What next for Canada and India? Justin Trudeau intends to resign

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has expressed his intention to resign as party leader on but remain prime minister until a new leader is chosen, declared by Trudeau himself in a press conference.
Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party for 11 years and prime minister for nine, was facing a mounting set of crises, from Donald Trump’s tariff threats to the resignation of key allies and disastrous opinion polls. His resignation would be seen as the PM choosing to jump before he is pushed, ahead of a general election to be held later this year that he is widely expected to lose.

The move would leave the Liberal Party without a permanent leader before the general election, where polls show, it is set to badly lose to the opposition Conservative Party, led by the firebrand Pierre Poilievre. The election must be held on or before October 20 but could be brought forward.

The Liberal Party national executive, which controls leadership issues, is scheduled to meet this week, likely after the caucus.
Trudeau was elected three times, most recently in 2021, when he remained in power but lost his governing majority. Since then, the Conservative Party, led by the firebrand Pierre Poilievre, has built a lead over the Liberal Party of more than 20% in national polling averages, CNN reported.
Justin Trudeau also drew bad blood with his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi when he accused India of being behind the assassination of the Khalistan Tiger Force leader Hardip Singh Nijjar and threatening the life of alleged terrorist of self-proclaimed Khalistan leader Pannu, a Canadian citizen.
Pannu was a declared terrorist, but he migrated to Canada and married a Canadian woman to attain citizenship. Canada has been protecting him under the laws of the land as a Canadian citizen. Canada had claimed that it had credible evidence from Five Eyes, an international security agency, on whom Canada and USA and some other countries rely on for intelligence. Five Eyes had reported to Trudeau that Indian external intelligence wing RAW officers were involved in the shooting down of the Khalistan Tiger Force leader outside a gurdwara.

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 “any 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. Canada alleged that two officers of the Indian external intelligence wing Research and Analysis Wing – RAW were responsible which India stoutly denied as being absurd.
India quickly disputed such claims as “unsubstantiated allegations,” with Premier 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 Khalistan 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-defence 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 channelled 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.” (“A Shot in the Dark? Canada Accuses India of Assassinating Prominent …”) 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.” (“A general obligation of due diligence in international law?”)

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.” (“A Shot in the Dark? Canada Accuses India of Assassinating Prominent …”)
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.
The Nijjar killing and Canadas accusation of India’s involvement had frozen India Canada political relations and made him unpopular among the Indian community in Canada and also the opposition party which wants to maintain good relations with India.

Justin Trudeau