According to a renowned foreign policy analyst, the relationship between India and Canada is currently “highly fraught”.

Michael Kugelman reports that Justin Trudeau’s concerns about the alleged involvement of Indian government agents in the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Khalistani terrorist based in Canada, dominated their face-to-face conversation with Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the G20 Summit.

Trudeau used the chance to address his concerns with PM Modi personally, according to the director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center.

As far as I can tell, PM Modi also expressed to Trudeau his concerns on what has been happening to Sikh leaders in Canada. I believe Trudeau may have been motivated by the opportunity to speak with Modi face-to-face and inform him of his worries, Kugelman added.

Participation in the G20 Summit was just one aspect of Trudeau’s visit to India from Canada. The American expert noted that the Canadian prime minister had the chance to discuss matters of pressing concern during a face-to-face meeting with his Indian counterpart.

“But, we saw that he really did not have a very good tour to India. There were tensions in his meeting with Modi, he experienced aircraft problems, and he was left stranded there for a few days. It turned into a bit of a disaster. But bear in mind that his visit wasn’t made just to meet with PM Modi. He travelled there to take part in the G20 Summit, according to Kugelman, who was quoted by ANI.

In a previous tweet, Kugelman stated, “The Canadians didn’t approach this quietly. In a speech to the House of Commons, Trudeau leveled the specific charge, and his government publicly identified an Indian diplomat it expelled as the head of Indian intel in Canada. A reflection of a highly fraught relationship”.

According to Trudeau, his administration is “actively pursuing credible allegations” that Indian government officials were involved in Nijjar’s murder . While subsequently using more circumspect language, Foreign Minister Melanie Joly said the accusations would be unacceptable “if proven true.”