The correspondent filing this dispatch is a law student in Mumbai who must remain anonymous.
The past weeks have witnessed an unprecedented escalation of the conflict between India and Pakistan in the aftermath of the terrorist killings of tourists on Indian soil in the town of Pahalgam in Jammu & Kashmir (J&K). While the near-fratricidal tensions between the two nuclear powers seemed to show signs of normalisation after a ceasefire declaration, multiple reports of skirmishes and violations across the border have undermined this uneasy peace. The friction between India and Pakistan can be unequivocally characterised as an International Armed Conflict (IAC), thus bringing it under the purview of international humanitarian law (IHL), or jus in bello.
While India and Pakistan have been at loggerheads with each other for decades, the renewed hostilities began after the terror attack in Pahalgam. On April 22, five armed militants infiltrated Baisaran Valley and targeted a group of approximately 40 tourists, primarily Hindus, by demanding religious identification. Those unable to comply were executed at close range, resulting in 26 deaths, including a local guide, Syed Adil Hussain Shah, who was also killed while attempting to protect the tourists. India strongly alleges Pakistan’s involvement in the attack, substantiating their claim with photographic evidence of high-level Pakistani government and military officials being present at the funeral of the terrorist responsible for the attack. This comes against the backdrop of a Pakistani Air Force official admitting to their role in the 2019 terrorist killings of 40 Indian paramilitary personnel, which is a stark reversal from the Pakistani government’s long-standing and emphatic denial.
In response, India launched Operation Sindoor, a series of tactical and precision strikes at identified terrorist camps located in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK), reportedly killing over 100 militants. Pakistan’s retaliation came in the form of shelling in the border village of Poonch in J&K, along with a series of drones and missiles launched at major Indian cities. India responded with another volley of attacks on its neighbour’s military infrastructure.
Over the past few days, various instances of Pakistani belligerence and aggression have demonstrated a concerning disregard for these foundational pillars of IHL, bordering on impunity. Certain acts, if substantiated, may potentially amount to war crimes under international law. Had India been a contracting state to the Rome Statute, the Pakistani military’s alleged strikes on a medical centre and educational premises in Srinagar, J&K, could potentially constitute a war crime under Article 8(2)(b)(ix) of the Statute. Customary law carries paramount importance in IHL, which is binding in both international and non-international armed conflicts. This includes the protection of civilians, prohibition of indiscriminate attacks, the requirement of proportionality in the use of force and the obligation to take precautions during military operations.
Distinction refers to the differentiation between civilians and combatants, as well as civilian objects and military objectives. Pakistan remains bound by this as it has signed the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which codifies the protection accorded to civilians in IHL. It has repeatedly flouted these by launching indiscriminate attacks on civilian territories, with the shelling in Poonch marked the inflection point of Pakistani aggression. The subsequent drone and missile strikes also exhibit the reckless indifference to humanitarian norms.
Pakistan’s aggression failed to withstand the scrutiny of the customary IHL mandate of Necessity, which directs that the destruction of the target must provide a “military advantage” to the attacker. In this case, the indiscriminate attacks, such as firing projectiles at Indian cities, cannot have any reasonable connection to overcoming enemy forces. Furthermore, the law of Proportionality has not been satisfied in the instant case, as there is no indication of the military leadership in Pakistan making any attempt to reduce collateral damage by balancing the costs and benefits of such an attack. The law of Precaution is critical in this regard, to avoid and minimise incidental civilian losses, and this is incumbent on the party undertaking such activities.
In contrast, the Indian approach is one of restraint and due regard to several aspects of IHL, through target selection and the method of engagement, as Operation Sindoor was launched as targeted strikes against terror camps and infrastructure within Pakistan and POK. This was achieved by strategically avoiding civilian sites, which was critical in averting casualties and mitigating collateral damage.
The International Monetary Fund’s recent approval of a $1 billion loan to Pakistan is a strategic misstep, as such grants shall only embolden the belligerent State to exacerbate civilian harm in the subcontinent. The international community can no longer remain a passive observer to this conflict, increasing the risk of broader regional escalation. It must actively work to ensure accountability for violations, as Pakistan’s actions reveal a disturbing pattern of disregard for the fundamental principles of IHL. This is not merely another chapter in the troubled history of hostile neighbours, but a sober reckoning to uphold the dignity of law and life.
