top of page

By:

Dr. V.L. Dharurkar

12 February 2025 at 2:53:17 pm

From Frost to Thaw

After years of diplomatic chill, India and Canada have attempted a strategic reset driven as much by geopolitics and trade anxieties as by a desire to repair a damaged partnership. For nearly three years relations between India and Canada resembled a prolonged winter. Yet, the visit of Canada’s Prime Minister, Mark Carney to India at the start of the Month suggests that the thaw may finally have begun. If the past few years were marked by recrimination and mistrust, the present moment hints...

From Frost to Thaw

After years of diplomatic chill, India and Canada have attempted a strategic reset driven as much by geopolitics and trade anxieties as by a desire to repair a damaged partnership. For nearly three years relations between India and Canada resembled a prolonged winter. Yet, the visit of Canada’s Prime Minister, Mark Carney to India at the start of the Month suggests that the thaw may finally have begun. If the past few years were marked by recrimination and mistrust, the present moment hints at a cautious but deliberate reset. Both sides have shown a keenness to replace acrimony with pragmatism. The chill began during the tenure of Justin Trudeau, whose government publicly alleged that Indian agents may have been involved in violent activities on Canadian soil. India rejected the accusations as unfounded and politically motivated. The dispute triggered tit-for-tat diplomatic expulsions, the freezing of high-level dialogue and an atmosphere of mutual suspicion. For two countries that had long prided themselves on democratic affinity, shared Commonwealth ties and large diaspora links, the rapid deterioration was remarkable. Canada is home to one of the world’s largest Indian diasporas, numbering well over a million people. Trade and educational links have grown steadily since the late twentieth century. Canadian universities attract tens of thousands of Indian students each year, while Indian professionals and entrepreneurs have contributed significantly to Canada’s economic life. These human connections had long acted as ballast in the relationship. But politics, as ever, can overwhelm social ties. Symbolic Weight Carney’s New Delhi visit therefore carries symbolic weight. A former governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, he has entered politics with a reputation for technocratic competence rather than ideological theatrics. His five-day visit to India, from late February to early March, was carefully choreographed to signal renewal. Beginning in Mumbai, India’s commercial capital, he met industrialists, bankers and policymakers, emphasising economic cooperation as the cornerstone of the revived relationship. India today is among the world’s fastest-growing major economies, with ambitions to expand its industrial base, modernise infrastructure and transition towards cleaner sources of energy. Canada, meanwhile, possesses abundant natural resources, technological expertise and capital. The two economies are complementary in ways that diplomacy had recently obscured. One of the most notable outcomes of the visit was a long-term agreement on uranium supply. Canada’s mining giant Cameco and India’s Department of Atomic Energy concluded a ten-year deal worth roughly $2.6bn to supply more than 20m pounds of uranium. For India, which is expanding its civil nuclear programme to meet rising energy demand while limiting carbon emissions, reliable access to uranium is strategically important. The agreement will help fuel a new generation of small and medium reactors, which India sees as crucial to its energy transition. Canada, for its part, is among the world’s leading producers of uranium. Renewed nuclear cooperation therefore reflects not only diplomatic reconciliation but also the convergence of economic interests. Previous agreements between the two countries had faltered amid political tensions. This time both governments have emphasised implementation and timely delivery. Trade Boost Trade, too, looms large in the reset. Bilateral commerce between India and Canada currently hovers around $10bn to $12bn annually, a modest figure for economies of their scale. Both governments have spoken of raising that number dramatically, potentially to $50bn by the end of the decade. Negotiations on a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), long stalled, have been revived with renewed urgency. Here global geopolitics provides an additional incentive. The increasingly protectionist trade policies of the United States under Donald Trump have unsettled many of Washington’s traditional partners. Tariff threats and economic nationalism have encouraged countries to diversify their commercial relationships. India and Canada, both heavily exposed to the American market, now see advantage in strengthening bilateral trade and investment as a hedge against volatility emanating from Washington. Education and innovation are another pillar of the renewed engagement. Canadian universities are exploring the possibility of establishing campuses in India, enabling Indian students to access Canadian education without leaving the country. Joint research programmes and technological collaboration are expected to deepen intellectual ties that already run deep. Beyond economics lies a broader strategic calculation. The Indo-Pacific has become the central theatre of twenty-first-century geopolitics. As China’s influence expands across Asia, many countries are seeking new partnerships to preserve a balance of power and maintain open sea lanes. India has positioned itself as a leading voice in this effort, promoting a vision of a free, stable and inclusive Indo-Pacific region. Strategic Dynamics Canada, though geographically distant, has begun to pay greater attention to the region’s strategic dynamics. Collaboration with India could therefore form part of a wider network involving countries such as Australia, Japan and New Zealand. For Ottawa, engagement with New Delhi offers a way to remain relevant in Asia’s shifting geopolitical landscape. For India, Canadian support adds another partner to its growing Indo-Pacific coalition. Yet enthusiasm should be tempered with realism. Diplomatic resets are easier to announce than to sustain. The political sensitivities that strained relations in the past have not vanished entirely. Canada’s domestic politics, particularly debates surrounding diaspora activism, remain complex. India, meanwhile, is unlikely to tolerate external criticism on matters it considers internal. Managing these differences will require careful diplomacy and mutual restraint. Nevertheless, the symbolism of the present moment matters. The revival of high-level dialogue, the signing of concrete economic agreements and the visible warmth between leaders all suggest a shared desire to turn the page. In the grand sweep of history, relations between India and Canada have always rested on deeper foundations than temporary political quarrels. If the current reset succeeds, it could transform a once-strained partnership into one of the more promising relationships in the Indo-Pacific era. (The writer is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)

