(The UPSC Essentials Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel and stay updated with the latest updates. Subscribe to The Indian Express UPSC Key and prepare for the Civil Services and other competitive examinations with cues on how to read and understand content from the most authoritative news source in India. Note: Catch the UPSC Weekly Quiz every Saturday evening and brush up on your current affairs knowledge.) Essential key terms from the last week’s news headlines or between the lines categorised as per the relevance to the UPSC-CSE syllabus along with the MCQs followed. NOTE: This article does not cover Union Budget 2023 and Economic Survey.The Indian Express’ UPSC Essentials will exclusively cover the Budget and Economic Survey for aspirants especially curated for both prelims and mains as a one stop destination. Article 105 Why in news? — Protesting against the expunction of parts of his speech on the motion of thanks on the President’s Address, Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge has argued that MPs have freedom of speech, and that he did not make any personal allegations in the House. — In his letter to Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar on Thursday (February 9), Kharge cited Article 105 of the Constitution that deals with the privileges and powers of parliamentarians. KEY TAKEAWAYS Khadija Khan Explains: What does Article 105 say? — Article 105 of the Constitution deals with “powers, privileges, etc of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof”, and has four clauses. It reads: “(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament. (2) No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of any thing said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings. (3) In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and, until so defined, shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before the coming into force of section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978. (4) The provisions of clauses (1), (2) and (3) shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this Constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, a House of Parliament or any committee thereof as they apply in relation to members of Parliament.” — Simply put, Members of Parliament are exempted from any legal action for any statement made or act done in the course of their duties. For example, a defamation suit cannot be filed for a statement made in the House. — This immunity extends to certain non-members as well, such as the Attorney General for India or a Minister who may not be a member but speaks in the House. In cases where a Member oversteps or exceeds the contours of admissible free speech, the Speaker or the House itself will deal with it, as opposed to the court. So are there absolutely no restrictions on this privilege? — There are some, indeed. For example Article 121 of the Constitution prohibits any discussion in Parliament regarding the “conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties except upon a motion for presenting an address to the President praying for the removal of the Judge..”. Where did the idea of this privilege of Parliament originate? — The Government of India Act, 1935 first brought this provision to India, with references to the powers and privileges enjoyed by the House of Commons in Britain. An initial draft of the Constitution too contained the reference to the House of Commons, but it was subsequently dropped. — However, unlike India where the Constitution is paramount, Britain follows Parliamentary supremacy. The privileges of the House of Commons are based on common law, developed over centuries through precedents. — In the 17th-century case ‘R vs Elliot, Holles and Valentine’, Sir John Elliot, a member of the House of Commons was arrested for seditious words spoken in a debate and for violence against the Speaker. However, the House of Lords provided immunity to Sir John, saying that words spoken in Parliament should only be judged therein. — This privilege has also been enshrined in the Bill of Rights 1689, by which the Parliament of England definitively established the principle of a constitutional monarchy. — In the 1884 case of ‘Bradlaugh v. Gosset’, then Chief Justice Lord Coleridge of the House of Lords observed: “What is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be inquired into in a court of law.” What have courts in India ruled? * In the 1970 ruling in ‘Tej Kiran Jain v N Sanjiva Reddy’, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea for damages filed by the followers of the Puri Shankaracharya against parliamentarians. — The judgment recalled that “in March 1969, a World Hindu Religious Conference was held at Patna. The Shankaracharya took part in it and is reported to have observed that untouchability was in harmony with the tenets of Hinduism and that no law could stand in its way, and to have walked out when the National Anthem was played.” — The petitioners claimed that when the issue was debated in Parliament, uncharitable remarks were made against the seer. The petitioners argued that the MPs’ immunity “was against an alleged irregularity of procedure but not against an illegality”. — However, the SC ruled that “the word “anything” in Article 105 is of the widest import and is equivalent to ‘everything’.” * Almost two decades later, in 1998, the SC in the case of ‘P V Narasimha Rao vs. State’ answered two questions on parliamentary privilege, broadly relating to questions of corruption. — In 1993, Narasimha Rao was Prime Minister of a minority government at the Centre. When a vote of no-confidence was called by members of the opposition against the government, some factions of the ruling party paid Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) members to vote against the motion. The motion was defeated in the House, with 251 members supporting it and 265 members against it. — Two questions came before the Supreme Court. One, whether MPs could claim immunity from prosecution before a criminal court on charges of bribery related to parliamentary proceedings, under Articles 105(1) and 105(2). Two, whether an MP is a “public servant” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. — A five-judge Bench of the apex court ruled that the ordinary law would not apply to the acceptance of a bribe by an MP in case of parliamentary proceedings. “Broadly interpreted, as we think it should be, Article 105(2) protects a Member of Parliament against proceedings in court that relate to, or concern, or have a connection or nexus with anything said, or a vote given, by him in Parliament,” the court said, giving a wider ambit to the protection accorded under Article 105(2). — The Court rationalised this by saying it will “enable members to participate fearlessly in Parliamentary debates” and that these members need the wider protection of immunity against all civil and criminal proceedings that bear a nexus to their speech or vote. What are the rules on expunging from the record? — Under Article 105(2) of the Constitution, “no Member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said…in Parliament or any committee thereof”. However, MPs don’t enjoy the freedom to say whatever they want inside the House. — The speech of MPs is subject to the discipline of the Rules of Parliament, “good sense” of its Members, and the control of proceedings by the Speaker. These checks ensure that MPs cannot use “defamatory or indecent or undignified or unparliamentary words” inside the House. — Rule 380 (“Expunction”) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha says: “If the Speaker is of opinion that words have been used in debate which are defamatory or indecent or unparliamentary or undignified, the Speaker may, while exercising discretion order that such words be expunged from the proceedings of the House.” — Rule 381 says: “The portion of the proceedings of the House so expunged shall be marked by asterisks and an explanatory footnote shall be inserted in the proceedings as follows: ‘Expunged as ordered by the Chair’.” What are “unparliamentary” expressions? — Over the years, a huge number of words, both in English and other Indian languages, have been found to be “unparliamentary” by the Presiding Officers — the Speaker of Lok Sabha and Chairperson of Rajya Sabha. These unparliamentary expressions are kept out of Parliament’s records. — The Lok Sabha Secretariat has brought out a bulky volume of ‘Unparliamentary Expressions’.This book contains words or expressions that would likely be considered rude or offensive in most cultures. But it also contains content that would appear to be fairly harmless and innocuous. “At the time [the book was first compiled], references were taken from debates and phrases (that had been) declared unparliamentary by the pre-Independence Central Legislative Assembly, Constituent Assembly of India, the Provisional Parliament, the first to the tenth Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, state legislatures, and Commonwealth parliaments like that of the United Kingdom,” former Lok Sabha Secretary General G C Malhotra had told The Indian Express in 2012. — Malhotra was head of the editorial board of the 2004 edition of the book that ran into 900 pages. State legislatures too are guided mainly by the same book of unparliamentary expressions. “Depending upon rulings of the Presiding Officers, new words and phrases continue to be added to the list at regular intervals,” Malhotra said. (Sources: Article 105 of Constitution: The limits to free speech in Parliament, and what Supreme Court has ruled by Khadija Khan, Parts of Rahul Gandhi’s parliamentary speech expunged: What does this mean and when does this happen? by Liz Mathew) Point to ponder: What constitutes a breach of legislature’s privilege? 1. MCQ: A Parliamentary System of Government is one in which (2020) (a) all political parties in the Parliament are represented in the Government (b) the Government is responsible to the Parliament and can be removed by it (c) the Government is elected by the people and can be removed by them (d) the Government is chosen by the Parliament but cannot be removed by it before completion of a fixed term NISAR Why in news? — Jointly developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), an Earth-observation satellite, called NISAR (NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar), got a send-off ceremony at the American space agency’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Southern California on Friday (February 3). —The SUV-size satellite will be shipped to India in a special cargo container flight later this month for a possible launch in 2024 from Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Andhra Pradesh. — The event was attended by ISRO Chairman S Somanath, JPL Director Laurie Leshin and officials from NASA and India, according to a statement released by the