Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in Calgary, Canada, to participate in the G-7 Outreach Summit, where he emphasized the priorities of the Global South. During his visit, he planned to engage in four bilateral meetings with leaders from Germany, Canada, Ukraine, and Italy. Modi expressed his intention to discuss significant global issues and highlight the challenges faced by developing nations due to conflicts like those between Israel and Iran and Russia and Ukraine.

The summit was marked by a notable absence as U.S. President Donald Trump left early amid tensions surrounding military operations in the Gulf region. Trump also suggested expanding the G-7 to include Russia and China, arguing that this could have prevented current conflicts.

Modi's meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was particularly significant as it occurred before an anticipated visit from Russian President Vladimir Putin for an annual summit in India. This context added depth to discussions regarding India's stance on international relations amid ongoing geopolitical tensions.

The G-7 Outreach Summit focused on three main themes: protecting global communities, enhancing energy security while accelerating digital transitions, and securing future partnerships.

Original article

The provided text is replete with various forms of bias, manipulation, and linguistic trickery. Upon close examination, it becomes apparent that the text leans heavily towards a pro-Modi and pro-India stance, while also subtly promoting a Western-centric worldview.

One of the most striking biases present in the text is its nationalist framing. The article begins by emphasizing Prime Minister Narendra Modi's arrival in Calgary, Canada, to participate in the G-7 Outreach Summit. This framing immediately establishes Modi as a key player on the global stage, while also subtly reinforcing India's growing economic and political influence. The use of words like "priorities of the Global South" further reinforces this nationalist bias, implying that India is a leader in shaping global policies.

Furthermore, the article's language often employs euphemisms to describe Modi's actions and intentions. For instance, when discussing his meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the article states that it was "particularly significant" due to an anticipated visit from Russian President Vladimir Putin for an annual summit in India. This phraseology downplays any potential tensions between India and Ukraine or Russia, instead focusing on Modi's diplomatic efforts as a positive development.

The article also exhibits linguistic bias through its selective use of emotive language. When describing U.S. President Donald Trump's departure from the summit early due to tensions surrounding military operations in the Gulf region, the text simply states that he "left early amid tensions." In contrast, when discussing Modi's own diplomatic efforts or statements on significant global issues like conflicts between Israel and Iran or Russia and Ukraine, the language is more neutral or even laudatory. This disparity in tone suggests that Trump's actions are being framed as problematic or erratic, while Modi's are presented as statesmanlike.

Another form of bias present in the text is its omission of relevant perspectives. For instance, when discussing conflicts between Israel and Iran or Russia and Ukraine, there is no mention of Palestinian perspectives on Israeli aggression or Ukrainian perspectives on Russian annexation. Similarly, when highlighting Modi's emphasis on protecting global communities during his meeting with Zelenskyy , there is no discussion of how this might relate to ongoing human rights abuses within India itself.

In terms of cultural bias ,the article reinforces Western-centric views by framing international relations through a lens dominated by Western powers .For example ,when discussing Trump 's suggestion to expand G7 membership to include Russia and China ,the article portrays this move as potentially preventing current conflicts .However,this perspective ignores alternative viewpoints from non-Western countries which may view such expansion as an attempt at Western dominance .

Moreover,the article perpetuates class-based bias through its focus on high-level diplomacy between leaders .This narrative obscures broader economic realities affecting ordinary citizens across these nations .Furthermore,the emphasis on energy security highlights corporate interests over environmental concerns .

Structural bias emerges through selective citation sources which reinforce particular narratives .While some sources are cited for their factual accuracy (such as dates for upcoming summits), others seem chosen solely for their ideological alignment (e.g., references supporting Indian nationalism). Confirmation bias manifests throughout; assumptions about Indian leadership are accepted without question while alternative perspectives are ignored

Framing narrative biases abound: The story structure emphasizes Indian diplomacy above other nations' initiatives; metaphors used create favorable impressions (e.g., describing meetings as "significant"); information ordering prioritizes positive developments over negative ones (e.g., avoiding discussion about ongoing human rights abuses within India).

Finally,temporal bias appears via presentism – current events receive greater attention than historical context –and historical erasure where past instances similar to recent events go unmentioned