Bharat Rakshak

Dear Rakshaks,

This is the first in a long series of posts, written in light of the recent ‘visa flap’. Some of what I will write here will – upon first reading – rub some readers the wrong way. So, before counter-posting, please consider whether I am expressing my personal opinion, or if I’m offering perspective, insight or facts which I may or may not agree with or support personally. Please also consider that not every word I will write here will be directed at every reader. If you are presently inclined to take offense at anything that any Canadian will tell you; I respectfully suggest that you stop reading my posts entirely; because I am Canadian, because I can aggressively defend my points (when warranted), because you may be too excitable to deal with that, and because neither of us needs the aggravation of a flame war, nor does the cause of improved relations between India and Canada (which is the purpose of this thread, in furtherance of the respective best interests of both Indians and Canadians). If you think that India can dispense with Canada, or that Canada can dispense with India; be prepared to argue against me, hopefully intelligently; and be prepared to lose that argument – because numerous, *self-interested* necessities make the case for improved India-Canada relations, and things are going in that direction, despite the ‘visa flap’.

If everyone will kindly remember that this thread is in the “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”; I will keep in mind that the forum moderators have no way to ensure that everyone posting here will be ‘up to it’. While I would certainly agree, wholeheartedly, that a good number of participants in BRF have demonstrated cogent strategic thinking and an appreciation for the subtle and gross complexities of international relations – some others clearly have not, in my not-too-humble opinion. For these people, I will attempt to provide remedial lessons in ‘Strategic Affaires’ and ‘International Relations’. In so doing, I may occasionally come across as preachy, presumptuous, condescending or even arrogant. Please understand that much of this impression will derive from the communication medium that we are using. First: because it is text-based and devoid of much human nuance, such as body language, posture, facial expression, gesture and the looks in our eyes, which are naturally available when people are face-to-face. Second: because the forum requires a post-counter-post exchange of tit-for-tat remarks, rather than a fluid flow of understanding that people can build when physically together. Third: because this medium denies us the usage of such rhetorical methods as leading questions that can be quickly answered or not, in order to get a point across without delivering a text-heavy browbeating.

Since I first found BRF, I have truly enjoyed reading the posts of a number of members, and I have learned a great deal from the insights and perspectives they have offered, for which I am very grateful. My sole purpose in posting on BRF has been to return the favour, if I may presume to do so, in the hope that by sharing ideas and perspectives, that an improved understanding can be built, and progress made, for the benefit of good-hearted people everywhere. Ideally, we should all be able to learn some valuable lessons in ‘Strategic Affaires’ and/or ‘International Relations’, and become wiser, more prosperous and more powerful along the way.

NOTE: In order to avoid peppering these posts with too many web links, I will instead enclose specific terms in ‘single quotes’. If you type these ‘specific terms’ into Google or Wikipedia, you’ll find what I am referring to. ALSO: Please forgive me for writing in the first person, which I will do for convenience.

Thanks,
RK

BACKGROUND INFO: FACTS, FIGURES AND POINTS OF CLARIFICATION

1. It is an unfortunate truth, all around the world, that the best way to sell newspapers is with controversy (which also does wonders for thread-views counts here on BRF). To fuel controversies, the news media will often sensationalize a story, and withhold all the known facts, in order to make a story more inflammatory and in turn, win more readers/viewers/listeners. I think this is the central reason why the Indian media portrayed Canada’s visa policy as discriminatory, rather than explaining the full truth, which is that the requirement for a visa applicant to divulge details of his or her military service IS NOT INDIA-SPECIFIC. That’s right: people from most countries seeking a visa to visit Canada are required to complete the very same form that Indians were asked to complete. You can see the visa form for yourself by following http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/kits/f ... 008_1e.pdf and the permanent residency application form here http://www.cic.gc.ca/ENGLISH/pdf/kits/guides/6000E.PDF. So therefore, when the Indian media asks the question ‘Why are Canadian authorities singling-out Indians?’, the correct answer is that Canada is not singling out Indians, FWIW. NOTE: This does not mean that I personally support the visa rejection letters issued by Canadian consular staff, and for the record, we now know that neither does the present Canadian Government.

2. You may not realize this, but Canada is a destination country for war criminals from around the world, and as per the law in Canada, these people must be investigated, prosecuted and jailed, all of which costs taxpayer money. Accordingly, a new focus (these past 2-3 years, during this present Conservative-led minority government), has been placed on keeping suspected war criminals out of Canada in the first place, as a means to save taxpayer money, and this has entailed new visa application forms and procedures. The political problem with this situation is that Canada cannot be seen to place onerous requirements on visa applicants from some countries, and lax requirements on visa applicants from other countries, for reasons that probably include; legal issues, trade issues, diplomatic issues, and perhaps even ‘vote-bank’ domestic politics. But that’s not all: this new policy also invoked bureaucratic tensions, as the civil service brought these problematic issues to the attention of the political leadership, only to be pushed-into creating and implementing the new administrative procedures (despite the considered advice of what are essentially, Canada’s adminwallahs and adminbabus). For a quick background story on this situation, read http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/s ... tico-front. NOTE: This does not mean that I support the notion that any member of India’s BSF, IA or IB should be deemed inadmissible to Canada – I’m just trying to explain the situation, and make clear that India has not been singled-out – although India has certainly been the country to make the most noise about it. ALSO, no one should overlook the fact that in the very same words used to level these accusations of human rights abuses, there was also an expression of concern for the human rights of Indians – so to call this ‘visa flap’ squarely anti-India, for something akin to racism, is not entirely fair, either. A truly racist ‘gora’ wouldn’t care if Indians were abused, or worse – that’s a fact.

3. Some people have asked the question ‘What about the Americans or the British, who are known to have committed atrocities in Iraq?’, and it’s a very good question, IMHO. The quick and dirty answer is that American and British passport holders do not require a visa to visit Canada, unless they intend to stay longer than six months (I think), or if they intend to work in Canada or settle here permanently. AFAIK, this potentially problematic situation has not arisen, or at least it has not made the news. So, the answer here is that Americans and Brits have not been asked to divulge details of their military service. I’m not saying that’s fair – just that this is the way it is.

4. Some people have asked the questions ‘What makes Canada so high-and-mighty?’, and the honest answer to that question can be stated in a single word: hypocrisy – well intentioned though it may be, and required by international and Canadian law though it is. (Yes, I do admit it; there is hypocrisy involved.) To find out what I mean (without going back in time several decades or more, but by looking at the present time and the current situation), follow http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le1534345/. Kindly notice that this ‘Detainee Affair’ involves the present (Conservative) and previous (Liberal) governments of Canada, and it’s bureaucracy, specifically ‘DFAIT’, and the Canadian military, in substantial allegations of war crimes in Afghanistan. Follow the links to other stories from this web page and you will see that this issue has threatened to bring down the government and cause a snap election – it’s a real mess. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le1550433/. I am really surprised that this did not get much coverage in India during the recent ‘visa flap’, because it arguably deserves to be brought up, IMHO (although, of course, that would have taken some effort or insight on the part of Indian journalists). In particular, very significant tensions have (partially) come to light between the present political leadership and the DFAIT bureaucracy, chiefly surrounding one ‘Richard Colvin’, a diplomat who tried to warn his political masters of legal jeopardy vis a vis the ‘Geneva Convention’ WRT the transfers of Afghan detainees by Canadian Forces personnel, into the hands of Afghan torturers http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le1533670/. (Could this be yet another irritant between the present political leadership of Canada and the entrenched bureaucracy at DFAIT? I would be very surprised if it played no role whatsoever in the ‘visa flap’. Is this an excuse for what happened? No, I don’t think it is, but it does offer some perspective.)

5. Because someone asked, earlier in this thread (although I honestly don’t think that religion played much of a role in the ‘visa flap’), the religious constituencies in Canada break-down as follows; Religion in Canada (2001 Census); Christianity, 77.1%; No religion, 16.5%; Islam, 2.0%; Judaism, 1.1%; Buddhism, 1.0%, Hinduism 1.0%, Sikhism 0.9%.

6. Because someone asked, earlier in this thread, about the prevalence of various ‘South Asian’ ethnicities in Canada: http://restructure.wordpress.com/2008/0 ... -of-birth/.

7. Because someone asked earlier in this thread (although I don’t think you can tell much about someone’s political leanings by reading their name), here is the official list of all members of the Canadian parliament http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParl ... Language=E.

BACKGROUND INFO: CANADA AT A GEOSTRATEGIC CROSSROADS

With the end of the second world war, a new military alliance was formed named ‘NATO’, which at the time included the United States, Great Britain, France and Canada, among many other countries. This original constitution did not last. Quoting from Wikipedia, in portions; “The unity of NATO was breached early in its history, with a crisis occurring during Charles de Gaulle's presidency of France from 1958 onwards. De Gaulle protested at the United States' strong role in the organization and what he perceived as a special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom… he argued for the creation of a tripartite directorate that would put France on an equal footing with the United States and the United Kingdom… Considering the response given to be unsatisfactory, de Gaulle began to build an independent defence for his country…. On 11 March 1959, France withdrew its Mediterranean Fleet from NATO command…. de Gaulle continued his pursuit of an independent defence by removing France's Atlantic and Channel fleets from NATO… In 1966, all French armed forces were removed from NATO's integrated military command, and all non-French NATO troops were asked to leave France.”

