Mubashar Nadeem
The notable absence of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi from the upcoming G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada—scheduled for June 15–17, 2025—sends a stark and deliberate message in international diplomacy. This is the first time since 2019 that Modi will not attend the elite forum of major global economies. The reason for this conspicuous absence is not scheduling conflict, political transition, or logistical oversight—it is diplomacy by omission. Canada, the host country, has chosen not to invite India, signaling a deep freeze in bilateral relations between Ottawa and New Delhi that stems from a growing chasm of trust, accountability, and ideology.
The roots of the tension lie in a highly controversial and politically explosive event: the assassination of Canadian Sikh activist and separatist leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar in June 2024 in Surrey, British Columbia. In a move that stunned the global diplomatic community, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly accused Indian state actors of being complicit in the killing. Trudeau cited “credible allegations” that Indian operatives were involved in what he described as a political assassination on Canadian soil.
India, predictably, responded with fierce denial. The Ministry of External Affairs condemned the allegations as “absurd and politically motivated,” and dismissed Canada’s stance as a capitulation to “extremist elements” in the Sikh diaspora. New Delhi emphasized its longstanding concerns over Canada’s alleged inaction against pro-Khalistan outfits operating freely in the country, accusing Ottawa of harboring individuals advocating for the dismemberment of India.
Please subscribe to the YouTube channel for quality content:
What followed was a dramatic escalation. Both countries expelled senior diplomats. India demanded the reduction of Canadian diplomatic staff, which led to the forced withdrawal of 41 Canadian diplomats and their families. The tone of bilateral engagement dropped to unprecedented lows, with both capitals issuing repeated and increasingly sharp rebukes of each other’s conduct.
Against this backdrop, Canada’s decision not to invite Modi to the G7 summit is more than a bureaucratic exclusion—it is a pointed diplomatic signal. G7 hosts traditionally invite key non-member states from the Global South to ensure inclusive dialogue on global issues like climate change, trade, and security. India, the world’s largest democracy and a rising economic power, has been a consistent invitee to past G7 summits, including those hosted by France, Germany, and the UK. Modi’s consistent presence was both symbolic and strategic.
This year’s absence, therefore, is not mere protocol. It reflects a conscious choice by the Canadian government to freeze out a leader it believes violated the sovereign legal framework of Canada. Sources close to Ottawa’s foreign policy establishment suggest that extending an invitation to Modi—who Trudeau believes authorized or, at the very least, permitted the murder of a Canadian citizen—would have sent an unacceptable message, both domestically and globally.
Interestingly, New Delhi has not issued a formal protest over the non-invitation, choosing instead to remain tactically silent. Analysts believe this is an intentional decision to downplay the optics of exclusion and avoid further fanning the flames of a conflict that has already attracted significant global attention.
Unofficially, Indian sources suggest that Modi would have likely declined an invitation even if one had been extended. Participating in a summit hosted by a government accusing India of extrajudicial killings abroad would have presented serious political and diplomatic contradictions, not to mention public relations risks. By avoiding the summit, India avoids the awkward optics of confrontation while sending its own message of disapproval.
The Modi-Trudeau standoff—and the subsequent fallout at the G7—reflects a troubling trend in international relations: the rise of nationalistic, populist leaders who are willing to sidestep diplomatic norms for domestic political gain. Modi, facing a third term with a Hindu nationalist mandate, has positioned himself as a strongman leader willing to confront Western liberal democracies on equal terms. Trudeau, battling criticism at home over foreign interference and security lapses, has doubled down on his commitment to the rule of law and democratic values.
The result is a standoff where diplomacy is no longer conducted quietly in backrooms but played out in press conferences, social media, and global summits.
More concerning, however, is the broader implication for global cooperation. The G7 is already under strain from internal divisions over climate commitments, war in Ukraine, and trade protectionism. The absence of India—a country with strategic weight in the Indo-Pacific and a vital partner in discussions on AI, cybersecurity, global health, and development—further weakens the summit’s capacity to craft unified global solutions.
In South Asia, Modi’s exclusion may embolden adversaries and complicate India’s relations with Western allies. While the U.S., UK, and France have not backed Trudeau’s allegations, they have not dismissed them either. The lack of public support for India on this front reflects an undercurrent of concern among Western democracies about New Delhi’s increasingly authoritarian tilt, suppression of dissent, and handling of religious minorities.
At its core, this diplomatic fracture also poses difficult questions about the ethical limits of foreign policy. If a democratic state like India did indeed sanction the killing of a political dissenter on foreign soil, it sets a dangerous precedent for other powers with repressive tendencies. It undermines the sovereignty of nations and normalizes state-sponsored extrajudicial actions beyond borders.
Conversely, if Trudeau’s government exaggerated or misrepresented the intelligence in a bid to score domestic political points with the Sikh community, that too would constitute a profound breach of international trust.
The truth remains murky, hidden in classified documents, intelligence briefings, and diplomatic cables. But the cost of mistrust is becoming increasingly visible—and costly—for both countries.
The G7 summit in Alberta may proceed with fanfare and photo ops, but Modi’s absence will cast a long shadow. It represents more than a diplomatic omission; it symbolizes the failure of two democracies to resolve conflict within the boundaries of law, diplomacy, and mutual respect.
At a time when the world is grappling with war, economic shocks, and the climate crisis, the inability of two major players to even sit at the same table is an indictment of our current international order. It is also a cautionary tale of what happens when domestic politics bleed into foreign policy—and diplomacy is replaced by megaphone warfare.
Whether the Modi-Trudeau conflict marks a temporary rift or a long-term rupture remains to be seen. But for now, a seat will remain empty at the G7 table, echoing with the silence of unspoken accusations and missed opportunities for peace.
