Suhasini Haidar: You took charge of India-Canada ties at a time when relations hit rock bottom. Would you call yourself the reset ambassador?

It’s taken us some time to get here. It’s been over a year since Prime Minister Modi was invited to the G7 summit at Kananaskis in Alberta. But we have built momentum. I happened to arrive at the time that we started this reset, and now we have gone well beyond a reset. We are in a kind of dangerous time globally. We have two very hot wars going on (the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the West Asia conflict). We’ve got trade disruptions going on. We’ve got climate change. We’ve got AI, the challenge and opportunity. And it happens to be that this period in which we are re-establishing our relationship is the one that works the best for us. In all of the 80 years or so that we have had diplomatic relations, I don’t think we have ever had an environment which draws us together in that same way.

Suhasini Haidar: Do you see a big announcement round the corner? Prime Minister Narendra Modi is heading to North America in December for the G20 summit in the U.S. Do you expect his first bilateral visit in more than a decade this year?

Yes, a continuing string of events over the last year will culminate this year, we expect, in the visit of Prime Minister Modi to Canada. The two Prime Ministers, when Prime Minister [Mark] Carney came here in March, set out this kind of road map in a joint statement. I think it has 50 or more deliverables and we are trying to fulfil those commitments. There are commercial deals in the offing. There’s a broader range of areas where we are doing things together, for example, in defence. So, it’ll become a bit more tangible to the average person. In October, we have the largest trade mission coming to Mumbai and Bengaluru.

Suhasini Haidar: Have Canada-India trade relations been spurred by the Donald Trump administration’s actions? And will the push remain once Canada and the U.S. sort out their problems and go back to normal?

A lot of people ask that question. The Canada-U.S. trade deal is a negotiation and there’s no question we will get there at some point. Mr. Trump is a hard bargainer. Well, so are we. That’s why the Prime Minister pulled out of talks that were going to produce a deal that wasn’t good enough for us. The pressures that we are getting from the U.S., yes, have accelerated certain things in Canada, but already Canada was shifting. The polling, the recent byelections we had, all demonstrate that across the country, from one end to the other, Canadians actually support the direction that we are taking. We can see that we had too many eggs in one basket. We don’t want that degree of dependence. We want to diversify. And I think it will be good for India and the relationship with India because at the top, at the political level, the two Prime Ministers have a good chemistry. They have met four times over the last year. There’s a lot of political eye-to-eye view at this point. I think even if there were changes in government, that would survive this.

Sharad Raghavan: Can you estimate what level of progress we are at on the trade deal? What are the sticking points?

Canada is the ninth biggest economy in the world. India is the fourth biggest, and we should have a lot more trade. While the trade itself is rather modest, we generate a lot of employment and investment. Canadian pension funds and other big institutional investors have invested about $80 billion (U.S. dollars) in India. That makes us, along with Singapore and the UAE, the largest investors in your country, which is kind of funny – little, tiny countries in this big country, and we are the biggest investors. There are some tax issues, but generally speaking, they (Canadian investors) are very bullish on India. On the CEPA, the free trade agreement, we are now going to have the fourth round of discussions here in Delhi in a few days’ time. Previously, we discussed for 12 years, and we got no trade agreement. This time, we started in March 2026. We’ve probably done more in these six months than we did in those 12 years. That looks like pretty good math. Our hope is that we get there by the time of a Modi visit to Canada, which would mean achieving this in about nine months [since March]. That’s like a child – we hope this is a really nice baby.

Canadian High Commissioner to India Christopher Cooter being presented a memento by Varghese K. George, The Hindu’s Resident Editor, New Delhi. The Hindu’s Diplomatic Affairs Editor Suhasini Haider, and S. Ramanujam, The Hindu’s Assistant Vice President, Finance Administration, are also seen. 
| Photo Credit:
SUSHIL KUMAR VERMA

Varghese K. George: In which sectors could India and Canada enhance their bilateral cooperation in trade and meet the $1-trillion investment goal?