This withdrawal of France from NATO touched-off a peculiar political and geostrategic dynamic for Canada that has never received much study or even mention, but that has increasingly deep implications for the strategic affaires of Canada. This dynamic often goes entirely overlooked by Canadians themselves (not to mention Indians), because the plain truth is covered over by so many false impressions. First understand; owing to geographic proximity and extremely close economic and social ties, not to mention joint participation in ‘NORAD’, Canada is deeply integrated with the United States – but not entirely. At the same time, on account of very long-standing cultural ties, Canada is also strongly connected with both Britain and France – but not entirely. When France left NATO, it raised the suspicion quotient for Canada in the eyes of the Americans and Brits, on account of the French-speaking province of Quebec, and the fact that Quebec always figures prominently in federal politics. In turn, this reinforced a certain line of strategic thought in Canada that did not precisely parallel the Anglo-American lines of thought. Consider some of the manifestations:

Canada has normal relations with Cuba, while the United States embargoes Cuba and would like others to do so as well (see the ‘Helms-Burton Act’).

When France left Viet Nam and the Americans went in, Canada did not follow America into Viet Nam. Also, many Americans avoided the Viet Nam era draft by coming to Canada, where they received political asylum (much to the chagrin of the American government).

Canada has undertaken a number of diplomatic and treaty initiatives that run counter to the American position, notably the ban on antipersonnel landmines under the ‘Ottawa Treaty’, and the ‘Rome Statute’ which gives force to the ‘International Criminal Court’, and which places a number of legal obligations on Canada as a signatory to the ‘Rome Statute’, some of which may have played a role in the ‘visa flap’.

In 2003, when our then (Liberal Party) Prime Minister Jean Chrétien (from Quebec) indicated that Canada would not participate in the invasion of Iraq without explicit UN approval, which France was blocking; the (‘Canadian Alliance’) opposition leader Stephen Harper (from Alberta) became the senior spokesperson advocating Canada’s participation in the invasion, even going so far as to undertake a media tour on both sides of the Canada/US border. (NOTE: Harper is our current PM, with a minority government.) Most Canadians did and do oppose the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and we’re happy not to be on the ground there (although, it should be noted that some Canadian soldiers seconded to the American forces for cross-training purposes have served on the ground in Iraq, though I think not more than 100).

I am guessing that you don’t know that Canada does not have its own version of the CIA – a foreign-focussed, covert, human intelligence gathering agency. As you might appreciate, this truly bothers a patriotic Canadian like me. It absolutely drives me nuts that most Canadians do not even understand this plain truth about their own country, and therefore don’t see a need to change things. They would say ‘What about the RCMP and CSIS?’, and the truth of the situation is that the RCMP is a crime-fighting organization, while ostensibly, it is the purview of CSIS to protect the national security interests of Canada and Canadians – which they supposedly try to do without any covert operatives working in foreign lands under non-official cover. (Please refer to ‘The CSIS Act’ and carefully read the mandate, specifically the two little words “within Canada”, that completely hamstrings the entire organization from fielding covert operatives abroad, among many other (unthinkable) restrictions – so as not to get in the way of the Americans or the Brits, I am sure – because that would presumably invoke Anglo-American fears of the French peeking into secrets uncovered by Canada.) That’s right – Canada has a spy deficit. Successive (outwardly patriotic) governments have instead relied on the intelligence provided by ‘friendly governments’ – chiefly the United States and the UK (who clearly have had their own agendas). This makes the refusal to believe the accusations of Saddam Hussein’s WMDs a particularly interesting episode, with much indication provided of what happened out of the public eye – thanks to France, I presume. It also raises the dire need for CSIS to forge a much greater number of much better contacts with a much wider group of friends – very clearly including the Indian intelligence community – in part because of the large numbers of Canadians of Indian origin and other sub-continental bloodlines, but also because many of the transnational threats faced by India, are in the larger scheme of things, also threatening to Canada.


The reasons why I have provided the above background information will become clearer as you read my following posts.

Dear biswas, regarding your post of 29 May 2010 13:49;

… This is all due to the Conservatives who lied, cheated and swindled their way into a minority government…

I never said any of that. I only wanted to communicate that I am not a natural defender of Stephen Harper and his political party.

… Indian media should have said 'Low level diplomat’… instead of 'Canada denies BSF man a visa'. …

I guess, in a perfect world, yes; the Indian media should have been less inflammatory, and the Indian public should have been less excitable. But I know we’re not living in a perfect world. So, I guess my hope would have been that people participating in a forum named ‘Strategic Issues’ should have been more strategic in their thinking and response. I would have hoped that BRF participants would be inclined to take in the media reports with a grain of salt, for starters, because the media in any country, tends to pander to people’s prejudices. Moreover, anyone interested in being strategic, would not have displayed such grievous injury from the insult (no matter how justifiably indignant they righteously were).

Over here in Canada, years ago, there was a TV commercial for antiperspirant, and it had the pitch line “Never let them see you sweat”. This saying became very popular, so much so that it has become a mantra for all sorts of situations where it is advantageous to remain cool, unmoved, detached, and ‘Sphinx like’, rather than to outwardly display perturbation. I don’t know if you have any siblings, biswas, but I’ve got one of each (one older, one younger, one sister and one brother). Growing up, whenever we got into it, if there was any sign that it was having an effect, this would only spur-on the annoying party to ratchet-up the annoyance. We did it for sport, mostly, and I guess it taught us to keep calm and maintain our composure. This was a good lesson because we’re all pretty cool under fire, and this has helped us deal with others who were interested in more than sport. In terms of international relations, this same kind of thing does happen – and strategic thinkers must contemplate the potential for malfeasance that such a vitriolic response may invite.

Ask yourself: Is it possible that an adversary of India might find advantage in making the GoI look bad or weak or whatever, in order to sway the Indian electorate? Don’t bother responding to this question, biswas, because we both know the answer is clearly ‘yes’.


PS: I don’t remember being so deferential, as you seem to suggest when paraphrasing me. And another thing; when I say please and thank you, or whether I apologize or antagonize, I am usually, wholly sincere, FWIW.

PPS: If you want to complain about my posts being “tl;dr”, perhaps you should find another forum with more pictures in it – it might be easier for you to follow. (On top of which, your response would seem to indicate that you did, in fact, read my whole post – which makes your “tl;dr” remark a lie.)

Dear vina, regarding your post of 29 May 2010 14:15;

Thanks for the patronizing moralist harangue….

Your welcome – any time! It was my pleasure. Can I serve you some more, in return for your patronizing, moralist harangue?...

… Canada has a history of obfuscation, denial of and outright support and nurturing of anti India terror going back decades…. Episodes like RCMP "accidentally" deleting Kanishka tapes (which is simply unbelievable by the way, they deliberately deleted the tapes to destroy evidence of their connivance and involvement)…‘Cui Bono?’… This takes the cake…

Although much of what you write is true, at least on the surface, I’d have to say that you are extremely wrong-headed about it, and that you have misunderstood the greater truth of these events. First off, I must say; that it is more than a little presumptuous of you to explain to me ‘how it really is’, since I am concurrently given the impression that your knowledge of these affaires is entirely superficial. Secondly, for the record, I have paid very close attention to the Kanishka bombing from the very day it happened – when I lost three cousins, one of whom was only three years old – and so I feel that my appraisal of the event and the broader situation goes a fair bit deeper than yours, as I will try to explain. So, vina et al., let me set you straight, and put things in a truer light:

1. While I wholeheartedly agree that the supposed ‘accidental deletion of Kanishka wiretap tapes’ is completely unbelievable, I am not inclined to follow your line of reasoning WRT this load of BS. Firstly, if theoretical-Canadian handlers were aware of and actively involved in the planning and execution of the bombing, then why did they wiretap these supposedly self-incriminating conversations, and then why did they let knowledge of these wiretaps become public? I mean; I’ve heard of being ‘caught red handed’, but I’ve never heard of a supposedly sophisticated spy taking the picture of his red hands holding the bloody knife, and publishing it for the whole world to see. That part of your theory just does not make any sense. Secondly, if you think that there is any power center in the west that supports the cause of Khalistan because of ‘vote-bank politics’, you are grossly over-estimating the political power and influence of Khalistanis in the west, and you’re missing the larger geostrategic significance of the Khalistani movement, which I will address below. (NOTE that I am not saying there is no support for Khalistanis in the west, because there clearly is; but not how you’ve imagined it, nor for the reasons that you’ve intimated.) Here in Canada, self-described adherents to Sikhism number 0.9% of the population, based on the Canadian census of 2001 (and Khalistanis are a subset of these Sikhs), whereas Hindus number 1.0% (and Islam comes in at 2.0%, but it must be noted that this Islam figure includes Shias and Ismailis, among other minority sects). So, while we do have some members of parliament in Canada that are of the Sikh faith, I think it’s clear that most of the Canadians who voted them into office did so for reasons of party affiliation or platform support, rather than any kind of vote cast along ethnic or religious lines. Thirdly, in keeping with my assessment WRT the unbelievable-accidental destruction of wiretap recordings, and considering that it was probably not done to cover Canadian butt, nor to kiss Khalistani butt – who was this intentional cover-up perpetrated for? (Duh! And no, I don’t mean Pakistan or China, either!)

