By John Q. Hosedrinker 
This newsletter, delivered by Postmedia Network Inc., provides top news stories. A confirmation email will be sent shortly; check your junk folder if it doesn’t arrive. Future editions will be sent regularly to your inbox.
Read the original article here
India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s absence from the G7 summit is a stark indicator of the deteriorating relationship between India and Canada. The fact that India isn’t a member of the G7 is a given; the group comprises Canada, the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. However, the notable exclusion of Modi this year speaks volumes, especially considering past invitations. This snub is directly linked to the alleged assassination of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil, an incident that has severely strained relations. It’s a situation where, if a similar event occurred in India, a reciprocal lack of invitation might be expected.
While relations between Canada and India are improving, they remain fragile, and certainly not at a level warranting an invitation to such a prestigious gathering. The argument that the G7 is an outdated organization, comprised of aging leaders with questionable pasts, holds some water. The suggestion of moving towards more inclusive and representative global institutions, or abandoning criticism of BRICS while maintaining the G7, highlights a fundamental tension in international relations. This is especially true when considering the significant global influence of BRICS nations and their growing economic power.
The inclusion of former US President Donald Trump, despite his legal troubles, while Modi is excluded, is a point of contention for many. This perceived double standard fuels criticism of the G7’s selective application of principles. Some argue that Modi’s actions, particularly his alleged role in the Gujarat riots, are a significant factor in this exclusion. Concerns regarding India’s increasingly right-wing and populist government, along with broader criticisms of Modi’s leadership style, are also contributing factors to this perception.
The alleged assassination of the Canadian citizen further exacerbates the situation. While Canada hasn’t yet provided conclusive proof, the situation itself, even without undeniable evidence, casts a long shadow over the relationship. The fact that this incident occurred on Canadian soil intensifies the negative impact on bilateral relations. This has resulted in a clear diplomatic misstep, negatively affecting India’s international standing, despite having vibrant relationships with most G7 members individually.
The situation is complex. While some see the G7 as an irrelevant group, clinging to outdated structures, others see Modi’s absence as a justifiable consequence of his government’s alleged involvement in a serious crime on foreign soil. The argument that excluding the voices of billions of people from these types of discussions only serves to hinder the resolution of global challenges is important. The current two-power-center model of global power—essentially the US and China—does seem to render some of these discussions less relevant to those outside of the immediate players.
However, the counterargument suggests that the G7, despite its limitations, serves a crucial role in international affairs. It represents not just the seven largest economies, but rather the seven largest liberal economies. The invitation of other countries, such as Brazil and South Africa, to the summit demonstrates that participation is selective and based on factors beyond mere economic might or population size. Therefore, the exclusion of Modi highlights a distinct lack of trust and indicates a significant rupture in diplomatic relations.
In essence, India’s exclusion from the G7 summit is far from a mere oversight. It is a reflection of a fraught relationship stemming from a specific incident coupled with a broader, underlying tension surrounding geopolitical alignment and the perceived shortcomings of existing global governance structures. The lack of invitation highlights the complex interplay of political considerations, security concerns, and differing ideological viewpoints, all shaping the dynamics of international relations on the global stage. The incident serves as a cautionary tale of the consequences of international actions and the delicate balance required to maintain constructive diplomatic relations.