Canada has huge amounts of natural resources and technology that would be very apt in the Indian setting. Take nuclear, for example. We have been cooperating on nuclear since the 1950s. So, most of your reactors are based on Canadian CANDU (Canada Deuterium Uranium) models. Eighteen of India’s 24 reactors are actually CANDU-based. We are looking at different types of technologies, different kinds of reactors, smaller ones, medium-sized ones, and then the whole cycle, right up to the decommissioning of other plants. I mean, we have got the things that you actually need, like energy. Canada is the fourth largest producer of oil, fifth largest in LPG, fifth largest in LNG. We have 20% of the world’s tungsten. We are No. 1 in potash, No. 2 or 3 in titanium. We are the only G7 country that can produce batteries for EVs (electric vehicles).

Saptaparno Ghosh: Why has the hydrocarbon trade between the two countries not really picked up?

On fossil fuels, what Canada lacks, which the U.S. has, is enough west coast ports. India has got some Canadian oil through the Gulf ports of the U.S. as well, but we have just completed the TMX (Trans Mountain Expansion Project) pipeline in 2024, and it can produce about 9,00,000 to 1,000,000 barrels a day now, and that’s coming out in Vancouver. Vancouver is a little bit shallow for some of the largest ships, so we’ve got to look at getting deep water ports. We have just announced another pipeline project that will go to deep water, and that will allow us to really have economies of scale, which we don’t have yet on the west coast of Canada for India.

Suhasini Haidar: The more you describe this almost utopian state of the relationship, we have to see the contrast to exactly three years ago, when then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau came to India for the G20 summit and had a tense meeting with PM Modi over the investigation into the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. How are security talks progressing now, given that the officials involved are the same – the Canadian officials who accused the Indian security apparatus of carrying out a killing in Canada, and the Indian officials who accused Canada of harbouring terrorists?

I don’t want to say the issue [over the Nijjar killing] is gone. I want to say that we have made progress, but relationships require investment. They require maintenance. We have had a security dialogue established. To tell you the truth, I was at the first meeting of that security dialogue, and it was like everybody took a deep breath. Where are we going to go with this? Are we going to continue what we had before, or are we going to go forward? Prime Minister Carney inviting Prime Minister Modi to Canada was a big leap. That took some political courage, but it was an important step forward and I think that risk was worth it because it set the stage for this discussion. It’s going to continue in a way that benefits both countries, not only for the overall bilateral relationship. I think there are some issues that actually go beyond the two countries. Scam centres, for example, in south-east Asia; fentanyl, which is a plague in Canada. We want to prevent precursors coming into North America. Things like that. I’m sure there are other areas. So, you know, as we calm down, establish trust, realise who we are, make that connection at the official level, this whole process is moving forward. But it requires maintenance. And we never know, something will happen, somebody will say something. But now we have got the channels of communication to manage it. We are putting in place mechanisms to deal with future difficulties. It’s not simply being naive and saying, well, let’s just ignore what happened. [We are saying] let’s take into account what happened and let’s build from that to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

Suhasini Haidar: Why is the trial taking so long? It has been three years since Mr. Trudeau stood in Parliament and accused Indian officials of involvement, surely some evidence should have been produced by now?

I can’t comment on that. It’s a court process. Every case is different. What I can say is other things have happened in Canada, which have improved the atmosphere. Declaring the [Lawrence] Bishnoi gang a terrorist organisation, for example. We have a financial crimes task force that is looking at some of these issues. We have taken firmer action on extortion cases that have been affecting the Indian community in Canada.

Suhasini Haidar: The High Commissioner of India, your counterpart at the time, was declared a PNG (persona non grata) along with other diplomats. If they were indeed guilty of something, we should have heard some evidence by now. If not, does Canada owe India an apology?

Well, again, it’s a judicial process, so we’ll see what comes out at the other end. And that could take, I don’t know how long. I have no idea when the date for the trial, actually, if it’s even been set. So, there’s nothing more I can say about that.

Vijaita Singh: As part of Operation Hardball, which was announced in July, has India provided any specific information on how Lawrence Bishnoi was running this gang from jail because his lawyer has said he is in solitary confinement and does not have access to any communication devices?

I can’t answer that question. I don’t know what Lawrence Bishnoi is able to do. The joint operation was a good example of cooperation. It wasn’t just India-Canada but also the Europeans and the Americans working together on a common problem. And I think the outcomes are, again, part of this, at least between India and Canada, part of this overall improvement in the way we work together to solve problems and to make both our countries more safe for our citizens. We also declared the Bishnoi gang a terrorist organisation. That’s a pretty strong step. I think there’s tangible results happening for the communities in Canada, so it is going in the right direction.

