Shivanand Pandit
The G-7, traditionally perceived as a bloc of the world’s most advanced and influential economies, is expected to project unity, strength, and seasoned diplomacy, particularly in times of global crisis. However, the recently concluded G-7 Summit and Outreach session held in Kananaskis, Canada, exposed deep fissures within the grouping. Rather than demonstrating cohesive leadership, the summit laid bare internal discord and a lack of direction in addressing some of the most pressing international conflicts today.
Among the foremost challenges confronting the summit were the ongoing and intensifying Russia-Ukraine war, the mounting tensions between Israel and Iran, and Israel’s relentless military operations in Gaza. Yet, instead of articulating a united response or proposing meaningful diplomatic pathways, the G-7 appeared paralysed and ineffective. The summit also failed to adequately address the repercussions of one of the most disruptive developments in global trade in recent years: the return of reciprocal tariffs under the U.S. Trump administration, which continues to destabilise trade dynamics across continents.
From the outset, the 2025 G-7 summit faced internal instability. Host nation Canada, had recently undergone an unexpected national election, which resulted in a nascent administration led by Prime Minister Mark Carney. Still, in the early stages of forming coherent policy and diplomatic outreach, the Carney government’s inexperience was evident in its late invitations to global leaders, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who was extended an invitation just days before the summit convened.
Compounding the confusion were the unpredictable shifts in U.S. foreign and trade policy. President Donald Trump’s policy pivots — particularly his unorthodox approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and his ambiguous stance on China — sowed further discord. In a controversial move, President Trump proposed expanding the G-7 into a “G-9” by reintroducing Russia and including China, an idea that drew sharp criticism from fellow leaders and especially from Ukraine’s President, who attended the summit as a special invitee.
President Trump’s inconsistencies were further on display in his shift from branding himself a “Peace-time President” to fully endorsing Israel’s aggressive military operations. His administration refused to endorse a proposed G-7 draft statement that called for de-escalation in Gaza or criticised Israel’s actions. Instead, the U.S. advocated for a statement condemning Iran, which alienated several other members and hindered consensus. Ultimately, the summit ended without a unified joint communiqué on key global issues. In its place, a watered-down Chair’s Summary was issued, sidestepping major conflicts and focusing instead on less contentious themes such as artificial intelligence and quantum technologies, critical minerals supply chains, wildfire response strategies, and transnational repression. Notably, terrorism — a priority issue for India — found no mention, further highlighting the summit’s dissonance.
The G-7’s statement on Transnational Repression, while diplomatically worded and devoid of direct attributions, unmistakably alludes to accusations made by Canada against India, along with similar charges involving China, Russia, and Iran. The inclusion of such references, without room for India to contest them within a unified declaration, raises questions about the value and strategic return of India’s participation in the G-7 framework.
A Diplomatic Thaw
Prime Minister Modi’s meeting with his Canadian counterpart, Prime Minister Mark Carney, in Kananaskis has signalled the beginning of a potential diplomatic reset between India and Canada. The meeting, though brief, was productive and constructive, offering a ray of optimism in what has been a deeply strained bilateral relationship over the past two years.
Tensions between New Delhi and Ottawa escalated dramatically in September 2023 when then-Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made a controversial statement in Parliament. He claimed that Canadian security agencies were investigating “credible allegations” linking Indian government agents to the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Khalistani separatist leader and Canadian citizen, on Canadian soil. India categorically and strongly rejected these allegations, dismissing them as politically motivated and lacking in evidence. In response, both countries expelled diplomats and froze bilateral engagements, pushing the relationship to its lowest ebb in decades.
Against this backdrop, the Kananaskis meeting marks a critical moment of rapprochement. Both leaders reaffirmed the importance of Indo-Canadian relations, underscoring shared values such as respect for each other’s concerns, mutual sensitivities, the rule of law, and an unwavering commitment to sovereignty and territorial integrity. They agreed to appoint new High Commissioners to restore full diplomatic functionality and revive services for citizens and businesses alike.
During the dialogue, Prime Ministers Modi and Carney also acknowledged the historical ties between their nations. The enduring people-to-people relationships, the substantial Indian diaspora in Canada, and the robust commercial exchanges were all recognised as foundational pillars of the bilateral relationship. The leaders also emphasised the strategic importance of Indo-Pacific cooperation, where both countries have mutual interests in maintaining stability, freedom of navigation, and economic security.
