The diplomatic frost between India and Canada just got a lot more visible on the global stage and it is now casting a shadow over the upcoming G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, scheduled for June 15–17.

For the first time in six years, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was not expected to attend the summit not because he declined, but because the invitation never came. At least, not until very late. The delay was glaring, especially for a country like India, which has been regularly invited as a guest to the elite G7 table since 2019.

According to sources in New Delhi, the Modi government had not received an official invite even as summit preparations moved ahead. And while India is not a formal member of the G7 (comprising the US, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, and host Canada) it has become customary in recent years to extend invitations to key non-member economies. That Canada stalled this year was enough to stir speculation.

The reason –  Politics, power shifts, and the still-raw fallout from the Hardeep Singh Nijjar assassination controversy.

Tensions between New Delhi and Ottawa have remained frayed since September 2023, when then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused Indian agents of being involved in Nijjar’s killing on Canadian soil, an allegation the Indian government flatly denied as “absurd.” The accusation led to a rapid diplomatic meltdown, including tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats and a freeze in bilateral engagement.

The controversy did not fade with Trudeau’s exit. Canada’s new Prime Minister Mark Carney, despite taking initial steps to thaw the relationship, including a phone conversation with Modi, faced backlash from Sikh advocacy groups at home for even considering extending an olive branch to India’s leader.

So when Carney eventually did make the call to invite Modi, reportedly just days before the summit, it seemed like damage control more than diplomacy.

However, in his social media post confirming the invite, Modi remained gracious: “Glad to receive a call from Prime Minister @MarkJCarney of Canada… Look forward to our meeting at the Summit.” But the delay spoke volumes.

Hence, the question we are asking – was it a miscalculation by Canada, under pressure both from domestic constituencies and its Western allies to keep India in the loop? Or was it a passive-aggressive diplomatic jab  a G7 snub wrapped in bureaucratic ambiguity?

The Indian side, meanwhile, maintained that even if invited, Modi’s attendance remained uncertain given Ottawa’s ambivalence over reining in extremist Sikh separatist groups operating freely in Canada. The message from New Delhi was clear – there can be no business-as-usual when sovereignty is under question.

In a world of shifting alliances and resurgent nationalism, summit invitations or the lack thereof are not mere courtesies. They are powerful signals. And this one is loaded.

Backlash at the Summit; Canada’s Carney Walks a Diplomatic Tightrope by Inviting Modi Amid Sikh Outrage

Looking at what is the response in Canada – Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s invitation to Indian PM Narendra Modi for the upcoming G7 summit in Alberta has ignited a political firestorm back home. What was meant to be a diplomatic olive branch is now being viewed by many especially Sikh advocacy groups as a tone-deaf gesture at best, and a betrayal at worst.

At the heart of the uproar is the unresolved and explosive investigation into the 2023 assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a prominent Sikh activist and Canadian citizen. Four Indian nationals currently residing in Canada have been charged in the case and while the legal probe continues, the underlying suspicion lingers – was this a state-sponsored assassination by the Indian government on Canadian soil?

When asked bluntly about PM Modi’s alleged involvement, Carney dodged:

“There is a legal process that is literally underway and quite advanced in Canada… It’s never appropriate to make comments with respect to those legal processes.”

Diplomatic, Perhaps. Deflective, Undoubtedly.

But Carney did not stop at vague neutrality; defending his decision to invite Modi, he leaned on realpolitik:

“India is the fifth largest economy in the world, the most populous country, and central to supply chains.”
In short: business and global influence trump unresolved murder investigations.

The G7 invite, according to insiders, was delayed partly due to political sensitivities which only amplified the controversy. Modi, for his part, responded with carefully crafted optimism, stating that India and Canada “will work together with renewed vigour, guided by mutual respect and shared interests.” A statesmanlike tone that masks months of diplomatic hostility.

But Sikh organizations are not buying it.

The World Sikh Organization called the move “a betrayal”. Its president, Dinesh Singh, was scathing: “This is a betrayal, not just of our community, but core Canadian values.”

Their argument is simple – How can Canada host a man whose government stands accused in an assassination plot especially when the investigation is far from closed?

Even as law enforcement dialogue between the two nations quietly resumes, and trade figures show India still ranks among Canada’s top ten economic partners, the underlying tensions haven’t healed they’ve merely been muted.

For Carney, it is a tough balance – extend the hand of diplomacy to a global powerhouse like India, and risk alienating a significant domestic community. Push back, and risk isolating a key economic and geopolitical partner.

Sovereignty Reclaimed, Why India’s Clash with Canada Isn’t Just About Nijjar, It is About a Shifting Global Order

The age of sovereignty returns and India is not playing by the old rules anymore.

The India-Canada diplomatic rupture may look, at first glance, like a bilateral spat over a high-profile assassination and extremist politics. But beneath the surface, this face-off is a microcosm of a much larger, tectonic geopolitical shift, one where rising powers are reasserting their sovereign will and challenging the liberal internationalism that has long dominated Western diplomacy.

What we are witnessing is not just a dispute over extradition or asylum it is a collision between two worldviews – one that sees state sovereignty as inviolable, and another that increasingly projects individual rights, liberal values, and extraterritorial activism as diplomatic currency.

