By Dilip Cherian
While there is a diplomatic thaw between India and Canada, turning it into a meaningful trade pact is another thing. High Commissioner Dinesh K. Patnaik has his hands full.
Also Read
The proposed Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) is ambitious, with the two countries targeting bilateral trade of CAD 70 billion by 2030. Four rounds of talks have already taken place and both sides are committed to an agreement by the end of 2026.
But the tough bits are still there. Canada is seeking better market access for its agricultural exports, particularly pulses, while India is pressing for improved access for its services sector and greater mobility for its professionals and students. These are not just negotiating points but tap into domestic political and economic sensitivities on both sides.
Then there’s the bigger trust deficit. The diplomatic thaw after the Nijjar row has been heartening, but security concerns and mutual suspicion have not disappeared. The October discussion between Narendra Modi and Mark Carney re-emphasized commitment to an early conclusion of CEPA, signalling political intent.
Patnaik’s diplomatic skills will surely matter. But he can’t negotiate away political differences that require decisions at the highest level. His real job is to keep the momentum going, to make sure old irritants do not blow up new opportunities and to keep the negotiators at the table.
The test is not only whether he can bridge the trade gap, but whether the political leadership on both sides is prepared to allow commerce to trump confrontation.
Power comes with expiry
In Rajasthan’s corridors of power, Shikhar Agarwal was once a man to be reckoned with. Now, stripped of key portfolios and parked on APO, he has discovered that babu clout comes with an expiry date.
The immediate trouble stems from allegations surrounding the purchase of 40 villas in Udaipur and Alwar by Agarwal and his family.
The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) has reportedly cleared the way for a preliminary enquiry into suspected collusion with a private company that allegedly benefited from government favours.
Yet the timing of his spectacular fall raises a more interesting question. Did the government suddenly discover the virtues of accountability, or has an influential babu simply outlived his political usefulness?
A key figure in Chief Minister Bhajan Lal Sharma’s office, Agarwal enjoyed a degree of influence that few babus command. Such proximity can be intoxicating. But it also means that when controversy strikes, the political fallout can be difficult to contain.
The reported New Delhi angle adds to the intrigue. Was Jaipur acting on a signal from the Centre, or did the state leadership decide that carrying the baggage was no longer worth the trouble?
The real question is whether Agarwal’s exit marks the beginning of genuine accountability or merely provides the government with a convenient scapegoat. That distinction will emerge only when the investigation runs its course.
Ministerial patience runs thin
The honeymoon between a minister and his secretary is surprisingly short. An officer once thought to be a good fit can quickly become a nuisance.
The reported ministerial push to move a Union Secretary suggests something has gone badly wrong.
What could have caused the alleged fallout? A clash of priorities, frustration with the pace of decision-making, a turf war, or an officer who simply won’t play ball? Could it be a clash of expectations: the minister wanting quick compliance, the Secretary wanting due process? The problem may be less about competence and more about control.
But there’s a more interesting side. If the officer was a good fit at the time of appointment, what has changed? The officer’s approach? The minister’s priorities? The political establishment’s willingness to tolerate independent advice?
This is not a unique tension. Ministers want responsive babus and are expected to deliver without abandoning procedure. The problem comes when responsiveness is confused with blind obedience.
Ministers are perfectly entitled to demand performance and to seek accountability. But the message to the rest of the babus will not be lost if the easiest solution to an uncomfortable working relationship is to pack off an officer.
Perhaps competence is not enough in today’s establishment. Perhaps agreeableness matters a bit more.