However, this diplomatic thaw does not imply that the Nijjar controversy has been put to rest. On the contrary, it continues to cast a long shadow. According to The Globe and Mail, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), in its annual report tabled in Parliament, identified India as a “persistent foreign interference threat” to Canada. Although Prime Minister Carney did not publicly confirm whether he broached the Nijjar issue during his discussion with Prime Minister Modi, his office’s readout of the G-7 invitation mentioned ongoing law enforcement dialogue and discussions on bilateral security concerns.
The question now arises whether both nations can compartmentalise — or ring-fence — the judicial proceedings concerning the Nijjar case from their broader diplomatic and economic engagement. Initial signs suggest that such a framework is being explored. Reports indicate that Canada and India are considering the creation of a joint working group to address transnational crimes. This mechanism would provide a structured platform for both sides to raise their respective concerns: Canada could address the Nijjar investigation and alleged foreign interference, while India could highlight its longstanding issues regarding Khalistani extremism, separatist propaganda, and the presence of fugitive gangsters and terrorists operating from Canadian soil.
This recalibration of relations reflects the evolving geopolitical and economic realities compelling both nations to re-engage constructively. In an era where global trade is increasingly being weaponized through protectionism, tariffs, and unilateral sanctions, stable bilateral relations are essential. For both India and Canada, deeper engagement is not just desirable but necessary to safeguard economic interests and strategic autonomy.
One immediate step towards normalisation would be the resumption of ministerial-level dialogues on trade and investment. The last such meeting took place on May 8, 2023, and progress has since stalled. An Early Progress Trade Agreement (EPTA) — a precursor to a full-fledged Free Trade Agreement — remains unfinished despite ten rounds of negotiations. Concluding the EPTA promptly would inject much-needed momentum into bilateral economic relations.
Trade figures underscore the stakes involved. In 2024, two-way trade in goods and services between India and Canada reached USD 23 billion. From April 2000 to June 2024, Canada invested approximately USD 3.9 billion in India, primarily through portfolio investments. In addition, Canadian pension funds have poured more than USD 75 billion into Indian markets, making them significant stakeholders in India’s infrastructure and financial sectors. On the other hand, Indian investment in Canada, though more modest, stands at USD 2.1 billion. Currently, over 600 Canadian companies operate in India, while about 30 Indian firms maintain a presence in Canada.
Yet, beyond the numbers, the most profound connection between the two nations is their people. The Indian diaspora in Canada — comprising approximately 1.8 million Indo-Canadians and another 1 million non-resident Indians — represents one of the largest immigrant communities in the country. Indian students form a major share of Canada’s international student population, many of whom seek employment and permanent residency post-graduation. These community links are not only economic and educational but also social and cultural, and they play a vital role in shaping public perception and bilateral cooperation.
Therefore, as New Delhi and Ottawa attempt to navigate through this complex phase of their relationship, it is crucial to nurture and safeguard these people-to-people ties. They are the bedrock upon which a more resilient and mutually beneficial partnership can be built. Restoring diplomatic normalcy is just the first step. What will matter more is sustained dialogue, institutional cooperation, and the political will to separate contentious issues from broader areas of collaboration. In the months ahead, both nations will need to demonstrate strategic patience and diplomatic finesse. Only then can they transform this tentative reset into a durable partnership grounded in mutual respect, economic interdependence, and shared democratic values.
As a final point, in light of the disjointed outcomes at the G-7 Summit, it may be prudent for the Indian government to reassess the effectiveness of engaging in the G-7 process. Having the Prime Minister travel over 11,000 kilometres to participate in a single outreach session — in a summit marred by geopolitical incoherence and diplomatic fragmentation — calls into question whether such involvement aligns with India’s broader foreign policy objectives and optimal use of its leadership bandwidth. While the G-7 still holds symbolic significance as a forum of wealthy democracies, its relevance and impact in steering global consensus and crisis management appear to be in decline. India, as a rising power with aspirations for greater global influence, must evaluate its partnerships not only through the lens of prestige but also through measurable diplomatic returns.