Vijaita Singh: Have you sought Lawrence Bishnoi’s extradition and has India sought the extradition of his Canada-based aide Satinderjeet Singh alias Goldy Brar?

Not to my knowledge.

Suhasini Haidar: Another sore point in India is over students, where Canada is cutting down on visas, raising guarantees required, and making education and housing more expensive. Does Canada want less Indian students now?

Look, we remain the host to more Indian students than any other country in the world – more than the U.S. – at about 4,27,000 students. We think they are a great bridge between the two countries. What we had found for a period was that there were just too many students, not just Indian students, students from all kinds of countries, and we couldn’t accommodate them. Housing was a problem in certain smaller communities. Some of the colleges, frankly, took too many students and too much of their income; too much of their revenue was coming from foreign students. They were overdoing it. And there were fraud cases. So, the rules were clamped down. They were tightened. But the signal seems to have gone out that somehow Canada’s closed to any students. And that’s not at all the case. We welcome all good students. It’s true that the financial requirements have gone up, but they go up with inflation. I can tell you, having spoken to the university presidents, including of our very top universities; they all say the same thing – we would love to have more great Indian students. Now, Prime Minister Modi has said he would like universities to come in and open bricks-and-mortar campuses, and they’re looking at that too, but already there are joint degrees and joint programmes that are up and running.

A.M. Jigeesh: Are there specific Canadian universities that are going to open in India?

We have had a lot of universities come through here. They have met government [officials], but they are also speaking to institutions, the IITs, and some of the new up-and-coming private universities. Yes, they are looking at campuses in India. McGill [University] made an announcement when Prime Minister Carney was in India, and 13 new MoUs between different universities, Canadian universities, and Indian universities were also announced.

Suhasini Haidar: How does Canada really see India’s hosting of the BRICS summit? Given the Western consensus against Russia, what are your hopes from President Vladimir Putin’s visit here?

We do recognise that the Global South is a more and more important factor in global geopolitics. India is hosting BRICS, it hosted the G20, which we are part of. We have had India at our G7 summit. India’s practically a member of the G7, frankly. It is true we have some differences with some of the people that will be coming to your summit. But Prime Minister Carney has been very clear that we will not refuse to talk to people. That doesn’t mean we have to agree with them, but we will have a broader approach to discussions with people because we have to do that. We look forward to seeing what the outcomes of the BRICS summit are.

Suhasini Haidar: Do you see a role for India as a mediator in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?

I think anything that brings peace would be welcome. It’s been five years. So, if India can help achieve that, absolutely. And on any other conflicts that are out there as well. India has a credibility and a weight; it is the world’s largest nation by population. And if you can use your gravitas, your influence to bring about outcomes that we all want, then we would say more power to you.

You returned to the BJP organisation after a break, having first joined it at the start of the Narendra Modi government’s first term. What challenges does the organisation face now, after 12 years as the ruling party?

We always see the challenge to BJP as the BJP itself; where we are today and where we have to reach next year. In politics, you will have a number of contemporary issues to tackle and a number of challenges that come up from time to time. Sometimes it can be so-called Gen Z protests, sometimes it can be a challenge posed by the Opposition, but the real issue is how we go from this year to next year, this election to the next election, and this general election to the next general election. Looking at that, I would say the BJP continues to grow as the most important political organisation in the country. I don’t think there is any challenge for the BJP. In 12 years, the BJP has grown and grown bigger in this country, not just in terms of its electoral or organisational footprint but also its ideological influence, and its reach in the country. It has grown very big.

You are an out-and-out RSS man. This is also the centenary year of the RSS, the BJP’s parent organisation, but it also seems to have walked into a perfect storm of the Ayodhya donation embezzlement case and the moral implications of it. How do you view what has happened and how do you think the RSS can extricate itself from it?