2. BUT BEFORE YOU ANSWER the question posed by my point #1 immediately above, OR EVEN ASK RELEVANT FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS WRT THIS COVER-UP, I want you to carefully consider something that is very important: I don’t consider myself to be some kind of genius who is the sole person on this planet to have figured-out the truth behind this dastardly deed. I fully believe that the relevant authorities in R&AW and the upper echelons of the Indian intelligence and security establishment have come to the very same conclusions that I have – but, in their wisdom, knowing everything that they know (which I do not know), and also given their heartfelt and perfectly rational and patriotic lines of reasoning vis a vis things like the grinding poverty that still exists in India – they have decided to let this bloody chapter of the (mis-named) “Cold War” slip into the distant memory of most Indians, because they have calculated the best interests of India much better than either I or you ever could. So, before you go-off screaming for justice like some naïve idealist; consider how the world has changed since the ‘70s and ‘80s, and how much it still needs to change before anything resembling true justice can be had. Also consider that one cannot eat justice, nor does justice clothe or shelter or care for someone when they’re sick. Then consider all of the practical impossibilities surrounding the search for true justice, including; the passage of time, the secrecy, and the vested interests all around the world that did and do and will stand in the way of justice for the victims and their families and loved ones. Then consider that the world is not a fair place – life isn’t fair (which I shouldn’t have to explain to you or any adult). In light of all this, justice cannot be the highest priority, IMO, when held in the broader light of reality – past, present and future, both inside and outside of India. Might I feel differently had I actually known my three murdered cousins for longer than the single handful of days that I actually did? (They were visiting Canada.) That’s a hard question to answer, and I honestly don’t know (not that I’m trying to compare my pain with the grief of someone who has lost a spouse, child, parent or sibling). What I do know is that the bombing of Air India flight 182 has been a thorn in my heart and a splinter in my mind all of these last 25 years. In view of all that I’ve written here, the reality is that there can be no true justice for acts of mass murder in this world. Even if one believes in ‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’ (which I do not), how can there be justice for mass murder, when the killers can be put to death only once? What might be the implications – including the cold, hard economic imperatives – of demanding full justice for the victims of Air India 182? Would it even be possible? Ever? Would such a search for true justice actually serve the strategic interests of India and Indians, or Canada and Canadians? (Most victims held Canadian citizenship.) I don’t think it would or ever could. Is there any hope that a ‘true-ish’ justice might bring closure to the victim’s families? No – nothing can ever erase that wound. A scar will always remain. Accordingly; strategic thinkers of good conscience are obliged to put aside their personal feelings – as best they can – and pursue the greater good, however they can.

3. Please, before you fly-off at the handles, understand that I am not saying that there is absolutely no culpability shared among any Canadians for the bombing of Air India flight 182 – because we do know differently, and this has been established by criminal trials here in Canada, and also ‘Royal Commissions of Inquiry’ and more than one ‘Special Report’ (with yet another report due out any day now). We know that the Canadian government failed to provide adequate security for the aircraft when it was on the ground in Canada, ignoring specific warnings sent by the GoI. We know that an airline ticket agent improperly checked-in a suitcase that was going to travel unattended, in violation of specific policy which would have forbidden unattended luggage. We know that a very poorly trained (and clearly unqualified) airport security screener, handling a new-fandangled explosives detector, mistook(!) the warning sound it emitted on one bag for a false-positive caused by a metal zipper (DUH! It doesn’t detect metal – it detects explosives!). We also know that the bomb-sniffing dog at Mirabel airport in Montreal, was very late arriving to sniff through the plane – and that someone (I don’t know where or who), made the fateful decision to take-off before the bomb-sniffing dog got there to do what it would hopefully have done to save all those lives. So, there is plenty of fault shared by a number of Canadians for the bombing of Kanishka, and I certainly don’t mean to imply otherwise. But, as for there being some kind of secret *Canadian* government policy to cause an explosion that killed 270 Canadian citizens, among a total of 329 innocent people on board that aircraft (plus two killed at Narita airport in Japan, slain by a bomb that was supposed to kill hundreds more) – that does not pass the sniff test to me. Call me naïve, but that’s my estimation. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that the cover-up was Canadian – just don’t be naïve when assessing who they were covering up for, and on what grounds. Is any of this excusable? No! Is it justifiable? HELL NO! Is it a high-crime of treason and the lowest kind of thing anyone can do? YES! Will there ever be full justice for this evil? I don’t think so, much that I wish it were possible – I don’t think there will ever be justice for this heinous crime, not in this lifetime.

4. This brings me to another point that I really shouldn’t have to address in a forum named ‘Strategic Issues’. I would have thought that this was elementary, but apparently, a remedial lesson is required: It’s not just about catching ‘the man with the gun’, and neither can we rest when we have ‘the man behind the man with the gun’. In such heinous goings-on as international terrorism, especially anything motivated by ‘Cold War’ intrigues; proxies were/are always used, and in order to maintain plausible deniability, there are usually a number of seemingly unconnected intermediaries who actually put these ******** to work; who arm them, train them, finance them and task them. This is how the ‘Cold War’ was actually fought, and while not very many Americans or Russians were killed during the ‘Cold War’, millions of other people were slaughtered wholesale in both large and small conflicts that sprang-up between proxies and primaries aligned with one principal side or another. Those who were ‘Non-Aligned’ often fared the worst, because they were seen as partially on-the-fence, meaning that some simpleton in a well-decorated uniform or a nice suit, somewhere in a cozy, carpeted office, could make the case that a sharp nudge in the right direction, could tilt a ‘Non-Aligned’ party into one camp or another – in order to “win”. (I know – it disgusts me too.) So therefore, in order to think clearly and truly get to the bottom of things, we must look for ‘the man behind the men, behind the man, with the gun’. All I’m really trying to say here is; that man, was not a Canadian.

5. As for Khalistan being one part of a containment-and-control strategy directed against India – I shouldn’t have to explain that either (and neither should I have to explain that Canada never had any such grandiose ambition directed against India). I mean; few peoples on this planet have had such an up-close-and-personal view of the pointy edge of this kind of ‘divide-and-conquer’ strategy, as have the people of the Indian subcontinent. The strategy works like this (and consider if any of this rings a bell): It begins with the favouritism of some groups juxtaposed with the suppression of others, playing one side against the other by destroying the trust between them, and engineering animosities and atrocities in abundance, then switching sides after some time – always double-dealing in the most dastardly ways – propping-up political leaders who would lead their people into harm’s way, while undermining leaders who seek a better way (often with assassinations), and paying thugs and hoodlums to crank-up a feverish and fiendish cycle of escalating violence, for the sake of violence itself. This is an evil that the people of the Indian subcontinent have known very well. All the while, the whole purpose of this divide-and-conquer strategy is never to reach a stable and equitable equilibrium; but rather to ingrain instability, injustice and imbalance, so as to implement control and achieve subjugation. What makes the whole thing work, is that all subjugates are dealt a series of extremely painful blows and travesties, at the hands of each other – so that the grievances of one side beget grievances for another side. Thus, a vicious cycle is spun and spun around, while everyone is ground down into a bloody mess. All the while, the masterminds seem to keep their hands entirely clean, while their puppet masters stay above the fray, and together they profit and prosper with the spillage of every drop of blood. It is deeply troubling to me that so much of the focus of the masses has been on the proximate proxies, while hardly a glance is directed at the primaries, and the principals remain hidden in the shadows, ironically sheltering in the moral high ground. In view of this undeniable strategic reality; honest Rakshaks who hold the heartfelt intention of defending and securing India, must forever and in every way possible, reject and repudiate any thought, word or deed that could lead to disharmony or disunity among Indians of every ethnic, religious or political persuasion. To do otherwise is to serve the enemies of India, and such a person could never be considered a Bharat Rakshak. Understand that none of this means that the grievances of any group of Indian people are illegitimate, because they certainly are legitimate. No fair-thinking honest observer could say otherwise. After all, the grievances must be legitimate for the divide-and-conquer strategy to work in the first place. But neither does any of this mean that the way forward is by moving backward. That can never be the case. No – to progress, people have to look forward – it’s the only way, and without doing exactly that, nothing resembling a just dispensation will ever be achieved by any aggrieved group of people, anywhere – and they’re everywhere.

