Author: Sushmita Patra , Student of Sister Nivedita University (Kolkata)
To the Point
22nd April 2025 in Pahalgam, there was a terrorist attack in which 26 innocent tourists were killed by a group of TRF (TRF is linked to the larger terror group, Lakshere Taiba, which is supported by Pakistan) . In response, on the night of 7th and 8th May 2025, India executed Operation Sindhur. “The main objective of Operation Sindoor is to target terrorist camps of groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lakshere Taiba in Pakistan, not civilians or military”. The TRF group claimed responsibility for the attack, stating that they were linked to a Pakistan-based terrorist group called lashkar e taiba . They said that the attack was intended to oppose the Indian government policy that allows outsiders to settle in Kashmir. Also targeting minority communities based on religion. Operation Sindoor plays a significant role in India’s approach to deal with terrorism. “The operation was executed in response to a terrorist attack that took place in Pahalgam India. The Operation Sindoor was a bold move of India’s determination to protect its sovereignty and national pride”.
Abstract
On 22nd April 2025 in Pahalgam India , There was a terrorist attack in which 26 innocent tourists were killed by a group of “TRF ( THE RESISTANCE FRONT ) This is a Muslim militant group that fights against the Indian government in the Jammu and Kashmir region. India has declared it a terrorist group because it creates violations, killing innocent people, spreading fear , targeting tourists and attacking security forces. TRF is linked to the larger terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is supported by Pakistan”.
“In the night of 7th- 8th May, 2025 India executed Operation Sindoor” it targeted terrorist camps of groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba In Pakistan. India only targeted terrorist bases not civilians or military. On 8th May, Pakistan in an escalated response launched coordinated drone and missile strikes to target more than 12 military bases in different Indian cities like: Srinagar, Jammu, Pathankot, Amritsar, Ludhiana, Bathinda and Bhuj. “However India’s advanced air defence systems which include a special counter-drone system successfully stopped these attacks. They even recovered parts of the drones and missiles, which proved they came from Pakistan”.
The TRF group claimed responsibility for the attack, stating that they were linked to a Pakistan-based terrorist group called Lashkar-e-Taiba. They said that the attack was intended to oppose the Indian government policy that allows people from outside Kashmir to settle there. This policy started after Article 370, which granted Kashmir special status, was removed.
Targeting people based on their religion, victims were reportedly questioned about their faith, and some were even forced to recite Islamic prayers. If they couldn’t, they were shot. This was not just a random act of violence; it seemed like a deliberate attempt to target a specific community.
India strongly believes that Pakistan supports terrorist groups like the TRF and Lashkar-e-Taiba, not directly, but by providing them with money, training, weapons, and shelter, using terrorism However, Pakistan denied all involvement, stating that it only supports the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination and desires peace.
The attack didn’t end there; it pushed India and Pakistan closer to conflict. India launched a strong military response called Operation Sindhu, targeting terrorist camps inside Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK). Other steps taken by India included suspending the Indus Water Treaty and expelling Pakistani diplomats . Following this, Pakistan responded with drone and missile strikes, and for days, the situation looked like it could lead to war. But in the end, the Pahalgam attack wasn’t just about guns and bombs; it was about fear, identity, and power.
Operation Sindoor plays a significant role in India’s approach to deal with terrorism. This time, instead of waiting to respond after an attack, or depending on international organization for support, India took direct action against it . The operation was launched in response to a terrorist attack that took place in Pahalgam India, where innocent tourists were killed. India decided to strike back immediately and effectively by hitting nine key locations in Pakistan. These were places where terrorist groups were planning attacks against India.
By doing this, India sent a strong message that it would not tolerate cross-border terrorism.Indian forces were careful to target only terrorist infrastructures such as training campuses and operational bases, without attacking Pakistani military or civilian areas. This approach showed that the mission was well thought out and not meant to start a war, but to stop terrorism.
“Operation Sindoor” was a bold and confident move of India’s determination to protect its sovereignty, its people, and its national pride.India showed to the world that it is prepared, capable and determined to take decisive steps when countries peace and security are threatened.
Use of legal jargon
National Sovereignty :India maintains the authority to protect its land and citizens, making independent opinions without external hindrance.
Self-Defense (Article 51 of the UN Charter): Under the principle of jus ad bellum, nations have the right to defend themselves against aggression. India invoked this right following the Pahangam attacks.
State Responsibility: Countries that harbor or support terrorist activities can be held accountable under international law. India has accused Pakistan of such actions.
War Crimes and Accountability: Deliberate attacks on civilians or violations of wartime conduct can result in legal repercussions. Terrorists can face accountability for these crimes.
The proof
Eyewitness testimonies on April 20th, 2025 Multiple eyewitnesses and survivors confirmed that the terrorist did open fire on the civilians in pahalgam . The attackers wore military-style clothing, used automatic weapons, and deliberately targeted Hindus and tourists, killing 26 civilians, and many of them were injured.
seized weapons and forensic evidence . The Indian security force recovered assault rifles AK-47 and grenades, which were left behind by the attackers. Forensic analysis revealed that weapons markings matched those used by the Pakistan-based terror outfit, especially Lashkar-e-Taiba.
Case Laws
Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) 7 SCC1
In this case, the journalist Kundeep Nayar challenged a law that allowed people to participate in Rajya Sabha elections from any state, even if they don’t live there. “He argued that this was against the spirit of democracy”. The Supreme Court rejected the challenge and said Parliament has the power to make such rules and the change was not undemocratic. The court also stated that national security is a valid reason to limit certain individual rights. When the country’s unity or safety is at risk, the government can take strict measures. This case supports India’s right to take tough actions when there are threats to its territorial integrity or national security.
Israel Wall Advisory Opinion (2004) ICJ
In 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave its opinion on a wall that Israel was building in Palestinian territory.“The Court said that the wall was illegal and violated the rights of Palestinians”. Israel argued that the wall was needed for self-defense against terrorist attacks. The ICJ said that self-defense is allowed under Article 51 of the UN Charter, but it is usually meant for attacks by other countries, not just by terrorist groups. However even though the Court criticized Israel, it did not completely reject the idea that countries can defend themselves against terrorist groups (non-state actors).
Conclusion
Operation Sindhu was India’s strong and clear reply to a terrorist attack which took place in Pahalgam that killed 26 innocent people. The terrorists linked to Pakistan, supported groups linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba, tried to spread fear and target specific communities. This operation showed that India values its national security and is ready to protect its citizens. It also proved that India would not wait for international help in case of terrorism. By using its right to self-defense under international law, India sent a strong message that terrorism will not be tolerated and those who support it will face serious consequences. Operation Sindoor was not just an act of war but a bold step to prevent further attacks and to stand up for peace, justice, and national pride.
FAQs
Q1) What was the main objective of Operation Sindoor?
-The main objective of Operation Sindoor is to target terrorist camps of groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lakshere Taiba in Pakistan, not civilians or military.
Q2) Did Operation Sindoor violate international law?
-No, Operation Sindoor does not clearly violate international law, as long as it is justified under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which allows a country to act in self-defense if it has been attacked. India targeted only terrorist camps, avoided civilian or military infrastructure, and acted proportionately in response to the Pahalgam terrorist attack.
Q3) Was there any international law justification for India’s actions?
-Yes, under Article 51 of the UN Charter, India exercised its right to self-defense. This aligns with jus ad bellum principles, allowing a nation to defend its sovereignty and citizens against cross-border terrorism.