In the centenary year, that’s not exactly how you should look at the RSS. What happened at the Ram Temple was a minor aberration that was immediately addressed. This was not something to do with the RSS per se, but with the management of the temple, of a lacuna in the day-to-day donation management. I would only like to say that it was the result of an oversight, an aberration, which was immediately identified and is being very seriously addressed. The people accountable for the issue accepted moral responsibility and stepped down. A new CEO is being appointed. But that is not the prism through which the centenary of the RSS should be viewed. Started by a former Congress person, Dr. [Keshav Baliram] Hedgewar, in 1925, it is, 100 years down the line, today the biggest challenger to the Congress ideology. It has grown into the most formidable challenger to that world view because of what happened between 1925 and 1947 – or I would say since 1950, the first 25 years of independence – it created such an important ideological divide within the Congress. One section, what we call in our terminology Nehruvian ideology, had its day for the first three or four decades in the country. And as for the other stream of the independence movement, of which the RSS was also a part, the RSS ideology has become the most dominant thought process in this country.

Another major development in the last few months has been the Gen Z protests. How do you see the BJP handling this?

We are creating many categories nowadays, there is Gen Z, Gen Alpha. For me, this is the youth of our country and their aspirations have to be addressed. We understand that there are certain concerns. Those are not just limited to the NEET exam. It was an immediate trigger for whatever happened. We are dealing with a country where more than half of the population is below 35 years. Obviously, as a political party, we have to keep that in mind while picking office-bearers and deciding our agenda. That’s why today the BJP has a president who is in his mid-40s. A lot of youngsters have found a place in the team in important positions. And you would have already read in the papers that right from Ministers in the government to functionaries in the party, we are, in a big way, engaging with the youth of the country. We will be reaching out to them in universities, colleges, and other places. There will be continuous engagement with them. We consider it as one of our priorities.

There was also a feeling that, in terms of social media, the medium of outreach to this particular cohort was kind of missed by the BJP and its social media communication. Also, the tonality of some of its interventions on social media did not go down well with young people.

Look, there are two things I would mention here: number one, it’s always easy for those in the Opposition to use all platforms to attack the government. When we were in the Opposition, we also used it very effectively as you only have to criticise. As an Opposition, you only have to create a meme and throw it. Secondly, remember, social media is algorithm-driven. I mean, if you are able to generate sufficient content, then it continues to generate content on its own through algorithms. So, if there are 10 memes that get so much amplification that they will start influencing people, it means that for every 10 memes I should be able to produce 20 memes as the ruling party to counter that effect. Our team tried its best to tackle this challenge. But it’s a competition. Social media is the most democratic media in the country, everybody has space on it.

You have also been one of the founders of a think tank in the conservative space, the India Foundation. What was the reason behind venturing into that realm? And do you think you have been successful in framing a pedagogic structure pertaining to your ideology?

Not many people know that the India Foundation came into existence in 2009. Over the last 15 years, it has created a place for itself in the think tank world. We felt that there is a need for this kind of intellectual engagement. For example, within the country and outside, there is a big section of intelligentsia that wants to engage with our movement. They may not come to our day-to-day shakha (branch), the RSS day-to-day activity, but when it comes to the thought process, they are ready to align with us. For such intelligentsia organisations, the India Foundation definitely helped as a good platform. There was no existing right-wing intellectual ecosystem in this form. There are a few other think tanks that were created by like-minded people. I think they have served a great purpose in creating a strong ‘right-wing ecosystem’ in the country.

Speaking of ecosystems, the Prime Minister has said the country should be aware of a category called ‘dimagi Naxals’. What do you think he meant by that?

To put it simply, it is what the United Progressive Alliance government under (Dr.) Manmohan Singh told the Supreme Court in an affidavit: that certain intellectuals in this country are more dangerous than those Naxals who are in the forests, in the jungles. ‘Dimagi Naxal’ means those who are supporting this kind of idea intellectually – through intellectual forums, intellectual platforms, their writings, speeches, and other articulations. So, that is basically what he meant as I understand it.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi quoted the Manusmriti and made a call to ‘smash the patriarchy’. The BJP’s response was to term him ‘anti-Hindu’.