This is not new terrain. The world has flirted with the erosion of traditional sovereignty before. The post-Cold War world saw sovereignty diluted in favor of globalization, human rights, open borders, dual citizenship, and digital integration. Sovereignty seemed porous, and in many corners, obsolete. As states became more interconnected, it was believed that the age of state-centric geopolitics was behind us.

But the Modi-Carney standoff reveals a critical reversion. We are witnessing the revenant of statism and it is no longer wearing a Western face.

Historically, sovereignty has always been asymmetrical. The 19th-century United States cloaked its imperial expansion under the banner of “Manifest Destiny,” dispossessing entire nations while claiming moral high ground. The 20th century brought colonization to the developing world, where sovereignty was leased, stolen, or crushed outright. The 21st century promised something different – a borderless era of multiculturalism, interdependence, and universal human rights. Yet, that very openness has created flashpoints like the current Canada-India crisis.

India now stands at a threshold that many rising powers before it have crossed where strategic patience gives way to assertive sovereignty. And it is doing so not just with muscle, but with moral clarity – if national integrity is at stake, diplomacy must yield.

To New Delhi, the harbouring of pro-Khalistan separatists – some of whom openly celebrate violence – is not an exercise in free speech, it’s a red line. A transnational crime problem masquerading as diaspora politics. And when a Western liberal democracy like Canada offers refuge to such elements, it is not perceived as a noble gesture of asylum – it is seen as strategic permissiveness bordering on complicity.

In many ways, the crisis mirrors an ongoing realignment in the global order: sovereignty is no longer a static concept guarded solely by the West. It is dynamic, increasingly invoked by powers like India, China, Turkey, and Brazil—nations once expected to fit into a pre-scripted global framework, now reshaping the rules altogether.

In this world, the state’s assertion of sovereignty trumps the individual’s extraterritorial liberties particularly when those liberties are perceived to endanger the state’s territorial integrity or democratic stability. This is the new doctrine of post-globalization statism.

The irony is striking –  India and Canada, both democracies, both champions of multiculturalism, are now estranged by the very ideals they once shared. While India has moved beyond the ghosts of Khalistan, embracing an inclusive nationalism at home, Canada remains stuck in its liberal echo chamber, failing to see the security risks brewing under the banner of ‘free speech’.

As India’s global profile grows – economically, diplomatically, and militarily – its expectations from its partners are shifting. It is no longer content with quiet diplomacy. When it perceives a threat to its sovereignty, it responds not with appeasement, but with unapologetic realpolitik.

And that’s the geopolitical message Canada and indeed, the G7 must struggle with: this is not just about Nijjar; this is about the world order adjusting to the rise of new sovereign voices that refuse to play second fiddle.

The Last Bit

The controversy surrounding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s delayed invitation to the G7 Summit in Canada reveals more than just a diplomatic hiccup; it is emblematic of a deeper, evolving shift in global power dynamics and the reassertion of state sovereignty in international relations.

At the surface, the issue appears to stem from Canada’s hesitance to invite Modi to the G7 Summit in Alberta amid the still-contentious fallout over the 2023 assassination of Sikh separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Canada had accused Indian agents of orchestrating the killing, a charge India dismissed as baseless.

Despite a change in leadership from Justin Trudeau to Mark Carney, tensions remained. Carney’s eventual invitation to Modi, sent only days before the summit, has drawn backlash from Sikh advocacy groups, highlighting the domestic pressure the Canadian government faces.

Carney’s decision to cite India’s geopolitical and economic importance in justifying the invitation has been seen by critics as an act of realpolitik overriding human rights concerns.

However, beyond this immediate controversy lies a broader geopolitical recalibration. India, now the world’s fifth-largest economy, is no longer engaging diplomatically from a position of appeasement. Its foreign policy has undergone a marked transformation, asserting sovereignty as a non-negotiable red line, especially when facing threats it perceives as external, such as pro-Khalistan elements operating from Western nations like Canada.

This evolving posture reflects a global trend. Sovereignty, once assumed to be diluted in the era of globalization and liberal internationalism, is making a strong return especially among rising powers like India, China, Turkey, and Brazil. These nations are now shaping their own rules, rejecting older Western-dominated narratives that emphasized individual rights and cross-border activism over state integrity.

The India-Canada standoff also illustrates the disconnect between two diplomatic worldviews: Canada’s liberal approach that upholds dissent and free speech even when it crosses borders, and India’s realist stance that sees such tolerance – particularly for separatist ideologies – as a threat to national security. India has made clear that it won’t tolerate what it views as foreign complicity in internal destabilization, and it is willing to withhold engagement – trade, diplomatic dialogue, even summit attendance – until that principle is acknowledged.

In short, the G7 drama is more than delayed invitation. It is a window into the changing grammar of 21st-century geopolitics, where rising powers like India demand recognition not just for their economic clout but for their sovereign red lines. If the West, and Canada in particular, fail to adjust to this new reality, they risk alienating strategic partners and becoming increasingly irrelevant in a multipolar world order.