6. I see that you have pooh-poohed the crime-solving analytical factor established by asking ‘Cui Bono?’ (I suggest you convey your ‘directive’ to the IB and Scotland Yard, the FBI, RCMP, et cetera; so they can update their investigative processes – I’m sure they’d all like to know it no longer has any relevance, whatsoever, in any case, anywhere.) I guess, from where you sit, you perceive that the Harper government here in Canada, scored political points over the ‘visa flap’? Really? You think that Canadian government ministers offering an abject apology looks good in the eyes of Canadian voters? You do? I suppose you think that political gains were made among Canada’s (infinitesimally small) Khalistani constituency? You really think so? (Geesh! I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that you don’t work for law enforcement, the insurance industry or anywhere in the political realm.) Let me set you straight, vina: Any Canadian politician who was stained in the slightest way by any of this ‘visa flap’, suffered in terms of broader Canadian public perception. (Although most Canadians hardly took much notice.) Those Canadians who did notice the ‘visa flap’, thought this was a case of the Government mismanaging international relations, and/or coming up at odds with the bureaucracy (which we have been seeing a lot of these last 2-3 years, as I’ve tried to explain). What small, tiny, quantitatively-insignificant ‘block’ of voters there is who were initially pleased by the concept of harshly-worded visa denial letters sent to Indians; were summarily disappointed by what they perceive as the @$$ kissing, nicey-nice that promptly followed it. A cold calculation of which power center, in the final summation, managed to glean benefit from the ‘visa flap’, will clearly indicate that the only ‘winner’ was well ensconced within the upper echelons of the Canadian bureaucracy of DFAIT – for reasons you haven’t understood yet, which hopefully you will by the time you finish reading this series of posts.

… I think , just like Pakistan, India too should have stringent visa requirements for Canadian citizens visiting India, including fingerprinting requirements, anti terrorism checks, and city specific visa and daily Police reporting requirements….

My guess is that this will never happen – not because the GoI is weak-kneed or cowardly or deferential to ‘goras’, but because it is more sensible than you are, or at least, more sensible than you have been in your post, referenced here.

…I really hope that for you and Canada it is a new day and a new start…

I really hope that you are sincere in that, vina – because that’s what I want too, for the greater good of both Indians and Canadians.

Dear chaanakya, regarding your post of 29 May 2010 15:41;

… Bureaucratic actions reflect underlying policies…

You’re right and you’re wrong with the above statement. I honestly don’t think that there is any underlying policy in Canada aimed at painting Indian security personnel as war criminals, human rights abusers or some such ugly thing. At the same time, it is indisputable that ‘bureaucratic actions’ figured in this ‘visa flap’, and that policy also played a role – but not how you think. Allow me to explain with an analogy:

Have you ever had a job that you were an expert at, but for some reason or another, a new manager or supervisor was parachuted-in over top of you, and he or she set out to tell you how best to do your job, and to micromanage you to the n-th degree; even though it was clear to you that they didn’t know what they were talking about? Has this ever happened to you? Well, if it has, then you can relate to the point of view of the upper echelons of the Canadian bureaucracy at DFAIT and a whole host of other bureaucratic arms of the Canadian government, ever since the election of the new-to-government ‘Conservative Party of Canada’, which is unlike any previous Conservative government in Canada (as I’ve explained in my post of 29 May 2010 13:15).

Now I don’t know if you’ve ever been in this situation, but I have, and here’s how I handled it. At first, I tried to explain to my misguided micromanager about how things need to be done, and why they need to be done that way, and also what would the likely problems be of doing it their way and why they really don’t want that because it would make a mess of things. To my great frustration, my micromanager ignored everything that I had explained. Instead, he insisted that I do it his way, consequences be damned. Well, I tried to do it his way, but kept running into problems that neither of us had anticipated, and every time I brought these problems to the attention of my micromanager, he would insist that I tow the line, or else suffer the consequences of seeming to render unsatisfactory performance – which would have been a huge affront to me on both professional and personal levels.

So instead of suffer the ignominy of unjust evaluation – I towed the line, even though I thought it was stupid, because that’s what my micromanager forced me to do. In fact, I towed the line so well, that I effectively undertook a “work-to-rule” campaign, and if ever there came a point where my best judgement might be at odds with the letter of the written policy, or if that written policy was unclear in any way; I would ask for directions from my micromanager. This soon became tiresome to my micromanager, and I was subsequently told to “just follow the rules” or else be labelled as a troublemaker. So, follow the written rules I did, and I did, and I did, and right-quick, a huge mess was made, but at least I could hold myself out as blameless – having followed the rules to the letter, and having done what I was told to a ‘T’ – and so, the blame fell on my micromanager.

Believe it or not, this is how the ‘visa flap’ was made, IMHO; with the present political leadership in Canada forming the team of micromanagers that have pushed the bureaucracies of Canadian government into some very wrong directions, against their will – and with the ensuing mess manifesting in the ‘visa flap’, among other scenarios. Understand that the central objective of the government’s directives was not to undermine or embarrass India, but rather it was to keep down costs of investigating human rights abuses committed by visitors and immigrants to Canada (as Canadian law compels them to do, though the ‘Conservatives’ would rather not bother) – a directive that was enacted with a ‘blanket approach’ that covered (nearly) everyone, thereby casting a very fine net, very wide and deep, so wide and deep and so fine that it lead to the ‘visa flap’. It is truly unfortunate that in the process, the reputation of the Indian security services has been smeared, that the GoI has been painted as ‘soft’ by some observers in India, and that this whole affair has damaged relations between India and Canada. I wish it weren’t so.

Dear Rahul M, regarding your post of 29 May 2010 15:57;

Thanks for pointing out the following, which you quoted from Canada’s ‘Globe and Mail’ newspaper…

…Immigration Minister Jason Kenney issued an apology on Friday, saying Canadian immigration officials should never have cast aspersions on India’s institutions. The incidents, he said, showed visa officers have too much latitude. For a deeply embarrassed Harper government, the pledge and apology were an effort to repair relations with a country it has been assiduously courting: India’s booming economy makes it a major target for attempts to build trade ties to the East. And 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.

“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,” he said.

The apology didn’t end there: It came with a pledge that Canada will review its policy on declaring foreigners inadmissible. The incident, he added, “has demonstrated that the deliberately broad legislation may create instances when the net is cast too widely by officials, creating irritants with our trusted and valued international allies.”

Dear brihaspati, regarding your post of 29 May 2010 16:31;

… Bureaucrats everywhere are blamed but those that rise in the hierarchy do so by compromising and fulfilling the innermost desires of the political fat cats.

Don’t take this the wrong way, but I’m not sure that a posting at the Canadian embassy in New Delhi, would rank among the very top picks for most Canadian diplomats who would have fulfilled the “innermost desires of the political fat cats”. Maybe if this had happened in Paris, Rome, Brussels, New York or Washington, or even London – maybe your argument might have a basis for the rationale, but… New Delhi? As a reward for what? Again, don’t take that the wrong way, no offense to Delhi is intended.

… Outside the country, the political regime can have a freer hand in dealing with foreign entities because it usually does not affect domestic politics…

I’m not sure this applies to the Canadian situation – where foreign and domestic affairs are particularly well-integrated and co-influencing on many levels, not the least of which are politics and trade.

So, where domestic scrutiny keeps certain aspects of political "racism" towards "perceived other/alien" under the wraps for fear of backlash, such poltical "racism" can be given a freer reign away from the domestic public gaze.

This is the ‘information age’ and we Canadians do have a lot of internet access. Moreover, we are all in what we call ‘the 24-hour news cycle’, wherein any story can be circulated almost immediately, right down to hand-held devices, certainly within 24 hours. Considering that 1 million Canadians descend from South Asian bloodlines, mostly from India, out of a total population of 34 million Canadians – I wouldn’t say that that any of this happened because of any supposed “freer reign away from the domestic public gaze”, IMHO.

… such a signal kick in the butt of Indian security forces can also win votes from Kahlistani supporting community sections… the LTTE supporting community… the Jihad-e-Hind supporting community… the patriotic Chinese (meaning those who support the CPC and PLA designs on India…)… even those BD expats holding resentment for the IA march on Dhaka.

Please forgive me for saying so, but it seems to me that you are projecting all of you worst fears into the ‘visa flap’, and are hallucinating the hand of your enemies upon the helm of the Canadian ship of state. This is a paranoid state of mind, and creates an immediate blockage to anything resembling strategic thought. To make matters worse, you have shown a grave misunderstanding of ground realities in Canada and the political and security situation over here. Let me explain:

1. If the Sikh population in Canada amounts to 0.9% of the total number of Canadian citizens, and Khalistanis are a subset of these; don’t you think this is a very small voting block to pander to? I do. Moreover, such pandering cannot be done without losing support from other segments – particularly for Conservative governments, who are reliant for support on some groups who would gladly see less immigration and less accommodation of such things as carrying Kirpans (which has been a very controversial issue in Canada, recently set aflame anew by a brawl inside a Gurdwara which followed soon after a man was stabbed by a Kirpan at another Gurdwara http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article ... emple?bn=1). Many Canadians see the tolerance of Kirpan-carrying Sikhs to be one accommodation too far – I mean, any other Canadian found with a knife concealed under his or her clothes, would be charged with ‘carrying a concealed weapon’, and also a ‘weapons dangerous’ charge – perhaps also ‘breach of peace’ if it ever came out from under the clothes – not to mention further charges if it were ever used, even to threaten or menace.

