NEW DELHI: Nijjar’s activities violated several international treaties to which Canada is a signatory. While respecting the sovereignty of Canada in managing its internal affairs, the international community has a vested interest in ensuring that countries adhere to these supranational obligations to maintain global security.
The killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in June 2023 in Surrey, British Columbia, has not only illuminated the challenges at the intersection of national security, international law, and diplomatic relations but also intensified the ongoing discourse on state sovereignty and international obligations. Nijjar, a Canadian citizen and a Sikh separatist leader was charged for being associated with Khalistan Tiger Force that potentially violated several international conventions designed to combat terrorism. His death, and subsequent allegations of foreign involvement, has further complicated the situation, leading to a significant diplomatic standoff between Canada and India.
CHARGES AGAINST NIJJAR
The first Red Corner Notice (RCN) was issued against Hardeep Singh Nijjar following the registration of a case against him at Kotwali police station in Patiala by the Punjab Police. A subsequent RCN was issued in connection to a case at Police Station Nurpur, Ropar. Building on this background, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) of India on 14 April 2018 initiated a formal case against Hardeep Singh Nijjar, citing his involvement in various unlawful activities under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). He was charged under Section 120B of the IPC, which deals with criminal conspiracy, and multiple sections of the UAPA, related to unlawful activities, raising funds for terrorist acts, conspiracy, and being a member of a terrorist gang or organisation.
Subsequent investigations by various probe agencies provided substantial evidence, leading to Nijjar’s official designation as a terrorist by the Ministry of Home Affairs in July 2020 under the UAPA. The evidence against him included numerous posts, photos, and videos found on social media platforms, which contained insurrectionary messages and inflammatory speech aimed at inciting unrest and spreading hatred.
In 2022, the legal proceedings against Nijjar intensified when the NIA announced a reward of Rs 10 lakh for information leading to his arrest, connected to several cases opened between 2018 and 2021. According to the Indian government, as the head of the Khalistan Tiger Force (KTF), Nijjar played a key role in organising, networking, training, and funding the group’s activities. In February 2023, the Ministry of Home Affairs designated the KTF, among others, as a terrorist entity under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The Ministry described the KTF as a militant group aiming to rekindle terrorism in Punjab, posing threats to the country’s territorial integrity, unity, national security, and sovereignty, and engaging in various acts of terrorism, including targeted killings in the region.
Moreover, Nijjar was involved in planning reconnaissance missions targeting gatherings of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in Punjab, with intentions to launch attacks on these groups. One of the more severe allegations against him includes orchestrating attacks on Hindu priests in Phillaur, underlining the grave nature and extensive reach of his purported terrorist activities. Nijjar, wanted under India’s anti-terrorism law, UAPA, was associated with several high-profile cases. These include the 2007 cinema bombing in Punjab, which resulted in six deaths and 40 people getting injured, and the 2009 assassination of Rulda Singh, a prominent Sikh politician in India. In a video that circulated on social media, Nijjar spoke of his group’s involvement in the assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Khalistani groups based in Canada had also issued threats to Indian diplomats and consulate general Toronto.
Nijjar’s reported involvement in activities such as bombings and financing terrorist groups placed him in direct violation of international legal standards, including: a) the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (1997), b) the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) on “threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts”, c) the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (1999), and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents. These frameworks collectively mandate cooperative international action against the planning, execution, and financing of terrorist activities.
CANADIAN LAWS
The history of Canada’s dealings with terrorism, highlighted by the Air India Flight 182 bombing in 1985, clearly show the long-term challenges Canada faces in managing extremist groups within its borders. The Canadian government faced significant criticism for its handling of the investigation into the bombing. Following public outrage and the acquittal of key suspects Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri, a public inquiry led by a former Supreme Court judge was initiated in 2006 and concluded in 2010. The inquiry revealed a series of critical missteps, including a failure to act on a warning from an unidentified witness about a potential plane bombing months before the attack.
Further complicating the investigation, it was revealed that Canadian secret service agents followed suspects Parmar and Reyat to some woods on Vancouver Island where they heard “a loud explosive sound”, which they did not pursue seriously. Also, in 2000, a former secret service officer admitted to destroying 150 hours of taped telephone calls involving Sikh suspects to protect informant identities, rather than submitting them to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Beyond his alleged involvement in acts of terrorism, Hardeep Singh Nijjar also engaged in activities that should have drawn scrutiny under laws against hate speech. While the international community, including the United Nations, grapples with defining hate speech but agrees that statements made with the clear intention to incite hatred and violence fall under this category. Nijjar’s public statements, which reportedly aimed to incite against Indian authorities and diplomats, potentially violated these broadly recognised standards.
Despite the issuance of Red Corner Notices against him, Canada granted citizenship to Nijjar. This decision has been controversial, considering the serious charges levied against him by the Indian authorities, which include various illegal activities under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This decision is a violation of various international conventions that call for cooperation in detaining individuals wanted for serious offenses.
Interestingly, Canada is a signatory to 13 UN-sponsored terrorism-related international conventions, which include conventions on terrorist bombings and terrorist financing. Under these conventions, Hardeep Singh Nijjar could have faced charges in Canada similar to those he was charged with in India.
Hate speech is explicitly addressed under Section 319 (1) of the Criminal Code. This law states that anyone who communicates statements in a public place that incites hatred against any identifiable group, leading to a potential breach of peace, commits an offence punishable by up to two years in prison. Nijjar’s actions, as described, could thus have been seen as not only morally reprehensible but also legally punishable under Canadian law.
INTERNATIONAL LAWS
This case offers a fertile ground for a number of compelling arguments intersecting international law and national security. Nations must balance sovereignty with obligations under international law, but the scales should tip in favour of international peace and security. Nijjar’s activities violated several international treaties to which Canada is a signatory. While respecting the sovereignty of Canada in managing its internal affairs, the international community has a vested interest in ensuring that countries adhere to these supranational obligations to maintain global security. It is mandatory on part of states to not let their soil be used against any other state.
The International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts articulate that a state may be held accountable if it fails to prevent its territory from being used for acts that significantly harm other states. If Canada’s monitoring and policing of Nijjar’s activities were found lacking, India could argue that such negligence posed a direct threat to its security, potentially justifying protective measures under international law.
UN Resolution 1373 says that states should “deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens”. Therefore, it logically follows that Canada, or any other member state, should refrain from providing shelter to individuals charged with terrorism, to comply with this resolution. The same resolution also mentions that “states should work together urgently to prevent and suppress terrorist acts”
CONCLUSION
Canada must align its anti-terror laws with international law. The nation’s efforts to protect civil liberties are commendable, yet it must ensure these efforts operate within the broad framework of international law, which governs relations between states. It must strike a balance between safeguarding freedoms and adhering to global legal standards. By avoiding narrow political considerations and reinforcing non-discriminatory practices in international law, Canada can contribute effectively to a global stance against terrorism. This approach discourages states from exploiting anti-terror measures for parochial security interests, promoting a unified and impartial international effort to combat terrorism.
Danish Yousuf is Research Assistant, Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi.