laws, there's freedom of speech, and there are limits to it. You know, we have exactly those sort of laws in India. But the question would be about some... extreme manifestations of it. You know, the glorification of violence and the killing of Indira Gandhi in public, which also the threatening of Air India and India flights. At what stage does glorification of violence become incitement to violence? You know, and when you say there's a target painted at the back of an Indian diplomat and somewhere on a poster it says, kill, Rupesh Patel (44:42.473) Hmm. Ajay Bisaria (44:52.464) What does that mean? Is that crossing, is that still freedom of speech? Is that crossing some boundary? So I think these are the kind of conversations we should be having at the security level. And you know, the way all this sort of mixes up with drug gangs, human traffickers, mafias, where security agencies should really have a hawkeye on these, Rupesh Patel (45:06.216) Mm-hmm. Ajay Bisaria (45:22.576) people, these bad elements and try to deal with them. So I think that is the kind of conversation we ought to be having at the security agency level and which we have with all our partners. And I can say that even between India and Canada, there are excellent conversations that take place between the RCMP and the Investigation Agency of India. And it just sometimes feels that there isn't enough Rupesh Patel (45:44.79) Hmm. Ajay Bisaria (45:52.32) political will to follow through on this and give India the assurances it needs and deserves, particularly in terms of Indian diplomats not having the space to operate in Canada. Rupesh Patel (46:02.633) Mm-hmm. Rupesh Patel (46:07.293) Okay. So, so no, this is, this is all really, this is really, really helpful, I think for folks. when, to summarize for, you know, you spoke about how your hope, you're, optimistic that this year there's a little bit of normalizing of the real stabilization of the relationship and then moving to sort of normalization. What are the, what are the key things that you think need to happen, at least from the Indian perspective in order for that course to, actually be fulfilled? Ajay Bisaria (46:33.995) Well, we have an interesting year ahead of us. Canada will have a new government and a new prime minister in May. Rupesh Patel (46:37.513) Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Ajay Bisaria (46:41.556) you know, in June, Canada hosts a G7 summit. That is a diplomatic opportunity to have the world to invite India, its possibility. You know, we haven't had high commissioners now since the last one was expelled last year. It's good to have senior diplomats exchange so that they find the space to have quiet conversations, creative solutions around all these problems. And Rupesh Patel (46:44.425) Mm-hmm. Ajay Bisaria (47:11.45) That's important to exchange high commissioners. It's then important to have a conversation about trade, about economic partnerships. And also I think in the long term or even in the medium term, Indian and Canadian national interests are aligned geopolitically because we see a huge challenge from China in the Indo-Pacific. Canada has an Indo-Pacific strategy that goes far ahead. Rupesh Patel (47:31.529) Mm. Ajay Bisaria (47:41.312) It calls India a critical partner. It calls China a disruptive power. So there could be conversations on those issues and there should be, you know, alignment. And right now about the Trumpian world order, I think India and Canada will have a few things to say to each other and see how we can coordinate on dealing with this new world order as well. But I think Rupesh Patel (48:02.631) Mm-hmm. Ajay Bisaria (48:11.216) Also, it's important to recognize the challenges and the structural reality of there being some extremist radical elements who have the freedom to operate, who will remain a structural reality in this relationship. And it's not new. They've been there for 40 years. So we would need to manage that structural reality and not let it overwhelm the relationship. And how we do that is by having Rupesh Patel (48:14.355) Mm-hmm. Rupesh Patel (48:39.017) Mm-hmm. Ajay Bisaria (48:41.136) quiet conversations on security issues, on India's concerns being heard in Canada, Canada's concerns being heard in India. And, you know, so we should try and revive this political relationship to let it match the business and people relationship, which is excellent. Rupesh Patel (49:01.481) Hmm. There's a famous, there's a pretty, I don't know, viral clip out there of former Prime Minister Trudeau talking to current Chinese President Xi Jinping at a summit. I don't know if you've seen this exchange, but of how I think Xi Jinping said something to the effect of, you like to bring things up in public, you know, and we shouldn't be doing sort of business that way. I'm totally paraphrasing, but I think that's the intent of it. It seems like, you know, India, feel is like almost no different. Like you kind of view relationships or engagements in that kind of way. and so I don't know if, if, if Trudeau's, the way he's handling himself is, is, an exception or if it's just a cultural thing or what it might, what it might be like, but it seems like at least, you know, you have India and China who likes to handle relations in that way. How do you, how do you explain that? I guess in terms of just trying to keep things quiet and trying to not necessarily bring the drama in things. Is that just a common sense or is that a cultural thing? Like are there cultural differences there perhaps? Or I know you said there's maybe a little bit of posturing that maybe the former prime minister was trying to do in those cases, but just wondering if there are cultural differences in terms of how maybe Westerners express themselves or handle their business or is it just common sense that you should just do it behind the scenes? Ajay Bisaria (50:25.74) You know, I think that's a valid point to reflect on, but I would argue, A, there is a huge difference between the Chinese and India because, you know, we are robust, thriving democracy. China handles diplomacy in a very non-transparent way. It's very different. But, you know, India has been dealing with other Western democracies on sensitive issues where you don't need postures, you don't have grandstanding, you do maintain secrecy, you don't have everything popping up in the Washington Post and Globe and Mail two days after you have those conversations which are supposed to be secret. So I think it is not just a cultural thing diplomacy has to be like an iceberg you know it's 95 % hidden it's 5 % of it is what you and I should be seeing which is the which is the public diplomacy you can't have diplomacy out in the open whether you're free and open and transparent democracy or a totalitarian state, need to have privileged some conversations that you have because that gives you a space to have those conversations in a free way and then come up with the outcomes. know, no one is saying you keep them forever hidden, but you deliver the outcomes. And I think what Trudeau did was a lot of posturing, a lot of grandstanding. Rupesh Patel (51:47.753) Mm-hmm. Ajay Bisaria (51:55.504) that was not in Canada's national interest. Rupesh Patel (51:58.857) Hmm. I love the way you frame things. Like you talked about 5 % in the public. 