2. Regarding “the LTTE supporting community”, you should know that this is a subset of the Tamil community, and that this larger community of Tamils in Canada are an even smaller population than are Sikhs in Canada. Furthermore, I would like you to understand the political implications of what you are suggesting: During the closing days of the war in Sri Lanka, a number of protests were held in Canada (as in other places), demanding that the Canadian government pull whatever levers it could manage in order to compel the Sri Lankan army to cease its final push of the war (which never happened). Here in Toronto, this eventually included some very disruptive protests that were not well-received by the general public http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/ ... 51109.html. Be sure to peruse through the comments section, to get an idea of how this protest was received, and also read this companion article http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/ ... otest.html. I would argue that since this happened, over a year ago, it has become less easy for any politician of any stripe, to be seen to cozy-up to what you refer to as “the LTTE supporting community” (with further comment on this to follow). That kind of political pandering to the fringe element of a tiny minority, does not come without a very steep price in other, larger constituencies – that’s a cold, hard, political fact.

3. WRT what you have termed “the Jihad-e-Hind supporting community” in Canada – this takes the cake. Do you actually think that any kind of ‘jihad’ has any political cachet here in Canada? Are you insane? Canada has troops in Afghanistan and they are fighting jihadis. The major terror threat faced by Canadians emanates from jihadis – everyone knows this, most especially every politician. Do you think that any of them are stupid enough to see political gains to be made from sidling up to “the Jihad-e-Hind supporting community”? Understand that I’m not saying that we don’t have any jihadis in Canada, because we certainly do – but they enjoy no political foothold whatsoever, most especially since a group of 18 of them were arrested for plotting, among other things, to storm the Canadian parliament and behead one politician after another until Canada withdraws its troops from Afganistan! Whatever jihadi element does (certainly) exist in Canada, is generally smart enough not to call too much attention to itself (with further comment on this to follow).

4. For the record, Canada does have a large Chinese immigrant community, and also a large community of Canadian-born people of Chinese ancestry, BUT I would be very surprised if any more than the tiniest fraction of these people “support the CPC and PLA designs on India”. The overwhelming majority of them want to see China transition into a democracy, and their chief day-to-day concern is economic advancement. Many of them drive nice cars, live in nice homes and wear nice clothes – and I have yet to see anyone resembling a Chinese Communist (which are increasingly hard to find in China too, where the word ‘Communism’ has been watered down more than the Yangtze River! By and large, if readers will allow me a generalization, Chinese people in Canada are in favour of whatever is good for business – and if they can secure Indian customers, believe you me, they’re in favour of that. Where I think your line of thought here came off the rails, was in assuming that the relationship between the Chinese government and the American government (that of creditor and debtor), resembles the relationship between the Chinese government and the Canadian government (where no such economic deference exists). Sure, a visit from the Dalai Lama may raise the hackles of the CPC, but the visit still goes ahead, and China-Canada relations do not skip too many beats in the process. You’re blowing the China-factor waaaaay out of proportion, due to paranoia, IMO.

5. Do you have any idea how many Bangladesh expats there are in Canada? Do you know how many are in elected office or in government positions? Well, I don’t either, because they’re so small a minority here in Canada that I don’t even think anyone is keeping track. Believe me when I tell you that the Bangladeshi community in Canada does not hold the reigns of power, and could never influence policy or administrative procedure the way you would seem to imply. Dear, dear brihaspati; GET A GRIP!

6. Here is something you really need to see: It’s Canada’s official list of ‘Currently listed terrorist entities’: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/le ... g.aspx#WTM. (IMHO, many of these groups were listed very late in their reign of terror, but as they say, better late than never.) Kindly note the number of Khalistani terror groups, Tamil terror groups and Jihadi groups, among others – in fact, most of the ‘listed entities’ fall into one of these three categories.

… It does not have to be that these groups have put pressure on these immigration officers, but simply that undisclosed policy of the political regime had been to use such incidents as leverage for domestic electoral considerations. Now "who benefits" can equally be used in this way - can't it?

No, it cannot – for reasons I’ve explained above. You are waaaay over-estimating the political leverage achievable by tiny minorities, many of whom have come to Canada as refugees – hardly tied-in to the Canadian power structure and state apparatus. I hate to put it so bluntly, and I don’t want to offend anyone when I say that these groups are tolerated in Canada – they are not followed, as you would seem to suggest.

Dear Tanaji, regarding your post of 29 May 2010 16:38;

So a cabal in the Canadian bureaucracy is partisan enough to run an endgame around established policy and do something contrary to it, with the sole view of discrediting the party in power. Is that really what you are saying?

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying, although the bureaucracy is partisan toward itself – not exactly against any particular political party, but rather, in jealous guard of its own interests, as a flourishing empire of bureaucrats with control over budgets, policy, staffs and perks, et cetera – all of the trappings of bureaucratic power.

Your incredulity at this fact demonstrates your extreme naiveté as to the affairs of state, in any country. (And I can well imagine that the GoI commiserates somewhat with the present government of Canada, because they do understand.) I could write you a compelling and cogent explanation of this reality that is inherent to every democracy on the planet, but I’ve got a much better (and more entertaining) idea…

Go to www.youtube.com and search for an old BBC TV series named ‘Yes Minister’, and the follow-on series named ‘Yes Prime Minister’. It has to be one of my favourite TV shows of all time, and it pertains precisely to my point.

… Canada seems to be even more of a banana republic than we thought…

Banana Republic…. Plantain Republic… Take your pick!

Dear Altair, regarding your post of 29 May 2010 16:56;

Thank you for your thoughtful questions. I will try to address each one as best I can.

Why do Indian Defense forces have a red flag associated with them?

My guess is that it comes down to things like the ‘Human Rights Watch’ report, and also submissions made to various UN agencies and also well-known groups like ‘Amnesty International’. Specifically which reports and findings made on which basis, and with what substantiation, documentation, verification and validation – I truly cannot say. Have there been any official reports or findings of wrong-doing issued by any GoI agency or judicial bench or special investigator that might have figured in this? If the answer is ‘yes’, then these may have played a role; and if the answer is ‘no’ then this may have played a role. (That’s right, it’s a ‘Catch-22’.) Are you, Altair, suggesting that no person working for any security organ of the Indian State has ever, at any time, been involved in some kind of unjust brutality? (Surely, you’re not suggesting that!) I mean; it happens everywhere, because this is a human dynamic that plays out all around the world, in every country on earth, that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Here in Canada, whenever there is a death caused by a police force, there is always an investigation. Recently, the established practice of the federally-constituted *RCMP investigating themselves* has come into serious question, when the death of ‘Robert Dziekanski’ http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/ ... ology.html. The public outrage fuelled by a video posted on youtube of his killing at the hands of the RCMP, led to a public inquiry, rather than the normal ‘special investigation’. (Unlike every other police force in Canada, which has a civilian-led watch-dog group overseeing such things, the RCMP has thus far usually investigated its own officers when there was a death or indication of misconduct – but it seems that this may soon change.)

Who flagged BSF and IB "Red"?

I don’t know precisely how this happened.

What other institutions in India are flagged similarly?

Newspaper reports from India would seem to list the; IA, IB, and BSF – but there may be others, I really don’t know.

Is India an isolated country in this matter or Did any other nation apart from India had similar disgrace in the past few months? If so Who?

As I’ve explained, the nationals of many countries are asked about their military service when applying for a visa to visit or reside in Canada – so there was no actual attempt to single-out India with the visa application process. As far as tersely-worded visa denial letters casting aspersions upon the security forces of a country – the only such cases that have come to light pertain to India – but that does not mean that it did not happen, only that the Indian indignation, and the involvement of the Indian media, were sufficient to bring this whole affair into the light of day. In a way, it’s too bad, really, because I think the whole affair would have been better-handled out of the limelight. (It is possible that the injury dealt was calculated to be severe enough to raise press attention – in order to give this ‘bureaucratic torpedo’ a high-yield, so to speak.)

Unless we have answers to these questions it is unreasonable to judge any one theory correct or wrong.

You’re probably correct here, but I would argue that it is more important to just get on with normal India-Canada relations, because I honestly don’t see any anti-India policy directive at play here, not from where I sit in Canada (which has been making more than a few overtures of friendship toward India).

It would be much more valuable to ascertain Canada’s stance on India’s permanent installation on the UNSC – don’t you think?

Dear Gerard, regarding your post of 29 May 2010 17:34;

No overworked immigration officer could come up with this nugget:

Quote:
“You were at the very least willfully blind to the crimes against humanity committed by Punjab police in Amritsar,” the letter said, claiming government forces killed 6,000 Sikhs in Amritsar from 1984 to 1994.

These people have far too much time on their hands. That visa section needs to be cut by about 75%.

While I cannot comment on the staffing levels in the visa section at the Canadian embassy in New Delhi (which is something I could do, professionally, if I could study the processes and procedures and staffs at work); I cannot help but notice that this is exactly the kind of off-the-cuff, ugly remark that peppers internet forums like BRF. Ask yourself; how much time does it really take to type-up a nasty sentence or two? Not much time; I see. Indeed, it takes much longer to be nice or pleasant, or to reflect the truth in fair words; rather than some facile over-simplification of what are very complex events entangled by powerful emotions. Wouldn’t you agree?

