Indian Army inspect the Baisaran Meadow in Pahalgam where terrorists massacred tourists on April 22, 2025. | Associated Press.
In keeping with the idea of proportionality, India’s strategy during Operation Sindoor involved precision strikes using drones and guided munitions to minimize civilian casualties, and target selection was confined strictly to terrorist launchpads, thus reinforcing the proportionality of the response.
Introduction
On May 7, 2025, India launched “Operation Sindoor,” a tri-services response aimed at dismantling the terrorist network in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) following a deadly terror attack on innocent tourists in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. The terror attack tragically claimed the lives of 26 male tourists. It was a targeted attack, with the terrorists killing Indians based on their religious identity.[1] The Pahalgam attack on April 22, 2025, is considered the deadliest civilian attack in Kashmir.[2] This profound tragedy became the emotional and symbolic driving force behind Operation Sindoor. The operation was named to honor the widows' grief and to represent, in a powerful symbolic gesture, the removal of their sindoor (visible symbol of a Hindu woman’s marital status).
Indian authorities have identified five terrorists, including three Pakistani nationals, behind the attack.[3] India’s immediate response included sealing its border with Pakistan, ceasing trade activities and initiating steps to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty. Pakistan retaliated by closing its border, halting trade and threatening to end all bilateral agreements, including the Simla Agreement of 1972. On May 7, 2025, India conducted airstrikes in PoK and Pakistani territory, asserting that the operations targeted terrorist infrastructure. In contrast, Pakistan alleged that the strikes resulted in civilian casualties, leading to heightened tensions between the two nations.
Until May 10, 2025, India and Pakistan engaged in a series of military strikes. According to the Government of India’s press release, following bilateral talks between the Director Generals Military Operations of both nations at 15:35 hours, an agreement was reached to cease all hostilities and military action on land, in the air, and at sea, effective from 17:00 hours on May 10.
As per the official press release[4] from the Ministry of Defence dated May 7, 2025, India initiated the strategic military strike targeting nine sites identified as key command centers of terrorists for directing and planning terrorist attacks. The Ministry emphasized that India exercised significant restraint in target selection and execution method, ensuring that no Pakistani military installations were targeted. It reaffirmed that the operation was conducted in a focused, measured, and non-escalatory manner.
As a result of this decisive response, over 100 terrorists were killed, 11 air bases in Pakistan were destroyed and high-value targets were eliminated.[5] India described the operation as a punitive and retaliatory measure that underscored its dedication to counterterrorism while signalling zero tolerance for cross-border terrorism. Pakistan, however, has denied any involvement, rejecting claims of providing support to these groups and calling for an independent investigation into the Pahalgam incident.[6]
During the 66th Raising Day event of the Border Roads Organisation, Minister of Defence Rajnath Singh declared that Operation Sindoor was a legally justified response to the attack on Indian territory. He emphasized that the operation was carried out by exercising the “Right to Respond” with precision, precaution and humanitarian restraint to eliminate the facilities in Pakistan and PoK that were used for terrorist training.
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh at the 66th Raising Day of the Border Roads Organisation, May 2025. | X: @BROindia.
On June 5, 2025, Pakistan’s Defence Minister issued a controversial remark about India, labelling the Simla Agreement as a “Dead Document”.[7] He urged a return to the 1948 position on Kashmir and cast doubt on the significance of other bilateral accords. This comment emerged amid escalating tensions following a terror attack in Pahalgam.
External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar, during his meeting with U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy in New Delhi on June 7, 2025, reiterated India’s zero-tolerance policy toward terrorism.[8] He emphasized India's commitment to taking decisive action against terrorist groups and their supporters.
What is “Right to Respond”?
The Right to Respond primarily centers on the state’s right to self-defence outlined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The provision allows self-defence as an inherent right that can be exercised individually (a state’s right to defend itself) or collectively (the right of states to aid a state) in response to armed attack if deemed necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. Article 51 explicitly states ‘armed attack’ and necessity’ as the preconditions for the exercise of the right to self-defence. This provision permits member states to use force until the Security Council implements effective measures to ensure international peace and security. Thus, the right to self-defence is not absolute; rather, it serves as a specific exception to the restrictions imposed by Article 2 (4) of the Charter. This prohibits member states from engaging in actions, through threats or the use of force that would compromise another nation’s territorial integrity or political independence.
In two significant rulings, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) established the legal criteria governing a state’s right to use force in self-defence. By examining the cases Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States)[9] and Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda)[10], the court clearly defined the conditions that must be satisfied for a state's recourse to armed force to be considered legally justified.
In the Nicaragua Case, the ICJ characterized an "armed attack" as "the most grave form of the use of force." However, the Court did not provide a detailed interpretation of what constitutes a "grave form of the use of force," leaving the precise threshold open to further legal discussion and analysis.
The court affirmed that self-defence justifies only those measures that are both proportional to the armed attack and necessary to counter it. This ruling established two fundamental principles in international law regarding the use of force: proportionality and necessity. The principle of proportionality requires a state's response to align with the scale, nature and severity of the attack.
Meanwhile, the principle of necessity ensures that defensive measures remain proportionate to the threat, restricting force to only what is essential for an effective response and preventing any excessive or unjustified action.
India’s right to self-defence and principles of necessity and proportionality
As the United Nations Charter and other international treaties do not provide explicit definitions of necessity and proportionality, their application must be derived from opinio juris and State practice[11]. This involves assessing the principles and norms that states use to guide their decision-making, justify military actions and evaluate the conduct of other nations in matters of self-defence and armed conflicts.
The classic case of Caroline (The Caroline v. United States)[12] established that the use of force must adhere strictly to the principles of necessity and proportionality[13]. This standard was embraced by the United Kingdom and eventually integrated into customary international law. Today, the Caroline test remains the benchmark for determining the legitimacy of self-defence actions by establishing the criteria for self-defence.
The concept of proportionality is based on the principle of adopting justifiable means to achieve a legitimate end. The concepts of ‘Jus in Bello’ and ‘Jus ad bellum’ are the basis for proportionality. Jus ad bellum defines the legal conditions under which states may resort to war or use armed force. Jus in bello governs the conduct of parties engaged in armed conflict. It aligns with International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which seeks to reduce suffering by ensuring the protection and assistance of all individuals affected by warfare.
The doctrine of necessity mandates that a state ascertains whether employing force is imperative in response to an armed attack and ensures that such force is directed solely toward the perpetrator of the aggression. Furthermore, a state is permitted to take defensive measures only when no viable alternative exists to mitigate the imminent threat. The principle of proportionality constrains the level of force used, ensuring that it remains strictly aligned with what is necessary to suppress the hostile act without exceeding that requisite level[14]. Ultimately, self-defence operations must be executed within a reasonable timeframe and focused exclusively on neutralizing the identified threat, rather than serving as a mechanism for punitive or retaliatory measures.
The principles of necessity and proportionality are central to evaluating the legality of Operation Sindoor. In terms of necessity, India maintained that diplomatic efforts had proved ineffective at halting repeated cross-border terrorist activities. Consequently, the operation was designed to strike terrorist infrastructure while deliberately avoiding any conflict with Pakistan’s military and civilians. In keeping with the idea of proportionality, the strategy involved precision strikes using drones and guided munitions to minimize civilian casualties, and target selection was confined strictly to terrorist launchpads, thus reinforcing the proportionality of the response.
(Exclusive to NatStrat)
Endnotes:
Revitalising the Tulbul Navigation Project for Jammu and Kashmir’s Development