American space agency. KEY TAKEAWAYS Alind Chauhan Explains: What is NISAR? — NISAR has been built by space agencies of the US and India under a partnership agreement signed in 2014. The 2,800 kilograms satellite consists of both L-band and S-band synthetic aperture radar (SAR) instruments, which makes it a dual-frequency imaging radar satellite. — While NASA has provided the L-band radar, GPS, a high-capacity solid-state recorder to store data, and a payload data subsystem, ISRO has provided the S-band radar, the GSLV launch system and spacecraft. — Another important component of the satellite is its large 39-foot stationary antenna reflector. Made of a gold-plated wire mesh, the reflector will be used to focus “the radar signals emitted and received by the upward-facing feed on the instrument structure”, according to NASA. What is the mission? — Once launched into space, NISAR will observe subtle changes in Earth’s surfaces, helping researchers better understand the causes and consequences of such phenomena. It will spot warning signs of natural disasters, such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and landslides. The satellite will also measure groundwater levels, track flow rates of glaciers and ice sheets, and monitor the planet’s forest and agricultural regions, which can improve our understanding of carbon exchange. — ISRO will use NISAR for a variety of purposes including agricultural mapping, and monitoring of glaciers in the Himalayas, landslide-prone areas and changes in the coastline. — By using synthetic aperture radar (SAR), NISAR will produce high-resolution images. SAR is capable of penetrating clouds and can collect data day and night regardless of the weather conditions. — According to NASA, “the instrument’s imaging swath — the width of the strip of data collected along the length of the orbit track — is greater than 150 miles (240 kilometres), which allows it to image the entire Earth in 12 days.” — NISAR is expected to be launched in January 2024 from Satish Dhawan Space Centre into a near-polar orbit. The satellite will operate for a minimum of three years. NASA requires the L-band radar for its global science operations for at least three years. Meanwhile, ISRO will utilise the S-band radar for a minimum of five years. (Source: NASA-ISRO partnership’s satellite all set to arrive in India: What is NISAR and its mission? by Alind Chauhan) Point to ponder: How are small satellites useful? 2. MCQ: With reference to India’s satellite launch vehicles, consider the following statements: (2018) (1) PSLVs launch satellites useful for Earth resources monitoring whereas GSLVs are designed mainly to launch communication satellites. (2) Satellites launched by PSLV appear to remain permanently fixed in the same position in the sky, as viewed from a particular location on Earth. (3) GSLV Mk III is a four-staged launch vehicle with the first and third stages using solid rocket motors; and the second and fourth stages using liquid rocket engines. Which of the statements given above is/are correct.? (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 (c) 1 and 2 (d) 3 only Governors Why in news? — Twelve states and the Union Territory of Ladakh will have new Governors, the Centre announced on Sunday (February 12). This includes both first-time appointments as well as transfers of Governors from one state to the other. KEY TAKEAWAYS — According to a press release issued by the Rashtrapati Bhavan Secretariat, President Droupadi Murmu has appointed: * Lt Gen KT Parnaik as Governor of Arunachal Pradesh; * Lakshman Prasad Acharya as Governor of Sikkim; * C P Radhakrishnan as Governor of Jharkhand; * Shiv Pratap Shukla as Governor of Himachal Pradesh; * Gulab Chand Kataria as Governor of Assam; and * Justice (Retd.) S Abdul Nazeer as Governor of Andhra Pradesh. How is the Governor of a state appointed? — Article 153 of the Constitution says “There shall be a Governor for each State.” A few years after the commencement of the Constitution, an amendment in 1956 laid down that “nothing in this article shall prevent the appointment of the same person as Governor for two or more States”. — Article 155 says that the “Governor of a State shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal”. Under Article 156, “the Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President”, but his normal term of office will be five years. If the President withdraws her pleasure before the completion of five years, the Governor has to step down. Since the President acts on the aid and advice of the Prime Minister and the Union Council of Ministers, in effect, the Governor is appointed and removed by the central government. — Articles 157 and 158 lay down the qualifications of the Governor and the conditions of his office. The Governor must be a citizen of India and should have completed the age of 35 years. The Governor should not be a member of Parliament or a state legislature, and must not hold any other office of profit. What is the relationship between the Governor and the state government? — The position of the Governor is envisaged as an apolitical head who must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the state. However, the Governor enjoys certain powers under the Constitution — such as giving or withholding assent to a Bill passed by the state legislature; determining the time needed for a party to prove its majority in the state Assembly; or, in cases such as a hung verdict in an