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 two cases: self-defense against an armed attack or when authorized by the United Nations Security Council. Importantly, IHL does not assess the legitimacy of initiating an armed conflict but focuses on regulating the conduct of parties once the conflict has begun. This distinction underscores the need for both nations to adhere to humanitarian principles despite ongoing hostilities. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is underpinned by three essential principles: the Principle of Distinction, the Principle of Proportionality, and the Principle of Precaution. These principles are fundamental guidelines that warring nations must follow to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects during armed conflict.

Principle of Distinction

The Principle of Distinction requires parties in a conflict to differentiate at all times between civilians and civilian objects, and combatants and military objectives. Attacks must target only combatants and military objectives, with direct attacks on civilians or civilian property strictly prohibited. This principle aims to protect individuals, property, and the civilian population from harm. Indiscriminate attacks—those failing to distinguish between military targets and civilian entities—are also banned under IHL.

Principle of Proportionality

Closely related to the Principle of Distinction, the Principle of Proportionality dictates that any incidental harm to civilians or civilian objects during attacks must not be excessive compared to the anticipated military advantage. This principle requires parties to anticipate both direct and foreseeable indirect effects of an attack to minimize harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure.

Principle of Precaution

The Principle of Precaution obligates parties to take all feasible measures to protect civilians and civilian objects during military operations. This includes care during troop movements, urban combat preparations, and other military activities. It also mandates active precautions in planning attacks and passive precautions to shield civilians from the effects of enemy attacks.

Along with the abovementioned principles, The Geneva Conventions of 1949, a cornerstone of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), establish comprehensive guidelines for the protection of individuals who are not, or are no longer, actively participating in hostilities during international armed conflicts. They address four distinct categories: the First Convention protects wounded and sick members of armed forces on land, while the Second Convention extends these protections to those at sea, including shipwrecked personnel. The Third Convention ensures humane treatment of prisoners of war, and the Fourth Convention safeguards the rights and safety of civilians in conflict zones.

A significant example of their application occurred in February 2019, when Indian Air Force Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman was captured by Pakistan following an aerial skirmish. The situation, classified as an international armed conflict, saw the Wing Commander granted prisoner-of-war status under the Third Convention, leading to his subsequent release. This incident highlights the critical role of the Geneva Conventions in ensuring humane treatment and adherence to international norms, even amidst hostilities.

Both India and Pakistan, as signatories to the Geneva Conventions, are obligated to adhere to its principles and provisions. However, according to official sources, Pakistan has repeatedly violated these commitments during the current conflict. Examples include heavy shelling in Jammu and Kashmir’s Poonch district, causing civilian casualties and damaging civilian property, drone attacks targeting 26 Indian cities, and assaults on religious sites—clear breaches of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Such actions underline Pakistan’s disregard for the conventions and its long-standing reputation as a state sponsor of terrorism. India’s targeting of terrorist bases has been justified as an act of self-defense. However, Pakistan’s retaliatory attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure blatantly contravene IHL principles and it can be challenged in International Criminal Court (ICC) although the decision is not binding but it’ll definitely hamper the global image of Pakistan. Despite these escalations, a ceasefire was reached on May 11, 2025, although there are concerns that similar incidents may occur in the future.

Although the ceasefire has temporarily eased tensions, the Indian government remains firm on its decisions regarding the Indus Water Treaty, visa suspensions, and trade-related measures till Pakistan takes measure to combat terrorism. Terrorist networks operating out of Pakistan are not just a threat to India but to the entire world, as demonstrated by global tragedies like the 9/11 attacks in the United States (2001), the London bombings (2005), the Kabul embassy bombing (2008), and numerous others, all of which trace connections back to Pakistan. To apply tangible pressure on Pakistan to dismantle its terror infrastructure, trade relations must include measures like a “terrorism tariff.” Such economic disincentives could compel Pakistan to take definitive steps against terrorist camps and training sites. While Pakistan has often portrayed itself as a victim of terrorism, its funding and harboring of such entities reveal a glaring hypocrisy. Though Pakistan has managed to temporarily exit the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list, sustained scrutiny is imperative. India has made it unequivocally clear that future relations with Pakistan will depend on its commitment to eliminating terrorism from its soil. The longevity of the ceasefire and the potential for constructive dialogue rest squarely on Pakistan’s actions. Until then, India’s restrained yet resolute stance sends a strong message: the world cannot afford to compromise on the fight against terrorism. Let economic development and innovation, not violence, shape the future of the region and beyond.