In a striking turn of international diplomacy, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has extended an invitation to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to attend the upcoming G7 summit in Alberta later this June. This move marks a dramatic reversal from the principled and critical stance held by former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, particularly in the wake of serious allegations surrounding the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian citizen and Sikh separatist leader of Indian origin. While the invitation underscores India’s rising geopolitical and economic clout, it has also reignited fierce criticism and accusations of political expediency overriding human rights concerns.
The backdrop of this development is deeply contentious. In 2023, Canada and India found themselves embroiled in one of their most severe diplomatic confrontations in recent history. Ottawa accused New Delhi of orchestrating the killing of Nijjar, who was shot outside a Sikh temple in British Columbia in June 2023. The Canadian government alleged that agents of the Indian government were not only behind the assassination but were also involved in a broader campaign targeting Canadian citizens. In retaliation, both countries expelled each other’s top diplomats, leading to a dramatic cooling of bilateral ties.
Further solidifying these claims, it was revealed that Canadian intelligence had identified India’s top diplomat in Canada at the time as a “person of interest” in the assassination plot. These revelations were later echoed in testimony provided by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at a public inquiry in October 2024. Trudeau asserted unequivocally, “we had clear and certain, now ever clearer, indications that India had violated Canada’s sovereignty.” The statement was not only an indictment of India’s alleged actions but also a declaration of the seriousness with which Canada viewed the violation of its national integrity.
Relations had already soured prior to this testimony. During the 2023 G20 Summit in New Delhi, Trudeau confronted Modi about the assassination. Rather than addressing the concerns head-on, Modi reportedly deflected, urging Canada to intensify its crackdown on Sikh separatist activism within its borders, an issue that has long irked the Indian government. The clash underscored deep ideological and political divides, with India viewing Sikh activism as a threat to its unity, while Canada has largely allowed such movements under the umbrella of democratic expression.
Despite India not being a member of the G7, a group that comprises Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan, Modi’s presence at recent summits has been a recurring feature. Since 2019, he has received several invitations, highlighting India’s increasingly pivotal role in global affairs. The latest invitation, however, is particularly controversial given the unresolved tensions and the gravity of the accusations levelled against India.
The decision by Prime Minister Carney to invite Modi has not gone unnoticed or unchallenged. The World Sikh Organization (WSO) of Canada expressed outrage, calling the invitation a betrayal of Canadian values. In a letter sent to Carney in May, the WSO urged the Prime Minister to reconsider, citing the unresolved nature of the assassination case and the need for Canada to stand firm on its principles of justice and human rights. The backlash underscores a broader dilemma facing Western democracies: how to balance geopolitical interests with the ethical and moral imperatives of their foreign policy.
When asked by reporters whether he believed Modi had a role in the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, Carney declined to answer directly. Instead, he shifted the conversation to India’s economic and strategic importance. “India is the fifth-largest economy, the most populous country, and central to global supply chains,” he noted. This pragmatic response signals a shift toward a more transactional approach in foreign relations, where realpolitik and economic considerations often eclipse normative values.
This shift is not isolated to Canada. In 2024, the United States filed charges against Vikash Yadav, identified as an Indian government employee, for his role in a failed plot to assassinate another Sikh separatist leader, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, on American soil. The U.S. Department of Justice’s move to publicly prosecute such a case signals the seriousness with which it regards foreign attempts to carry out extrajudicial killings within its territory. However, even the U.S., which has strategic partnerships with India on issues ranging from China containment to technology and climate, has had to walk a fine diplomatic line.
The invitation to Modi reflects the increasing salience of geo-economics, the use of economic instruments to achieve geopolitical objectives. As Western countries seek to diversify supply chains away from China, counterbalance Beijing’s influence, and secure economic resilience in an increasingly unstable global environment, India emerges as a critical partner. With its massive market, burgeoning tech sector, and strategic location, India is seen as indispensable to the long-term stability and prosperity of the liberal international order, even if its domestic and foreign policy choices often challenge democratic norms.
Critics argue that inviting Modi to the G7 without resolving serious allegations effectively whitewashes a potential violation of Canadian sovereignty and undermines the credibility of Western democracies. It raises uncomfortable questions: Can a nation credibly advocate for human rights and rule of law while simultaneously courting regimes accused of violating these very principles? Is economic interdependence eroding the moral compass of foreign policy?
On the other hand, supporters of the invitation point to the necessity of engagement. Isolating India, they argue, would do little to alter its behaviour and would likely drive it closer to authoritarian powers like Russia and China. Instead, by bringing India into the fold and exposing it to the expectations and norms of multilateral institutions like the G7, there may be greater leverage to influence its actions over time.
As Modi prepares to attend the G7 summit, the world will be watching closely, not just for the speeches and photo ops, but for the underlying message being sent. Is this a triumph of geo-economics over moral clarity? Or is it a calculated attempt to maintain open channels with a vital global player while continuing to press for accountability behind closed doors?
Either way, the decision to invite Modi is emblematic of the complex, often contradictory nature of modern diplomacy. In a world where power is increasingly dispersed and alliances are dictated as much by interests as by ideals, geo-economics appears to have rescued Modi’s international standing, for now. Whether this rescue comes at the cost of credibility remains a question that only time will answer.
