A Shot in the Dark? Canada Accuses India of Assassinating Prominent Canadian Sikh Leader
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during a 2018 meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi
By: Anna Gaberman; Staff Editor
Following Prime Minister Trudeau’s remarks that Canada is investigating a connection between the Indian government and the killing of a Sikh Canadian citizen, the diplomatic relationship between the two powers continues to deteriorate.
Accusations and an Assassination
During a September 18th speech to the House of Commons, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused the Indian government of involvement in the fatal shooting of a Sikh leader on Canadian soil. Trudeau proclaimed that “[a]ny involvement of a foreign government in the killing of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil is an unacceptable violation of our sovereignty. It is contrary to the fundamental rules by which free, open and democratic societies conduct themselves.” Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian Citizen, was killed outside a Sikh temple in British Columbia on June 18, 2023.
India quickly disputed such claims as “unsubstantiated allegations,” with Modi declaring that “allegations of the government of India’s involvement in any act of violence in Canada are absurd and motivated.” The Indian Ministry accused Canada of using Nijjar’s death to divert attention from Khalistanti extremists, and urged Canada to “take prompt and effective legal action against all anti-India elements operating from their soil.”
Nijjar, who worked as a plumber in Canada, was designated a “terrorist” in India for his involvement in the Sikh Khalistan independence movement. Nijjar was reportedly a leader of the Khalistan Tiger Force (KTF), which India describes as a “militant outfit” that aims to revive “terrorism in Punjab and challenges the territorial integrity, unity, national security and sovereignty of India and promotes various acts of terrorism, including targeted killings in Punjab.”
At a press conference during the September 2023 United Nations General Assembly, the U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken addressed the set of diplomatic contentions. Blinken stated that the U.S. government is “deeply concerned about the allegations that Prime Minister Trudeau has raised” and that the United States is “extremely vigilant about any instances of alleged transnational repression, something we take very, very seriously.” Blinken also underscored the importance of allowing the investigation of Nijjar’s murder to run its course.
Legal Implications & What is to Come
If Indian officials did have a direct role in the killing, the violation of Canadian sovereignty could be characterized as a violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. While illegal under international law, this is unlikely to prompt Canada to launch an Article 51 self-defense response as there is no imminent threat to Canadian security and any true “armed attack” in retaliation would not be proportional in nature. However, retaliation is being channeled through more diplomatic means. Following procedure articulated in Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, India expelled a senior Canadian diplomat in an act that “reflects Government of India’s growing concern at the interference of Canadian diplomats in our internal matters and their involvement in anti-India activities.” Canada had previously expelled Pavan Kumar Rai, a member of India’s foreign spy agency. India further escalated the row by suspending visa services to Canadian citizens. These actions follow international agreements and allow the states to continue their conflict without escalation or further violations of international law.
Even if the Indian government itself was not responsible itself for the killing, failing to prevent Indian nationals from committing a political murder in Canada violates the international legal principle of “due diligence.” According to the ICJ’s 1949 decision in Corfu Channel, it is “every State’s obligation not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other States.”
As strife between the two states continues to build, a breakdown in diplomatic relations is antithetical to a peaceful resolution. Absent Canada bringing forward concrete evidence of Indian involvement in Nijjar’s death, the accusations will result in nothing more than reputational harm. However, if Canada can produce evidence of Indian covert action to kill a Canadian citizen, it is a serious offense and undermines the United Nations’ charter. The charter is based on equal sovereignty of member states and Article 2(4) prohibits any use of force that undermines territorial integrity or the underlying principles. Aside from violating the U.N. Charter, covert action such as this violates Canada’s domestic laws prohibiting murder and covert foreign interference. While Canada could call for condemnation from the United Nations General Assembly, this kind of intrusive state action indicates a disrespect for the principles of international law so condemnation is unlikely to make a larger impact than existing allegations.
Anna Gaberman is a second-year student at Columbia Law School and a Staff member of the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law. She graduated from the University of St. Andrews in 2022.