ALSO, has there ever been any kind of officially-sanctioned judicial inquiry, or high-level review or other public proceedings constituted to assess the events leading up to ‘Operation Blue Star’, what happened during the operation, and also related events in the ensuing years? I know that MMS gave a public apology in 2005 for the bloody events of 1984, but what is there along the lines of an official enumeration and recognition of exactly what transpired? What is the official line on this very important chapter in Indian history? (This present paragraph is intended to pose a series of rhetorical questions, but if you might think that I am misconstruing the reality or overlooking the facts, please advise.)

PS: I’m not trying to open-up a whole can of worms, nor am I intent on driving this thread OT. But, perhaps you might agree, in fairness, that at least some of the indignation might be at least partially overwrought?

I’m just sayin’….

Dear lsunil, regarding your post of 29 May 2010 18:02;

…I think the khalistani angle no longer fits…

I agree, wholeheartedly. This does not mean that there are no Khalistanis in Canada, because there certainly are – maybe even more than in India – and I would not argue otherwise. But, I honestly don’t think they have much leeway to pursue their impossible and unpopular agenda in any serious way, from any base in Canada. They may post a bunch of stuff on the internet, and maybe produce a video or two, but they are under surveillance by law enforcement and intelligence agencies (who are getting much better at their jobs), and if they were ever found to be up to their old tricks, this and every Canadian that I know, would demand that they face the harshest justice we can dispense. I will agree, though, that it is something to keep an eye on, and I would hope that the GoI is constantly reminding the Canadian government that it has obligations to meet, in the name of humanity and its own reputation.

… We need to accept the fact that the genuine authority hidden somewhere in canada does not view india as a favourable country. To the liberals, all communists are socialists and all socialists are nationalists. And all nationalists are Y_ _DO_S (fill the blanks)

I don’t follow your reasoning here – and not just because I think you’ve mistaken ‘liberals’ for ‘Conservatives’ (who might be more inclined to think along those lines), but also because I chalk-up the ‘visa flap’ to an episode of bureaucratic-political conflict, rather than as the exemplification of any genuine or broader geopolitical undertaking or secret wish. Moreover, Canada, as a NATO country, is – believe me – much more worried about the ascent of an expansionist and militarized, authoritarian China, than they are worried about India, for a whole host of reasons (and that’s only when they’re thinking long-term, and right now, they’re much more focused on the present-term troubles with the jihadis). That’s my best estimation of things.

NOTE: This and every Canadian that I know, would welcome the rise of a peaceful and democratic China, and IMHO, every Indian should wish for that too.

Dear lsunil, regarding your post of 29 May 2010 21:10;

…JUSTICE has NOT been DONE….

You’re right, justice has not been done by Canada’s aboriginal peoples, but that doesn’t change the fact that your post is hugely OT.

Dear pgbhat, regarding your post of 30 May 2010 08:40;

… Gubmint is trying to distance itself…

Of course, the Canadian government is distancing itself from something that it does not support – why should they do otherwise?

Dear Prem Kumar, regarding your post of 30 May 2010 12:22;

… taking a principled stance will imply sacrifices. Sacrifices from common folk like you & me…

Please believe me when I tell you that I take no pleasure whatsoever in explaining this to you, but…

If you enjoy internet access, then you are not ‘common folk’ by Indian standards. Therefore, it behoves you to consider what sacrifices might be required of India’s true common folk, before you (myopically) advocate for a policy for which others will have to pay a much steeper price than you ever will. To do otherwise is irresponsible. Thankfully, the GoI is much more responsible than you would seem to be.

… Canada will be forced to change - they will get the message that India is not to be trifled with…

Canada did change, and within 24 hours of the public notice issued by the GoI’s MEA. (This fact has been referenced prior to your comment here, so I don’t know why you are refusing to recognize that.)

As for India not being trifled with anymore; one of the things that worries me the most about this ‘visa flap’, is how it revealed a dangerous weakness in the Indian polity. It demonstrated the potential for a foreign entity to influence election outcomes in India by way of making the GoI look bad in political terms. This is very dangerous. I would much rather that Indians had been calmer about what will, in time, prove to be a minor hiccup in the midst of increasingly positive India-Canada relations, lest it slow down this improvement, or worse: precipitate some other instance of foreign-sourced injury or insult, undertaken to cheaply capture an advantage offered by the ensuing public outrage.

Dear Chandragupta, regarding your post of 30 May 2010 15:49;

… This is typical dhimmi behavior…. This underlines the obsession with western boots, that our politicos, barring a few, have had since the independence. We must never upset the white men. I believe this is the hangover from the independence struggle, with all the brown babus who left their balls in Aingland coming to power….

It is interesting how differently people can view the same thing, when they are sitting in different locations.

To offer some perspective, I’d like to share with you the following quotes, spoken at one of the most dangerous peaks of the ‘Cold War’.

… Indians are "a slippery, treacherous people", said president Richard Nixon. "The Indians are ******** anyway. They are the most aggressive goddamn people around," echoed his assistant for national security affairs, Henry Kissinger. The setting: a White House meeting on July 16, 1971, during the run-up to the India-Pakistan war which ultimately led to the birth of Bangladesh, erstwhile East Pakistan….
…
Nixon had a simple explanation for the wayward behavior of his ambassadors. At a meeting with members of the Senior Review Group in August 1971, he said: "Ambassadors who go to India fall in love with India. Some have the same experience in Pakistan, though not as many because the Pakistanis are a different breed. The Pakistanis are straightforward and sometimes extremely stupid. The Indians are more devious, sometimes so smart that we fall for their line."
…
Nixon and Kissinger met at the Oval Office on the morning of November 5 to discuss the president's conversation with Indira on the previous day. Kissinger's assessment: "While she was a bitch, we got what we wanted ... She will not be able to go home and say that the United States didn't give her a warm reception and therefore in despair she's got to go to war." Replied Nixon: "We really slobbered over the old witch." After she got home, the "old witch" wrote to Nixon: "I sincerely hope that your clear vision will guide relations between our two democracies and will help us to come closer. It will always be our effort to clear any misunderstanding and not to allow temporary differences to impede the strengthening of our friendship." Within a day of Gandhi's return on November 21, Indian forces attacked East Pakistan at five key areas.
…
THESE QUOTES WERE EXCERPTED FROM A MUST-READ ARTICLE: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/south_asia/gf23df04.html

It would seem to me that you don’t really understand how Indians and especially Indian politicians are regarded in the RoW, IMHO, and that you are judging them on this account, in unfair terms.

Dear Gagan, regarding your post of 02 Jun 2010 13:31;

… Problem is, a new generation has come by, the khalistanis who departed india are now rich and pakistan has made renewed efforts to re-ignite this problem….

Your above comment was interesting to me, because it underscores an important front on the battle against terrorism – combating terror financing. Canada has tried to take a number of steps (but has so far found very little success). For official information visit http://www.international.gc.ca/crime/fi ... x?lang=eng and for closer look at Canada’s FINTRAC visit http://www.fintrac-canafe.gc.ca/fintrac ... te-eng.asp. But, and that’s a very big ‘but’; see also…

Six months in jail for Tamil Tiger fundraiser too lax, Liberal MP says
Dosanjh argues man guilty in Canada’s first terrorism-financing case deserved tougher sentence

Robert Matas, Vancouver — Globe and Mail Update
Published on Friday, May. 14, 2010 2:20PM EDT
Last updated on Friday, May. 14, 2010 10:17PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le1569243/

Canada’s judicial system has failed to send a strong message of deterrence to fundraisers for terrorist groups when it sentenced an Ontario man to six months in jail for raising funds for the Tamil Tigers, says Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh.
Mr. Dosanjh, who has been threatened and beaten after speaking out against terrorism, said Friday he had hoped the penalty for the first terrorism-financing case would be stiffer.
Mr. Justice Robert Powers, of the B.C. Supreme Court, sentenced Prapaharan Thambithurai to six months in jail after he pleaded guilty this week to fundraising for a banned terrorist group. The law provides for a maximum sentence of 10 years and does not include a minimum sentence.
“Because this was the first case, because it was about terrorism, because it is so scary. . . I think the sentence could have been tougher,” Mr. Dosanjh said.
“The court case shows that Canada is serious in stamping out terrorism. But I think we need to do more.”
Security and intelligence expert Wesley Wark said Friday’s sentence was obviously very light and weak. “It does not do much in terms of sending a message to Canadian society about the seriousness of the crime,” he said. “I don’t think in anybody’s eyes it could be regarded as a stiff sentence or a sentence that is likely to deter.”
Federal prosecutor Martha Devlin, who said Mr. Thambithurai was a low-level street canvasser, had recommended a two-year sentence. His lawyer, Richard Peck, proposed a three-year suspended sentence. Both sides now have 30 days to decide whether to appeal the sentence.
…

I would be very interested to know what efforts has the GoI undertaken to combat terror financing. Are there still Hawalas in India? If there are, has any politician made moves to close them down? If not, then no matter what steps may be taken in a place like Canada, if there are still Hawala operations in India, that bloody money will get through to fund those dirty deeds. So, it’s a two-way street; and while Canada is at least trying, if not succeeding perfectly, I have to ask what steps are being taken in India to close the taps on this sustaining fountain of terrorism. It is a very important issue.

