Responding To The Terrorist Din

As a response to the Palgham attacks, India launched a controlled reply called “Operation Sindoor”, a focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature on May 7, 2025, “hitting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir from where terrorist attacks against India have been planned and directed”. Nine targets were identified, and no Pakistani military facilities had been targeted. India demonstrated considerable restraint in the selection of targets and the method of execution.

Pursuant to the controlled response given, a state funeral was arranged for these terrorists, further confirming Khawaja Asif’s acceptance of Pakistan’s dirty little open secret. Pursuant to this, Pakistan furthered its aggression by indiscriminately attacking the civilian population in Indian territory and not just being in gross violation of Human rights obligations arising from the conventions, declarations, but also violating the obligations under the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the standards to be adhered to.

During this time period, the IMF also sanctioned a bailout/ loan of $1.3 billion to Pakistan. It is surprising to know that Pakistan has received funds for the 28^th time in the last 35 years, despite its abrasive and deplorable actions.

As Pakistan sought to escalate the issue further and Bharat apprehended their attacks, the Supreme Court of Pakistan cowered down and handed greater power to the Pakistani Army. The Chief of Army Staff citing a greater legitimacy to his notorious attitude, launched “Operation Bunyan Al Marsus” seeking a divine facade for his sanctioned violations in International Law.

A Ceasefire And Its Violations By Pakistan

In the course of the day, much to the surprise and relief of the world community, on May 10, 2025, a “ceasefire” was called amidst the various operations by Pakistan and accepted by Bharat in the late afternoon/ early evening hours. This ceasefire was a pre-condition to the disbursement of the IMF loan as negotiated by the United States. Bharat, a nation adhering to the constitutional mandate of upholding international law accepted the same yet with few caveats viz. the Indus water treaty is not to be part of the ceasefire, and any further terrorist attacks done by Pakistan or sponsored by Pakistan or attributable to Pakistan would be construed as an Act of War and therefore allow India to take effective counter measures.

As the world thought that there is a quietus to the ongoing conflict, lo and behold, like the rats of Hamelin town, Pakistan once again chose to violate its negotiated international commitment few hours later by breaching the ceasefire and indiscriminately shelling and attacking the territory with drones and has continued to do post the first breach. Through these breaches, like the rats of Hamelin, they have displayed their pestilent nature by commencing their unprovoked aggression along Bharat's border states and regions. A press briefing by the Ministry of External Affairs has confirmed this violation, therefore creating legal grounds for Bharat’s response and countermeasures.

Subsequent Developments

Pursuant to this, on May 11, 2025, through a joint press conference of the defence forces, the extent of the precise response was seen along with its precision and responses as per the escalatory ladder as formulated. On May 12, 2025, the Hon’ble Prime Minister, through his address to the nation, has laid down clear terms of zero tolerance towards terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism and the present response by Bharat is a summation of the overall policy and approach over the last decade or so.

The Law On Inherent Right To Self-Defence Is Rooted In Treaty And Customary International Law Obligations:

At the outset, the abrasive violation of breaching the ceasefire attracts international responsibility under the ILC Articles [Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts] as adopted by the General Assembly and provides for an inherent right to self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 51 of the UN Charter reflects an inherent right that arises from the Caroline Case ['The Caroline and Mcleod Cases' [1938] 32(1) American Journal of International Law 82-99]. The use of Article 51 to defend a state’s decision to use armed force against terrorist havens is not novel. A precedent can be found in Israel’s raid on Entebee, Uganda and USA’s bombing in Libya and drone attacks in Yemen on the grounds of self-defence. Conditions of necessity, proportionality and immediacy need to be met additionally to the Charter, flowing from the customary law of self-defence, being founded in the Caroline Case, pre-existing the Charter and is to be complied with as per the Charter Provisions.

The International Court of Justice has accepted the legitimate use of force as a necessary part of the inherent right to self-defence in the Corfu Channel case [ICJ Reports (1949)], Nicaragua v. United States America [Case Concerning the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua ICJ, (Nicaragua v. United States America) Reports (1986) 14] and DRC v. Uganda [Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 168].

The various United Nations Security Council Binding Chapter VII Resolutions commencing from Resolution 1373 of 2001 [S/RES/1373 (2001)] to Resolution 2734 of 2024 [S/RES/2734 (2024)] reflect the shift in State position and approach from combatting of terrorism to preventing of terrorism and upholding the inherent right to self defence.

The Response, Subsequent Press Briefings And Prime Minister’s Address Reflect Bharat’s State Practice

Another aspect to be pointed out is that the attacks and actions taken by Bharat reflect a fundamental shift in the State’s approach towards combating terrorism. It is for the first time in Bharat’s stance, perhaps, that attribution of responsibility for acts of terrorism has been affirmatively laid down to State actors. Thus, attributing the actions of these "terrorists" who have enjoyed being “non-state actors” to the State and its functionaries themselves.

These blurring of lines also reflects and evidences a declaration of State Practice of not differentiating between terrorism and state-sponsored terrorist attacks and lifting the veil of dualities to attribute responsibility to the State as a whole and the functionaries collectively and individually. Through the Statements made, Bharat has also laid down its State Practice of use of force to combat terrorism, including state-sponsored terrorism, for the purpose and in furtherance of its inherent right of self-defence.

These actions and statements evidence Bharat’s conduct towards laying down its practices towards responding to terrorism is well elucidated. These actions and statements are also consistent with the provisions of the ILC Draft Conclusions on the Identification of Customary Law as adopted by the United Nations General Assembly vide Resolution A/RES/73/203. These reflect the explicit State Practice and Opinio Juris laid down by Bharat in terms of Part Three and Part Four of the ILC Draft Conclusions and would contribute towards the identification and determination of a customary international rule on terrorism, including its prevention.

Conclusion

The cease fire, though, was short-lived, its various multiple escalations, breach by Pakistan and sponsored terrorists reflect Pakistan’s pestilent intention and face of being a terrorist hub and its inability and unwillingness to respect its own negotiated obligations. From the targeted killing of Osama Bin Laden in 2011 at Abbottabad to the multiple terror camps destroyed in 2025, not much has changed.

Pakistan’s actions and lack thereof, and their inability and unwillingness to meet their international obligations, attract international responsibility under the ILC Articles and provide Bharat a legal remedy to respond adequately through the use of force under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

One can hope that the present conflict becomes a stepping stone not just to collectively address state-sponsored terrorism but also a step towards the codification of a comprehensive convention on terrorism that Bharat has been at the forefront of for the last two decades or so.

Though the marking on the walls is clear that Bharat, by relying on the doctrine of the inherent right of self-defence to respond to the April 22, 2025, terror attack at Pahalgam, has indicated that it would no longer be a passive bystander to the loss of lives of its citizens anymore.

There is attribution of responsibility to the state of Pakistan for harbouring, funding, sponsoring, and providing safe havens to these purported terrorist groups. And in a first in the sub-continent, there has been an affirmative response to Pakistan’s inability and unwillingness to address various acts of commission and omission of sponsoring terrorism on its territory.