December 22, 2025
December 22, 2025
On April 22, 2025, the serene beauty of Pahalgam, Kashmir, was shattered by one of the most brutal terrorist attacks in recent memory. Twenty-five Indian citizens and one Nepali national were mercilessly killed in a barbaric act that targeted innocent lives based on religion. Families were forced to witness their loved ones being executed at close range, turning a place of peace into a site of unimaginable horror. This calculated cruelty was meant to leave a scar not only on the victims' families but on the collective conscience of a nation. The attack appears to have been designed to disrupt the growing normalcy in Jammu & Kashmir, particularly its burgeoning tourism sector, which saw a record 23 million visitors in 2024. By instilling fear and economic instability, the perpetrators aimed to maintain the region's vulnerability and foster conditions conducive to cross-border terrorism. Furthermore, the incident sought to incite communal tensions across India, a ploy thwarted by the government and citizens alike. In escalating situations like these, international humanitarian laws take precedence to monitor and minimize harm to civilians, emphasizing the importance of protecting human rights and fostering accountability to prevent further atrocities.
Responsibility for the attack was claimed by The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). India had long warned the UN about TRF’s links to Pakistani terror networks, and investigations confirmed coordination with LeT through social media. Despite international scrutiny by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), Pakistan continues to shield proscribed terrorists, exemplified by the case of Sajid Mir, a LeT operative falsely declared dead, and Osama bin Laden, harbored in Pakistan for years. The Pahalgam tragedy underscores Pakistan’s use of terrorism as state policy.
In response, India adopted decisive measures, including suspending the Indus Water Treaty, revoking SVES visas for Pakistani nationals, reducing Pakistan’s diplomatic presence in India, and ceasing bilateral trade. On May 7, 2025, India launched Operation Sindoor, targeting nine terrorist hubs in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK) and Pakistan. The operation eliminated over 100 terrorists, including masterminds of the 26/11 Mumbai attack and the IC-814 hijacking, while avoiding harm to civilians. But Pakistan has consistently adhered to a policy of denial regarding the presence of terrorists on its soil. As a result, it perceived Operation Sindoor not as an anti-terrorist initiative but as an attack on the state itself and retaliated on May 8 and 9 with Chinese missile and Turkish drone strikes, indiscriminately targeting Indian civilians, religious sites, and military installations. Despite this, India maintained its focus on terror networks, exemplifying a stark contrast in the conduct of both nations during this escalating conflict.
In such conflicts, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) serves as a guiding framework to minimize suffering and protect those not actively involved in hostilities. IHL is a framework of rules designed to limit the effects of armed conflict for humanitarian reasons. It protects individuals who are not, or are no longer, actively participating in hostilities and imposes restrictions on the methods and means of warfare. Rooted in public international law, IHL derives its authority from treaties, customary international law, and general legal principles. While neither India nor Pakistan has formally declared war, the applicability of IHL is not contingent upon such a declaration. Common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions clarifies that the conventions apply to all cases of declared war or armed conflict between two or more High Contracting Parties, even if one state does not recognize a state of war. The current situation between India and Pakistan clearly meets this criterion, bringing the Geneva Conventions into effect.
The codification of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) began in the 19th century with agreements like the 1864 Geneva Convention and the 1868 Declaration of Saint Petersburg, which set early standards for humane conduct in warfare. Modern IHL is centered on the universally ratified 1949 Geneva Conventions (GC I-IV), establishing protections for individuals during armed conflicts. These conventions are bolstered by three Additional Protocols: Protocol I (1977) for international conflicts, Protocol II (1977) for non-international conflicts, and Protocol III (2005) introducing the red crystal emblem. Customary international law also complements treaty law, addressing gaps where treaties may not apply. India ratified the Geneva Conventions in 1950, reaffirming its commitment to humanitarian principles in warfare. This framework remains vital in safeguarding human rights and minimizing suffering during armed conflicts.
IHL addresses two key concepts: Jus In Bello and Jus Ad Bellum. Jus In Bello governs the conduct of parties during armed conflict, while Jus Ad Bellum determines whether a state’s use of force against another is lawful. Under the UN Charter, the use of armed force is prohibited except in cases of self-defense or authorization by the United Nations Security Council. Importantly, IHL does not assess the legitimacy of initiating an armed conflict but focuses on regulating conduct once conflict has begun.
Principle of Distinction: The Principle of Distinction requires parties in a conflict to differentiate at all times between civilians and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives. Direct attacks on civilians or civilian property are strictly prohibited.
Principle of Proportionality: This principle dictates that incidental civilian harm must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.
Principle of Precaution: This principle obligates parties to take all feasible measures to protect civilians and civilian objects during military operations.
Along with these principles, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 establish protections for wounded soldiers, prisoners of war, and civilians. A significant example occurred in February 2019, when Indian Air Force Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman was captured by Pakistan and later released under the Third Geneva Convention.
Both India and Pakistan are signatories to the Geneva Conventions. However, according to official sources, Pakistan has repeatedly violated these commitments through civilian shelling, drone attacks, and targeting of religious sites. Despite these escalations, a ceasefire was reached on May 11, 2025.
Although the ceasefire has temporarily eased tensions, India remains firm on its diplomatic, trade, and treaty-related decisions until Pakistan takes concrete measures against terrorism. Terrorist networks operating from Pakistan pose a global threat. India’s restrained yet resolute stance sends a clear message: the world cannot afford to compromise in the fight against terrorism. Let economic development and innovation—not violence—shape the future.