election, which party must be called first to prove its majority — which make his position very significant. Over the decades, Governors have been seen as acting on the behest of the central government in power at the time, and have been accused by state governments, especially those in opposition, as acting as “agents of the Centre”. — Also, the Constitution lays down no provisions for the manner in which the Governor and the state must engage publicly when there is a difference of opinion. This has traditionally been guided by respect for each other’s boundaries. Of late, however, there have been bitter and acrimonious exchanges between state governments and Governors, with Governors such as the current Raja Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, R N Ravi, and Arif Mohammed Khan have been accused of partisan conduct by the Chief Ministers of West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala respectively. But why does such friction take place? — “Because Governors have become political appointees,” constitutional expert Dr Faizan Mustafa had told The Indian Express earlier. “The Constituent Assembly envisaged governor to be apolitical. But politicians become Governors and then resign to fight elections.” Constitutional expert Alok Prasanna of Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy had said: “The CM is answerable to the people. But the Governor is answerable to no one except the Centre. You can sugarcoat it with ideas of constitutional morality and values, but the truth is there is a fundamental defect in the Constitution.” — Indeed, there is no provision for impeaching the Governor, and in the event of a particularly bitter and prolonged tussle between the state and central governments, the Centre can, up to five years, use Raj Bhavan to indefinitely create problems for the state. — In 2001, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution set up by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, had noted, “… Because the Governor owes his appointment and his continuation in the office to the Union Council of Ministers, in matters where the Central Government and the State Government do not see eye to eye, there is the apprehension that he is likely to act in accordance with the instructions, if any, received from the Union Council of Ministers… Indeed, the Governors today are being pejoratively called the ‘agents of the Centre’.” (Source: How are Governors appointed, and why is their role often controversial?) Point to ponder: How a Governor can be removed? 3. MCQ: Which one of the following suggested that the Governor should be an eminent person from outside the State and should be a detached figure without intense political links or should not have taken part in politics in the recent past? (2019) (a) First Administrative Reforms Commission (1966) (b) Rajamannar Committee (1969) (c) Sarkaria Commission (1983) (d) National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2000) Article 356 Why in news? — On Thursday (February 9), Prime Minister Narendra Modi recalled in Rajya Sabha that Congress governments at the Centre had dismissed 90 state governments by “misusing” Article 356 of the Constitution, and that former PM Indira Gandhi had “misused” it 50 times to dismiss elected state governments. — Article 356 of the Indian Constitution contains provisions for the imposition of “President’s Rule” in a state, removing an elected government. While the Constitution intended Article 356 to be used only under extraordinary circumstances, central governments, including the Janata government of which members of the BJP’s predecessor Jana Sangh were part, repeatedly used the provision to settle political scores. — Modi’s barb against the Congress came at a time when the Opposition has been demanding a Joint Parliamentary Committee probe into the Hindenburg Research allegations, and Rahul Gandhi has accused industrialist Gautam Adani and his companies of having benefited greatly from Adani’s long-standing proximity to the Prime Minister. KEY TAKEAWAYS What does Article 356 say? — Article 356 empowers the President to withdraw to the Union the executive and legislative powers of any state “if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution”. — Whether the constitutional machinery has broken down may be determined by the President at any time, either upon receipt of a report from the Governor, or suo motu. — According to the provisions of Article 356, President’s Rule in a state can be imposed for six months at a time for a maximum duration of three years. Every six months, Parliamentary approval to impose President’s Rule will be required again. — However, in the past, President’s Rule has been extended for significantly longer periods under specific circumstances. For instance, Punjab was under President’s Rule from 1987-1992 due to the growing militancy. What are the origins of Article 356? — Article 356 was inspired by Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935. This provided that if a Governor of a province was satisfied that a situation had arisen in which the government of the province cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, he could assume to himself all or any of the powers of the government and discharge those functions in his discretion. The Governor, however, could not encroach upon the powers of the high court. — For the British, this provision allowed for a ‘controlled democracy’ – while providing some