Gubernatorial Overreach

With its landmark decision on Tamil Nadu’s Governor, the Supreme Court has reined in the powers of Governors while reasserting the primacy of elected state governments in a federal democracy.

Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court has struck a decisive blow against creeping gubernatorial overreach when it ruled that Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi had acted “illegally” and “arbitrarily” by withholding assent and subsequently reserving ten state Bills for the President’s consideration after they had already been re-passed by the state Assembly. In doing so, the court has not merely resolved a Tamil Nadu-centric dispute, but has also fortified the edifice of Indian federalism.


The ruling has far-reaching implications. It reaffirms that Governors, unelected appointees of the Centre, must act within the confines of constitutional morality and in alignment with democratic principles. The Supreme Court’s bench also prescribed strict timelines for gubernatorial action to prevent future constitutional logjams.


At the heart of the verdict lies Article 200 of the Indian Constitution. This provision lays out a Governor’s options when a Bill passed by a state legislature is presented for assent: grant it, withhold it, return it for reconsideration or reserve it for the President. But critically, it also says that if the legislature passes the Bill again, the Governor shall not withhold assent. What was hitherto ambiguous - the timeframe for such assent - has now been clarified. A one-month deadline is now imposed for withholding assent or reserving the Bill with the aid of the Council of Ministers; three months if done without it. Most significantly, once the Assembly re-passes a Bill, the Governor must act within a month. Failure to do so will open the door to judicial scrutiny.


The case is emblematic of an ongoing friction in Indian federalism. Tamil Nadu’s DMK-led government under M.K. Stalin has long accused RN Ravi of acting as a political agent of the BJP-led Union government, not as a neutral constitutional authority. Since his appointment in 2021, Ravi has had testy relations with Fort St. George, frequently stalling legislation and public appointments, and refusing to read sections of his customary Assembly address that reference icons of the Dravidian movement.


In January 2023, Ravi made national headlines by staging a walkout during his address to the Assembly over the sequencing of the national anthem.


A year prior, he skipped sections of a speech that mentioned social reformers like B.R. Ambedkar and Periyar. His ideological divergence from the DMK was no secret. While political disagreement is par for the course in a democracy, the use of constitutional office to wage partisan battles is not. The Supreme Court’s ruling is thus a stern reminder that Governors are not viceroys.


This episode also revives long-standing concerns over the appointment and role of Governors. Appointed by the President (effectively the Centre) under Article 155, and serving at the President’s pleasure (Article 156), Governors have often been accused of political bias, especially in opposition-ruled states. Their discretionary powers are limited; Article 163 clearly states that they must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, barring a few exceptional circumstances. Yet, the absence of defined timelines and mechanisms to enforce accountability has allowed some to act with impunity, safe in the knowledge that they answer not to the electorate but to New Delhi.


The verdict offers a constitutional course correction. By invoking Article 142, the bench not only set aside the Governor’s actions but effectively granted assent to the Bills themselves. It also lays the groundwork for what may become a broader legal doctrine: that constitutional offices must function within the spirit of parliamentary democracy, and that delay or obstruction can be as unconstitutional as outright defiance.


The court was careful to clarify that it was not undermining the Governor’s constitutional position. Instead, it has sought to rescue that office from political misuse.


The verdict sends a clear message to the Union government that India’s democracy rests on the consent of the governed, not the discretion of appointed officials. And when that consent is subverted, the judiciary will not remain a passive spectator.

Comments

bottom of page