Politicians must be made to understand that this kind of thing matters a lot, because “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”.

Dear Jaspreet, regarding your post of 05 Jun 2010 17:56;

Till yesterday there was no letter from Indian High Commission against the implications and insinuations in this article. I don't know why that is. Perhaps they did that in the past and now have lost interest. Perhaps they think these people aren't worth the bother. But this apathy will cause an ordinary person to believe the anti-India side of the story.

I’ll tell you why there was no official response from the Indian High Commission – because some insults are not worth rebutting. Period.

I don’t ever recall reading some kind of official response from a GoI source to counter any kind of wrong-headed article posted in an online newspaper. I wouldn’t expect to read a GoI-issued counter-article, because democracies don’t try to control opinion that way – it’s beneath their dignity.

There’s another couple of important thing that I would like to explain to you and everyone else here at BRF: It is a truism in life, generally speaking, that “extremists set the agenda, because moderates have more important things to do”. Therefore, don’t get all up-in-arms about every petty insult – because that’s what the smear-artists want! Instead, go about your business and make the best of things, and give the best of yourself, because in the final calculation, that will matter much more than any stupid newspaper article ever will.

Secondly; “the way it reads in the newspaper is rarely how it reads in the real world”. There are two implications to this, WRT instances of anti-India reporting. First; I would like you to know that Canadians, anyway, are much more media-savvy than you would (apparently) think; I guess from being exposed to so much propaganda from American news outlets – Canadians are particularly disinclined to believe everything they read, and we always question the source. The fact that a Sikh gentleman with Khalistani leanings should have something disparaging to say about India, is hardly newsworthy – and I doubt very much if it has any effect on the impressions of average Canadians – who are more than likely not to even follow the link to any such an anti-India article in the first place (mostly because this kind of ‘foreign squabble’ is not in the center of their radar, and also because they’ve already read that kind of thing before, and don’t really care to read it again – “same old – same old” – as we say in Canada). Second; it is important to understand that newspapers don’t necessarily only print things that they agree with or support – they print things that get read. NEWSFLASH: Newspapers are not about disseminating the truth, they are about selling newspapers and adspace. With something like a newspaper website on the internet, believe you me when I tell you that the editorial board of the newspaper will assess the ‘page views’ on an article, and if it ranks high on their webserver reports, the newspaper will more than likely print another similar article – because it generates web traffic, which is directly related to ad revenues from the advertisements posted on that web page.

By linking to every anti-India article on the internet, BRF may actually be spurring-on anti-India reporting!

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote: While I cannot comment on the staffing levels in the visa section at the Canadian embassy in New Delhi (which is something I could do, professionally, if I could study the processes and procedures and staffs at work); I cannot help but notice that this is exactly the kind of off-the-cuff, ugly remark that peppers internet forums like BRF. Ask yourself; how much time does it really take to type-up a nasty sentence or two? Not much time; I see. Indeed, it takes much longer to be nice or pleasant, or to reflect the truth in fair words; rather than some facile over-simplification of what are very complex events entangled by powerful emotions. Wouldn’t you agree?

If only you could type this up and mail to the Canadian consulate/visa officers.

Dear pgbhat,

As I've tried to explain, the genesis of the 'visa flap' did not occur in any consulate or embassy. It has roots that lead all the way back to DFAIT HQ in Ottawa, but that should not be construed to mean that it's an expression of anti-India anything.

Please read all posts that I made today, it will paint a much clearer impression than the one you're currently basing your posts on.

Thanks for your interest, all the same.

Regards,
RK

PS: sunilUpa -- Please do read my posts from today before you unnecessarily go off on an unwarranted tangent. I have addressed the Kanishka bombing at length -- with more clarity than I've ever read here on BRF -- so do us both a favour and catch-up on your reading before posting. Thanks, RK

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:
PS: sunilUpa -- Please do read my posts from today before you unnecessarily go off on an unwarranted tangent. I have addressed the Kaniska bombing at length -- with more clarity than I've ever read here on BRF -- so do us both a favour and catch-up on your reading before posting. Thanks, RK

Fact = Your country shelters Terrorists period. Good night and good bye.

^^^^
So I guess you believe that there are no terrorists sheltering in India?

FYI: Canada's official list of 'Terrorist Entities'.
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/le ... g.aspx#WTM

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote: I hate to put it so bluntly, and I don’t want to offend anyone when I say that these groups are tolerated in Canada – they are not followed, as you would seem to suggest.

Ok. So Canada tolerates terrorists and their sympathizers but does not follow terrorism by itself. How nice ! I think India should thank Canada for this magnanimous policy

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:^^^^
So I guess you believe that there are no terrorists sheltering in India?

Can you educate me which terrorists India is sheltering ?

Dear Rony,

Way to go! Taking a quote entirely out of context!

That's not going to help anyone better understand anything -- so I have to wonder why you'd post it.

PS: I didn't mean to imply that the GoI is sheltering any terrorists, but the fact is undeniable that there are terrorists taking shelter on Indian soil, unbeknownst to the GoI -- just the same as in Canada. What proof is there that the Government of Canada ever knowingly sheltered terrorists? MORE IMPORTANTLY, I respectfully suggest that you read all of my posts from today, before you start commenting at the bottom of this thread, because I have addressed this issue above, at length. Thanks, RK

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:PS: I didn't mean to imply that the GoI is sheltering any terrorists, but the fact is undeniable that there are terrorists taking shelter on Indian soil, unbeknownst to the GoI -- just the same as in Canada. What proof is there that the Government of Canada ever knowingly sheltered terrorists? MORE IMPORTANTLY, I respectfully suggest that you read all of my posts from today, before you start commenting at the bottom of this thread, because I have addressed this issue above, at length. Thanks, RK

If it is undeniable as you seems to think, then it should not be a problem for you to educate us with more details. Again i am asking you, can you educate me about the terrorists which India is sheltering. I am not asking this to put you in a spot but i genuinely wanted to know about those terrorists which you are hinting at .

Dear Rony,

I didn't ever say that India is sheltering them -- I said they are sheltering in India -- BIG DIFFERENCE which you seem determined to overlook, though I don't know why.

Ask any GoI official or security force officer -- are they worried about any terrorists that are currently hiding in India -- they will tell you all about it.

What? Do you think there are no terrorists hiding in India, waiting to strike when the order comes? Is India some kind of magical terrorist-free zone?

Get serious!

Dear RK,

There is no comparision between Indian and Canadian situation. Canada is sheltering terrorists and their sympathisers since decades. The Khalistanis are powerful enough in Canada that politicians attend their rallies. I dont think any Indian ministers or politicians attended rallies of anti-canadian groups in India (if they are present in the first place).

Rony wrote:Dear RK,

There is no comparision between Indian and Canadian situation. Canada is sheltering terrorists and their sympathisers since decades. The Khalistanis are powerful enough in Canada that politicians attend their rallies. I dont think any Indian ministers or politicians attended rallies of anti-canadian groups in India (if they are present in the first place).

I think we agree more than you realize.

1. There is no comparison between India and Canada WRT this situation of Khalistanis.

2. In the past, pandering politicians in Canada have attended rallies that have featured expressions of 'Khalistan Zindabad'. For the most part, these politicians have done so without understanding the implications raised by those portraits of bearded men, because they had no idea who they were. Due to recent events, this has changed, and this issue has come to broader understanding in Canada. Now, Canadian politicians are staying away from such rallies and are walking out when these portraits of terrorists are displayed. This is new, I won't tell you otherwise, but it does signal a new understanding of something that was not understood before. Please read these articles for greater insight:

http://www.canada.com/life/premier+plan ... story.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le1538921/

Thread being locked for biohazard cleanup.

thread cleaned up of irrelevant one-liners and flames.

@all, if you think there's a problem with a poster, report him/her, do not try to sort it out in the thread. what is to be gained by just increasing the workload of mods ?
ravi karunamachari, you missed being warned because you were (over)reacting to some critical posts and flames. next time, (if there is one) mods may not be so considerate. IOW, report posts if you have a problem with them.
secondly, much of the current spat would have been avoided if you came off as less patronizing in your earlier post. please try not be, it's part of netiquette 202.

Yawn... There we go again with the glorious question of "Who Benefits" like Pakiland.

Now who was responsible for the Air India bombing?. By asking the "Who Benefits" question, we have the brilliant former CSIS Asia-Pacific bureau chief, Michel Juneau-Katsuya (it is the CSIS jokers who deleted the Kanishka tapes anyway.. so much for the competence of those bumbling idiots),saying it is the INDIAN Govt (aka Raa Agint in BRF!) .. Of course, we are informed "Who Benefits" is what Scotland Yard, FBI and all law enforcing agencies ask themselves in an investigation. Well, it seems to have led to some brilliant conclusions from this Canuckstani nutcase.

