The diaspora networks of ethnic lobbying in Canada

Abstract

Earlier studies of ethnic interest groups in foreign policy have focused on the relationship between the ethnic organization and the government of the host state. This paper challenges this view by arguing that diasporic organizations are complex entities with widely-cast transnational networks, involving homestate governments and non-governmental actors. Through transnational networks, this paper attempts to lessen the reliance on explanations that focus on the Executive as the sole determinant of foreign policy. This paper examines the Indo-Canadian community as its central case study.

Keywords:

• Indo-Canadian
• diaspora
• transnationalism
• Canadian foreign policy
• Canada-India

Notes

The C-IBC is not a diaspora organization necessarily; however, its inclusion in this paper is explained in the methodology section.

Please note, in later sections, these conditions will be identified by bracketed keywords.

For an article-length examination of the political divergence of sub-diaspora identity groups within the Indo-Canadian community, please see Singh and Singh (forthcoming).

The Canadian government, particularly Jason Kenney, has actively pursued many of Canada's immigrant communities but these efforts cannot be documented in this paper due to length restrictions.

Massive strides have been made to advance the CEPA negotiations (in their fourth round by February 2012), with anticipation that the agreement will be in force by 2013.

The Joint Study on the feasibility of CEPA was released in September 2011, which showed that a CEPA agreement would see a 47 per cent increase in trade for Canada and 60 per cent for India. With the release of the report, negotiations for CEPA began in November 2011 and as of February 2012 negotiations will have started in their third round. Despite the fact that negotiations have not concluded on CEPA, there has been an enormous impact on economic outcomes.

While recognizing the struggles of overseas Indians, Prime Minister Nehru (cited in Thakur 1985, p. 357) stated: “[W]e have no concern with them, [because] politically they cease to be Indians.” Nehru argued that India might be their motherland (matrabhoomi), but advocated that their adopted countries should be the focus of their activities (karmabhoomi). Two reasons explained this distance. First, the government capacity to serve its own population was limited, and could not commit resources to service the needs of its overseas diaspora. Further, the demands of the overseas diaspora anticipated Indian government intervention into host land conflicts, such as in East Africa (particularly Uganda and Kenya), migrant workers in the Middle East and ethnic conflict in South Africa and Fiji. Second, Nehru saw involvement with the overseas diaspora as hypocritical to his strongly-held principles of non-intervention.

This information was collected through fieldwork completed in India between 4 and 17 January 2012. The author participated in a business mission with the ICCC to attend the Pravasi Bhartiya Divas conference in Jaipur.

It is also true that Indian businesses have had difficulty in accessing visas for the United States as well. However, the two situations are different because the Indian business community is willing to work for access to the US market. Canada has difficulty attracting Indian business, thus the visa challenge adds another deterrent for Indian business people. Canada requires easily accessible visas to make itself competitive against the United States.

There have been prominent cases where Indo-Canadian men have married women in India, collected dowries and then refused to sponsor visas for the women.

Of course, this is not the only effort that went into advocating for the nuclear deal; this example is provided to show that the activities of the diaspora groups are comprehensive. For a full examination, please see Singh (2010).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Anita Singh

Anita Singh's expertise is in Canada-India relations, Canadian foreign policy, diaspora politics and immigrant politics. She is the Project Coordinator for the Responsibility to Protect Academic Space Commission, where she examines the intersection of academic freedom and responsibility on Canadian university campuses. Anita has published in numerous journals and edited volumes and presented her research at over 30 academic conferences.