autonomy to provincial governments, Section 93 allowed the British authorities to exercise ultimate power when they deemed necessary. How was the provision used as a political weapon in independent India? — During the decades of Congress’s dominance at the Centre, Article 356 was used against governments of the Left and regional parties in the states. — Until 1959, Jawaharlal Nehru’s government had used the article six times, including to dislodge the first-ever elected communist government in the world, in Kerala in 1959. In the 1960s, it was used 11 times. After Indira came to power in 1966, Article 356 was used seven times between 1967 and 1969 alone. — The 1970s were more politically turbulent. Between 1970 and 1974, President’s Rule was imposed 19 times. Post Emergency, the Janata Party government used it in 1977 to summarily dismiss nine Congress state governments. When Indira returned to power in 1980, her government too imposed President’s Rule in nine states. — In 1992-93, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao dismissed three BJP governments in the wake of the demolition of Babri Masjid, besides Kalyan Singh’s government in UP. How was this political misuse of Article 356 curbed? — In 1989, the Centre dismissed the S R Bommai government in Karnataka. In its judgment in the landmark S. R. Bommai v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court discussed the provisions of Article 356 at length. — A nine-judge Bench in its decision in 1994 noted the specific instances when President’s Rule can be imposed and when it cannot. — The court held that Article 356 can be invoked in situations of the physical breakdown of the government or when there is a ‘hung assembly’, but that it cannot be used without giving the state government a chance to either prove its majority in the House or without instances of a violent breakdown of the constitutional machinery. — Since the judgment, the arbitrary use of Article 356 has been largely controlled. (Source: What is Article 356, which Prime Minister Modi says Indira Gandhi misused 50 times? ) Point to ponder: The origins of Article 356 are in the Government of India Act 1935 and reflect the superior powers of the governor general over the elected provincial governments. Discuss in present day light. 4. MCQ: If the President of India exercises his power as provided under Article 356 of the Constitution in respect of a particular State, then (2018) (a) the Assembly of the State is automatically dissolved. (b) the powers of the Legislature of that State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of the Parliament. (c) Article 19 is suspended in that State. (d) the President can make laws relating to that State. Canada’s Indo-Pacific strategy Why in news? — Ahead of her scheduled participation in the G20 Foreign Ministers’ meeting in March in New Delhi, Canada’s Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly made a quiet bilateral visit to the capital this week. Both sides appear keen to draw a line under the bitterness that has dogged their relationship over the last few years — and Canada’s freshly minted Indo-Pacific strategy, which has attracted notice for its unusually blunt language against China, seems to have provided an appropriate opening. KEY TAKEAWAYS Nirupama Subramanian Explains: — After an interaction with Canada watchers in India at the New Delhi-based think tank Ananta Aspen, Joly tweeted: “India’s growing strategic, economic, and demographic importance makes it a critical partner for Canada in the Indo-Pacific. In return, Canada can be a reliable supplier of critical minerals, a strong partner in the green transition and a major investor.” — None of the issues that have strained ties, such as Khalistani activities in Canada, found mention in the official statements External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar with Canada Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly during a meeting at Hyderabad House, in New Delhi, Monday, Feb. 6, 2023. (PTI Photo) Embrace of Indo-Pacific — Canada’s Indo-Pacific strategy was released last November, amid domestic and international calls for Ottawa to join the US-led alliance against China and stand for the “shared interests and values” of Western democracies. Canada, 20 per cent of whose population originates in the Indo-Pacific region, is the last G7 nation to embrace the concept of the Indo-Pacific — it has been more comfortable earlier with “Asia Pacific”. — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who has been in office since 2015, found Canada’s historically soft policy on China upended in December 2018, when Canadian authorities arrested Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of the Chinese telecom giant Huawei, for extradition to the United States. Days later, China detained two Canadians in apparent retaliation. Three years later, after a three way deal between China, Canada and the US, both countries returned each other’s nationals. — With a lot of economic interests at stake, Ottawa continued to make efforts to repair ties with Beijing. But the ruling Liberal Party found itself increasingly out of step on this with the anti-China mood at home as well as with its allies, especially the US. Critics said Canada, which carved out a post-War role as a “middle power”, was living in “strategic la-la land”. One Canadian analyst told the Voice of America that the country’s leadership lacked the skills to navigate the