G7 Meet: It's About Choice, Not Exclusion

 

India’s absence from this year’s G7 summit in Canada has triggered speculation and political noise, especially from the usual quarters in the opposition. Since 2019, India has been a regular invitee to the G7 meetings, often seen as a recognition of its growing global stature. But this time, the invitation was conspicuously missing. Many rushed to call it a “snub.” The truth is quite the opposite: India had already conveyed informally that it would not attend the summit—even if invited.

Why? Because Canada’s stance on terrorism and its continued patronage of anti-India elements has left New Delhi deeply dissatisfied. For a government that has made national security the cornerstone of its foreign policy, attending a summit hosted by a country harbouring extremists was out of the question. This wasn’t a case of rejection by the West—it was a deliberate distancing by India.

This quiet assertion of principle is emblematic of India’s new foreign policy posture—firm, independent, and unapologetic. In a world of transactional diplomacy, India is no longer willing to play along for optics. It calls out double standards and, more importantly, walks away from uncomfortable compromises. This is not isolation. It is sovereignty in action.

Yet, in this very week, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi decided to invoke the ghost of “surrender.” At a rally in Bhopal on June 3, Gandhi alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi halted military operations against Pakistan after a call from former US President Donald Trump, sarcastically dubbing him “Narender Surrender.” The claim was amplified online using Trump’s signature red campaign cap—this time emblazoned with the mocking slogan.

The irony is striking.

Just 24 hours earlier, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, speaking at the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum in Washington D.C., had expressed clear frustration with India. Why? Because India continues to purchase military equipment from Russia. Because India is a key player in BRICS—a coalition that questions dollar dominance. Lutnick, echoing many in Washington, seemed unsettled that New Delhi won’t simply follow the US line.

So which is it? Is India surrendering to America’s demands, or is the US actually irritated by India’s defiant independence? The facts speak for themselves.

The S-400 missile deal with Russia, signed despite US objections and threat of sanctions, stands as a pillar of India’s strategic autonomy. The Modi government also cancelled several defence deals with the US when they didn’t align with national priorities. The stance on BRICS, on trade protectionism, on Israel-Hamas neutrality—all of it points to a nation charting its own course.

Contrast this with Congress-era precedents. In 2009, the UPA government under Manmohan Singh allowed Pakistan’s mention of Balochistan into a joint statement at Sharm el-Sheikh—an unprecedented concession widely seen as a foreign-policy blunder. In the same era, India continued to engage with Pakistan even as terror attacks mounted. The phrase “surgical strike” did not exist in the UPA dictionary; restraint was often synonymous with inaction.

When Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif insulted Manmohan Singh by calling him a dehati aurat on US soil, it wasn’t Rahul Gandhi who stood up for India. It was Narendra Modi, then Gujarat Chief Minister, who publicly condemned the remark and defended India’s Prime Minister. That silence from Rahul Gandhi then, and his chest-thumping now, is revealing.

Even on the nuclear front, the Congress government led by P.V. Narasimha Rao postponed India’s nuclear tests under US pressure. It was Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in 1998, who took the bold step forward. Later, Modi ensured India would never again apologise for protecting its interests.

External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar recently summed it up well during his European tour: “India needs partners, not preachers.” This one line dismantles the illusion of Indian dependency. The US may wish to exert influence, but India now engages on its own terms. And when Canada or any G7 nation falls short of India's expectations—on terrorism, sovereignty, or trade—India walks away.

In trade negotiations too, Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal has shown resilience. The proposed Indo-US trade deal has not been finalised not because India is weak, but because it refuses to sign on terms that undermine its farmers, industries, or data sovereignty. This is not “surrender.” It’s statesmanship.

So when Rahul Gandhi accuses Modi of “surrender,” one must ask: what evidence does he have? Howard Lutnick’s candid frustrations suggest India isn’t caving in. Canada's G7 organisers being pre-empted by India's diplomatic signal suggests the same. These are not the signs of a submissive nation—they are the markers of an assertive one.

It is Congress that must answer for past surrender—from Nehru’s loss of Aksai Chin, to Indira Gandhi’s over-generosity at Shimla, to UPA’s soft-pedalling on terror. Under Modi, India has not only stood its ground—it has expanded it.

The G7 story this year is not about exclusion. It is about choice. And Rahul Gandhi should recognise the difference.