All this in main stream papers such as Globe and Mail. Check it out here

That is why I repeat. Put in finger printing and police reporting and city specific visas to any visitor from Canada , after declaring it as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:<a lot of stuff>

Ravi, your voluminous posts are no doubt full of invaluable nuggets of wisdom that every Indian should take to heart, I only wish I had the century or so it takes to read and absorb it in its entirety. But it seems to me you are missing one basic point--the strategic interests of your country, canada, are not the same as those of our country, India. For instance, the strategic benefits of putting, or attempting to put, Canada in its icy little corner, while we pursue larger goals of world conquest, are at least worth considering for Indians on this forum. I offer that only as a hypothetical example of how the concepts of strategic thinking can vary depending on where one's loyalties lie.

Canada is punching way above its weight, and only because it knows US has its back. Ban all overflights of Canadian military aircraft over India, refuse visas to all current and ex canadian armed force/RCMP personnel without assigning any reasons.

Irrespective of whether people from all countries fill up the Canadian visa forms, fact remains that the Canadian Embassy(which represents Canadian govt) rejected visas in writing saying that BSF/IA/Punjab Police are involved in crimes against humanity. It is the official position of the canadian govt, and their foreign minister wiggled out of it. And read his explanations fully, and he clearly says that the visa officers were working without prejudice, basically saying they did no wrong.

I hope our EAM shows some spine. Or at least the home ministry delays processing of these morons' visas for months on end.

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:Canada has tried to take a number of steps (but has so far found very little success). For official information visit http://www.international.gc.ca/crime/fi ... x?lang=eng and for closer look at Canada’s FINTRAC visit http://www.fintrac-canafe.gc.ca/fintrac ... te-eng.asp. But, and that’s a very big ‘but’; see also…

Six months in jail for Tamil Tiger fundraiser too lax, Liberal MP says
Dosanjh argues man guilty in Canada’s first terrorism-financing case deserved tougher sentence

Robert Matas, Vancouver — Globe and Mail Update
Published on Friday, May. 14, 2010 2:20PM EDT
Last updated on Friday, May. 14, 2010 10:17PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le1569243/

Canada’s judicial system has failed to send a strong message of deterrence to fundraisers for terrorist groups when it sentenced an Ontario man to six months in jail for raising funds for the Tamil Tigers, says Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh.

I would be very interested to know what efforts has the GoI undertaken to combat terror financing. Are there still Hawalas in India?

Politicians must be made to understand that this kind of thing matters a lot, because “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”.

Few points I would like to add to this:
1. Canada is handing out lax sentences because the troublemakers are indulging in 'peaceful' activities in Canada. The murder and mayhem and families and loved ones lost killed maimed is far from canada's borders. I doubt if a few people killed in a bomb blast in Sri Lanka or a few people murdered in Punjab ever makes for more than a passing remark in the news in Canada. Even if it does it gets passed off as 'repressive thrid world governments and people struggling for more rights - native barbarians all'. There is a sense of distancing themselves from the problems of the third world. Little do they realize in their actions, that that terror would not be possible if their dollars didn't go to those who seek violence as their method of protest.

Things will change in canada and other such developed countries when:
i. The revolution reaches their shores
ii. The foreign governments themselves get developed and get canada and other such nations by their ball$ and make them fall in line - politely.
iii. The media and astute individuals raise the issue continuously, and the powers that be realize that the issue needs more attention than it is being given now.

My impression of Canada is that this is a nation that is inherently just and honest as evidenced by the huge strides that canada has taken in terms of equality-law and order-social justice, as long as massa's will does not get imposed. Then it becomes part of a cabal with UK, Australia, and the tiny western-european morality-spouting city states.

2. Hawala is still very much operational in India. Although the government and its agencies take a lot of steps to curtail this problem, there are issues related to inadequate force levels, lack of cooperation and access with foreign governments, and of course corruption within the indian system. But it is a challenge that is being tackled slowly but surely.

Canada is a friendly country, by and large, despite some of its actions being not palatable to us, many Indians. Ravi is only telling us to have a somewhat broader understanding of situation prevailing there and be little more tolerant.

These cases of VISA rejections are bad in the sense they castigate our security forces and cast a doubt on our policies while dealing with internal disturbances. It is none of their business. But many western countries and even few others have made it their business to pontificate. I would say just leave it to lower bureaucracy to deal with it and look other way. They will do a fine job by themselves within their limits of work and its procedure, of course little hints here and there would suffice.

High and mighty need not indulge in frivolous pastimes. AT higher levels , talk only principles and say will try to sort out minor irritants in our relations. Of course they need to adhere to our rules and regulations which could not be changed for the sake of one case or country, Canada would surely understand.

By being vitriolic, we might alienate friendly canadians without gaining anything in return. Moreover , if Canada is acting way over its weight, it would surely be shown its true place , Bad Karma.

Indo-Canada nuke deal to be signed during G-20 Summit

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 022931.cms

India and Canada will sign a civil nuclear agreement during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's forthcoming visit to the G-20 Summit in Toronto later this month.

Both countries will try to triple the bilateral trade and investment volume to CAD 15 billion by 2015 from the current CAD 5 billion, they added.

Image: Canadian soldier torturing a somali boy in 1993
Ottawa, you have a problem

Siddharth Varadarajan

...
The irony is that Major Avtar Singh, formerly of the 35th Rashtriya Rifles, an ex-officer accused by a Budgam court of murdering the Kashmiri human rights lawyer Jalil Andrabi in 1996, is by some accounts, happily settled in Canada, having migrated there a few years ago. If the Canadian government were to refuse entry to such individuals or even expel them, it would not only be true to the letter and spirit of its immigration law but would also give a boost to those in India who are trying to push the system to take human rights more seriously. Instead of catching this sort of fish, however, it has cast a huge net. The current visa rejections reflect the futility of this approach.

One of the ‘rejection' letters written by the Canadian High Commission to a former BSF constable refers to ‘open source' material on human rights violations committed in Kashmir. One could easily add that there is open source material on the complicity of the Canadian armed forces in the torture of Afghan civilians.

...

Canadian peacekeepers involved in the 1993 murder of a Somali teenager, Shidane Arone, may have gotten away with relatively light punishment but they disgraced their country's army in the eyes of the world. Like the BSF, the Canadian armed forces' actions in Somalia or Afghanistan do not make it a “notoriously violent” institution, the phrase used by Ottawa's visa officials to describe the Indian security forces. But they do mean Canada is living in a glass house and cannot afford to throw stones.

Kanishka inquiry commission report to be released on June 17

The final report of the Public Inquiry Commission, probing into the Air India [ Images ] bombing and Canada's [ Images ] failure to prosecute those responsible for the terror attack, will be released on June 17, officials said on Friday."The Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182 will be released in Ottawa on June 17," spokesperson of the Commission Michael Tansey said. The report would be released just before the 25th anniversary of the history's deadliest aviation disaster which claimed 329 lives. The bombing occurred on June 23, 1985, while Air India flight 182 was flying over Atlantic Ocean en route New Delhi [ Images ] from Montreal via London [ Images ]. Two others died in a related bombing at Tokyo's Narita Airport. Former Supreme Court of Canada Justice John Major spent almost two years hearing from more than 200 witnesses and reviewing 17,000 classified documents. The attack was widely thought to be the work of Canada -based Sikhs fighting for an independent homeland in India, who wanted revenge against the Operation Blue Star [ Get Quote ]. Soon after the bombing, media reported the details of an alleged plot but it took police about 15 years to charge anyone for the attack. Inderjit Singh Reyat was the only person convicted in the case, after he admitted to supplying bomb parts. Two others, Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri, were acquitted in 2005 on murder charges related to the bombing. A judge eventually found both men not guilty because of a lack of evidenceThose responsible for the bombing were never been found. Families of the victims spent 21 years trying to convince the Federal government to hold an inquiry into the attack.
In 2006, the Commission - headed by former Supreme Court justice John Major - spent nearly two years hearing from more than 200 witnesses and reviewing 17,000 classified documents. The public hearings was wrapped up in February 2008. But, last year, other issues surfaced when more documents turned up raising questions about Transport Canada's security measures at that time and suggesting Canadian Security Intelligence Service was hindered in its efforts by a bureaucratic "quagmire". The extensive final report would consist of five volumes spanning more than 3,100 pages in total. Around 3,100 copies of the report have been published. The Commission also plans to publish four volumes of "research papers" of 1,300 pages.

http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/jun/ ... une-17.htm

TORONTO: Gurbax Malhi, Canada’s longest-serving Indo-Canadian member of parliament and the first turbaned Sikh MP in the West, has denied signing the motion on the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, which was tabled last week in the Canadian parliament.

Malhi, who was reported by the media to have signed the motion, on Tuesday denied this. In a statement here, Malhi said, ‘‘Recent media reports have alleged that I supported the petition. I did not sign the petition. I was not present at the June 9 memorial/rally event on Parliament Hill (the seat of parliament) when the petition was read out in public and I was not in attendance on June 10 when the petition was read in the House of Commons.’’

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Worl ... 056949.cms