95 % is sort of below the surface there. And, know, the way you talked about the P2P, the G2G, I enjoy sort of learning the way you frame different thoughts. I want to come back to, you know, thanks for the conversation on the Indian Canada front. I want come back to how you said India views its relationship and this sort of relationships in terms of the strategic autonomy. One of the things, and I'm also one of these people who is really curious, but I mentioned many Canadians also are about the way India has been engaging in conducting itself with the Ukraine conflict. So, you know, we saw a lot of Western countries, other countries around the world come to Ukraine support, and it seems that India wasn't necessarily choosing sides because it also was. trying to preserve a relationship it has had with Russia, maybe help people understand how that sort of aligns with the way India thinks about its relationships, because it seems like, okay, here's a chance to put a whole lot of pressure on Russia and maybe this conflict could end in that way. But to have such a, know, obviously we knew China was gonna support Russia, but to have India also support Russia or at least stay neutral perhaps. seemed, you know, it kind of, think it probably hurt or a lot of Canadians and other Westerners were just like, kind of confused and not a little dumbfounded as to why this position. Ajay Bisaria (53:33.07) you Yes, I think, you know, if you take the example of the Ukraine conflict, and it also stems from strategic autonomy, as you mentioned, is that you don't take positions simply because your friends and partners and everyone else is taking that position. You take a position when you judge both your values and your interests in that position. Now, the Ukraine conflict was complex. And what in India was very clear, that it was wrong to have that conflict. It was wrongheaded of Putin to go to Ukraine and declare war on Ukraine. It would have been much better handled without warfare. But at the same time, there were a large number of errors made by the Western partners as well. And therefore, India decided to sort of be neutral in the conflict or as Modi says, we're on the side of peace rather than on the side of war. Now, the reason was that as even Trump now is sort of saying, the US itself is calling it out that war as something that was instigated, promoted by his predecessors to weaken Russia. So at best, the genesis of the war was a complex one. It was based on security that Russia saw threatened historically, Ajay Bisaria (55:20.682) the eastward expansion of NATO and so on. And therefore, there's an understanding now even in the United States of the what promoted the war and you know that helps in ending the war. So I think in several ways India's instincts of criticizing the war, calling for peace, calling for dialogue are supported by the new Trump administration which is saying that it was a wrong war to back and that the only way out of it is a peace deal. The peace deal should be an expedient one. It may appear unjust, but that's the way we should move forward. More important to get peace rather than try endlessly for a just and lasting peace. So I think what we must understand is the complexity and the nuances of that particular conflict, which had a certain historical genesis and as the US now itself is admitting, is was pushed and promoted and instigated by the US using Ukraine as a proxy. Rupesh Patel (56:44.457) Yeah. Um, you know, when you say it's, it's complex, I don't, wonder if, uh, you know, and I'm probably one of those people, like I didn't, I didn't see it as, I, again, I don't have, I hear what I hear, you know, through the news and you're reading about things. didn't seem complex to, think a lot of people, it seemed like, you know, Russia was, uh, putting an unjustified war into Ukraine and it seemed, you know, and, to hear Trump talk differently, first of all, it's hard to believe anything that he said. as he says, right? it's so, so, you know, to hear you say that it's interesting. Yeah, it's, it's, you said it's nuanced. think it's, I think people are having probably have a hard time hearing that it is nuanced because it seemed very clear from, from many Western allies that, know, this, shouldn't have happened and we should find ways to end this as quickly as possible. Yeah. Anyways, it's, it's, it's interesting to hear that. Ajay Bisaria (57:42.274) Yeah, shouldn't have happened and should end is something that both sides of the argument agree on. But there is a very strong argument, particularly made in Europe and with all justification, I think, that it was a wrong war and Russia was to blame for it. But if you hear some of the scholars, some of the independent thinkers, even in the United States today, even apart from Trump, John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs and a whole lot of other intellectuals and podcasters, you are hearing the other narrative now and a counter narrative, which is questioning the way the US and the West played it and therefore indicating the direction in which we should go to end that conflict. Rupesh Patel (58:40.041) I have so much more to ask you. I know at the end of our time here. Yeah. know, Ajay, I just think about my, again, thinking about my dad who died several years back and came to this country and proud Indian and became proud Canadian. And I'm a second generation Canadian and now getting the opportunity to talk to the former high commissioner to Canada from India. It really is quite the honor to speak with you and to hear your thoughts on so many different topics and talking about the state of Canada relations and you spoke very eloquently. so, yeah, just to really appreciate your time. think the audience is going to get huge benefits from this conversation. And I hope that we can continue our conversation in the future. So it truly was a pleasure, Ajay, to have you on the show today. And I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. Ajay Bisaria (59:30.686) Absolutely, I did and happy to do that, happy to come again. And I think there should be space for serious reflection and serious conversation in issues which get caricatured in the media. We need to examine their complexity. So I congratulate you on trying to do that. Rupesh Patel (59:49.715) Thank you so much. That's it everyone for today. Please like, subscribe, follow, do all those wonderful things. I hope you enjoyed today's episode. We don't always get the pleasure of hearing from people who have been in this game, in this business, in the way Ajay has. So I hope you can just think about the things that he said and reflect. And if it affects the way you vote, great. If it doesn't, that's okay too. But just another important issue that we as Canadians have to think about. So I hope you enjoy this episode. Looking forward to the next episode and we'll talk to you soon. Cheers.