The Manusmriti is an old scripture that contains many things. The stanza quoted by Mr. Rahul Gandhi was there, no doubt, but it also states that if a woman is unhappy in a marriage she can separate, it gives four situations for opting for separation. What is important, however, is to remember that the Manusmriti was a moral code at that time, alongside at least 12 other such codes. No king in India ever made any of these smritis their Constitution. As far as we are concerned, we are guided by the Constitution of India; it is our smriti today. I don’t want to create a religious discourse, but aren’t there similar provisions about women in the Koran and the Bible? If you quote only from one set of scriptures, you will be blamed and called anti-Hindu. Why isn’t Rahul Gandhi quoting from other scriptures too to make the point about discrimination against women? That’s because Rahul Gandhi has an agenda. Nobody agrees with that proposition (a specific sloka in the Manusmriti); our track record reflects it. It is the NDA (National Democratic Alliance) government that nominated a tribal woman to be elected as the President and [brought] relief to Muslim women via the triple talaq Act. Look at Rahul Gandhi’s father Rajiv Gandhi’s record in terms of women’s rights: when the court granted relief to Shah Bano, it was his government that brought in a law to overturn that. So, when Rahul Gandhi quotes from only one scripture, he will be questioned on his selectivity and what it says about him and his commitment to women’s empowerment.

How do you evaluate the developments in Jammu and Kashmir since Article 370 was revoked? It has been seven years since it was made into a Union Territory and there have been demands that Statehood should be restored. What is your view on that?

First of all, the question is not about restoration. The erstwhile State was split into two Union Territories (UTs). The residual UT, what is today J&K, needs to be granted Statehood. This residual UT will get the full Statehood as promised by the Prime Minister and the Home Minister in Parliament. Now, when will it happen? Why seven years? Let me ask you a counter question then. Article 370, which was abrogated seven years ago, was introduced as a temporary provision yet it remained in place for 70 years. If a temporary provision can remain there for 70 years and you happily enjoyed that status, why can’t you wait for Statehood for a few years? Nobody is asking you to wait for 70 years. It has only been seven years now. It will be given to the people of J&K, the current UT. The appropriate time is for the government of the day to decide.

You are also quite well-versed in the politics of our neighbourhood. Why does it feel like India is under siege from its neighbours, except possibly the Taliban in Afghanistan?

First, that is not true. We have very good relations with several of our neighbours, including Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and Nepal. One country with which we have never had a good relationship with is Pakistan. Now, those who know about the trajectory of our foreign policy in the last six to seven decades know that this kind of situation has existed in our neighbourhood all the time. When regimes changed, we faced challenges, new situations, and new equations. We are seeing that kind of situation in one or two countries in our neighbourhood. In the case of Pakistan, especially since 2008, we have not had good relations. In between Prime Minister Modi tried to improve it for a couple of years, but then we realised that it was not going to happen because of the mindset there. But there were periods when we had good relations with them also in the last 50 years.

On a philosophical note, which political belief of yours has changed the most over the years?

I really don’t think any of my core political beliefs and commitments have changed over the years. I have always been fully committed to India’s democratic system. I always believe that is the only way India can really grow and progress. My only difference, probably, with some people from within the larger ideological family that I belong to is that sometimes I tend to take a slightly middle path kind of approach. That’s my temperament, I don’t like to take any extreme positions and for that I faced certain consequences. Since you talked about the formation of the [BJP-Peoples Democratic Party coalition] government in J&K, yes, there was strong opposition to it in my own ecosystem. But then there was a given political situation, which prompted us to take that stride, and we did it. It is not the first time, if you look back at the Samyukta Vidhayak Dal (SVD) governments in 1967, in eight States, there were some where both the Jana Sangh of those days and the Socialists, and in one or two cases even the Communists, were part of the same government. At that time also, this was a big question: how can you share a bed with Communists or Socialists? In fact, someone told me the story of how one famous person had told [Pandit] Deendayal Upadhyaya about the consequences of the SVD governments: ‘Chaku karbuja par gire, karbuja chaku par gire, katega to karbuja hai (Whether the knife falls on the melon or the melon on the knife, it is the melon that gets cut).’ That whether you go with ideological rivals or they go with you, you will be the victim. Then I had to explain to him, ‘No, there should not be any political untouchability, you have to be pragmatic and all that.’ Remember V.P. Singh’s government? V.P. Singh refused to share the dais with BJP leaders during the [1989] campaign, but afterwards we worked with him for one and a half years. So, certain political situations ask you to take some kind of middle path. I am a believer in the middle path. That also has not changed over the years.