new geopolitics: “It’s like entering the ring with Muhammad Ali. [The Chinese] are playing chess, we’re playing checkers.” — From last year, a series of steps signalled a change in Canada’s China policy, including a sudden tightening of investment rules to prevent Chinese state companies from taking control of its critical minerals and mines industry. The Trudeau government suggested the basis for this decision was an assessment of threats to national security. It also banned Huawei 5G. Canada’s Parliament passed a resolution to declare China’s treatment of its Uighur minority as “genocide”. — Against this fast evolving background, Canada announced its Indo-Pacific strategy — reportedly three years in the making — in end 2022. Joly described it as a response to a “generational geopolitical shift”; China’s state run Global Times said Canada’s “hostility” was “absurd and dangerous”. Features of the strategy — “China is an increasingly disruptive global power. Key regional actors have complex and deeply intertwined relationships with China. Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy is informed by its clear-eyed understanding of this global China, and Canada’s approach is aligned with those of our partners in the region and around the world,” the document says. — Beijing “increasingly disregards” the same international rules and norms that have helped China’s rise, it says. — The document is also “clear-eyed” — a term that appears several times — about its dependence on China: Canada cannot ignore China’s “sheer size” — China remains Canada’s main export destination. So cooperation is necessary to address issues such as climate change and health. Plus, the Chinese economy “offers significant opportunities for Canadian exporters”. — In short Canada is saying it will both “unapologetically” defend its national interest and cooperate with China when required. — The strategy contains a funding commitment of US $1.7 billion over five years, spread over infrastructure projects through the US-led G7 Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, US $403 million for an enhanced military presence including a third frigate in the Indian Ocean, and expanded participation in regional military exercises. — Five objectives are outlined: promote peace, resilience and security; expand trade, investment and supply chain resilience; invest in and connect people; build a sustainable and green future; be an active and engaged partner to the Indo-Pacific. Engagement with India is seen as critical to the strategy. Canada-India relations — Despite a bilateral relationship “underpinned”, according to an MEA brief, “by shared values of democracy, pluralism, expanding economic engagement, regular high level interactions and long-standing people-to-people ties”, ties have been in the sick bay for several years. — The big issue for India is the safe haven that Canada has been for separatist Khalistani groups, and what New Delhi sees as the Liberal Party’s pandering to these groups for votes. — Diaspora Sikhs are well represented in the Trudeau government. Some of them are politically supported by pro-Khalistan groups. Jagmeet ‘Jimmy’ Dhaliwal, whose New Democratic Party supports Trudeau’s minority government in Parliament, is viewed with suspicion by the Indian establishment. — Trudeau’s visit to India in 2017 was a diplomatic disaster over the Khalistan issue. Last year, New Delhi objected to Canada permitting a Khalistani secessionist “referendum” in the Sikh diaspora, and hit back with an advisory against travel in Canada that warned against hate crimes. Last month, a Hindu temple near Toronto was vandalised and defaced with anti-India graffiti. Concerns that Canada is slow to act against anti-India elements on its soil have been a constant irritant in the relationship. — Still, both countries seem to realise that any attempt to reset bilateral ties will need to surmount Canada’s vote-bank restraints and India’s security concerns. Canada’s Indo-Pacific strategy, which says India’s strategic importance can only increase as its economy grows and it becomes the world’s most populous country, offers a wider staging ground for the two to come together, based on a shared suspicion of China, and seeking to expand trade ties, invest in supply chain resilience, and greater people-to-people exchanges. — Though not spelled out, there could also be a defence and security component with Canada’s resolve to participate more in maritime security and exercises in the Indo-Pacific, and deeper counter-terrorism cooperation than exists now. — The under-negotiation EPTA is seen as a stepping stone to a comprehensive economic partnership agreement, and may pave the way for a wider reset of ties. Whether this will help to “decouple” from China is another question. (Source: Canada’s Indo-Pacific strategy: Wary eye on China, bid to reset India ties by Nirupama Subramanian) Point to ponder: Why had the MEA asked Indians in Canada, last year, to be ‘cautious and vigilant’? 5. MCQ: In which one of the following groups are all the four countries members of G20? (a) Argentina, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey (b) Australia, Canada, Malaysia and New Zealand (c) Brazil, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam (d) Indonesia, Japan, Singapore and South Korea ANSWERS TO MCQs: 1 (b), 2 (a), 3 (c), 4 (b), 5 (a) Share your views, answers and suggestions in the comment box or at manas.srivastava@indianexpress.com
