THE relationship between India and Pakistan has been shaped by decades of historical grievances, territorial disputes and intermittent armed clashes. However, India’s recent cross-border strikes inside Pakistan — allegedly killing 26 civilians, including women and children — have jolted an already fragile region and raised urgent questions about legality, leadership, and the global response to rising militarism. In bypassing diplomacy and international norms, India has not only violated Pakistan’s sovereignty but also shaken the foundations of peace in a nuclear-armed neighbourhood. These actions are not isolated incidents; they reflect a troubling trend where counter-terrorism rhetoric is weaponised for political gain, international law is selectively applied, and military force replaces meaningful dialogue. At stake is not just the stability of South Asia but the credibility of global institutions and the moral responsibility of the international community to prioritise peace over provocation.
By launching these fierce attacks, India has violated the United Nations Charter, particularly Article 2(4), which states: ‘All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.’ This prohibition is one of the most fundamental rules of modern international law, designed to preserve peace and stability among sovereign nations. Unfortunately, India has increasingly used ‘counter-terrorism rhetoric’ as a strategic tool, especially in its relations with Pakistan, to justify cross-border strikes, drone surveillance, and military build-ups near Pakistan’s border. However, India’s assumption that it can pre-emptively attack Pakistan based on non-state actor violence is inconsistent with rulings by the International Court of Justice (eg, Nicaragua v. United States, 1986) and the 2005 UN World Summit Outcome Document, which emphasises that counter-terrorism must comply with international law, including the UN Charter and human rights obligations. The need is to understand that the international law, including Article 51 of the UN Charter, allows self-defence only in response to an armed attack, not vague or unverified terrorist threats. India’s pre-emptive actions do not meet this standard.
If India had believed that Pakistan was involved in supporting the Pahalgam attack targeting tourists, it should have conducted a thorough, transparent and credible investigation and presented substantiated evidence to the international community, including the United Nations and Interpol. A responsible course of action would have included requesting a joint investigation — potentially monitored by a neutral third party or the United Nations — to ensure impartiality and build trust. However, India has failed to provide conclusive or internationally verified evidence directly implicating the Pakistani state in any such armed attack. More importantly, India bypassed diplomatic processes and ignored the requirement to demonstrate that peaceful alternatives had been exhausted. What emerges instead is a pattern of using ‘counter-terrorism’ as propaganda to justify unlawful aggression — thereby distorting a foundational principle of international law.
There is no denying that a troubling pattern has emerged in India’s political and media discourse — an almost automatic tendency to blame Pakistan for any internal disturbance, no matter how implausible. This exaggerated blame game lacks credibility and dangerously distorts rational policy-making. More significantly, it appears to be a deliberate political strategy by prime minister Narendra Modi and his party to inflame hyper-nationalist sentiment and consolidate electoral support. Modi has deliberately crafted an image of a strong, uncompromising leader, positioning himself as the ultimate guardian of India’s national pride and sovereignty. This persona is bolstered by assertive military actions, suppression of dissenting voices, and the strategic use of state-aligned media to shape public opinion. His approach to managing tensions with Pakistan — particularly through unilateral strikes and aggressive rhetoric — appears aimed at rallying domestic support and diverting attention from internal challenges. This pattern reflects a broader trend of exploiting external threats to tighten political control and weaken democratic accountability. By scapegoating Pakistan, the Indian government diverts attention from pressing domestic issues such as economic stagnation, unemployment, and civil unrest. However, this rhetoric poisons public perception, deepens hostility, and undermines any chance of diplomatic engagement. Weaponising blame for political gain not only destabilises regional peace but also corrodes the democratic fabric within India itself.
In light of international law, ethical responsibility, and the human cost of conflict, India’s attack on Pakistan cannot be justified by any measure. It violates the UN Charter, disregards bilateral agreements, and inflicts unnecessary suffering on innocent people. By choosing violence over dialogue, India has made a grave mistake — legally indefensible, morally unacceptable, and strategically short-sighted. If Pakistan were to respond in kind, the fallout could trigger a full-scale war with consequences that extend far beyond South Asia. In such a high-stakes environment, even a single miscalculation could unleash devastation on a global scale. With two nuclear powers facing off, the repercussions are far too grave for silence, indifference, or delayed action. Hence, addressing the escalating tensions between India and Pakistan is not only vital for preserving peace in South Asia — it is essential for global security. The international community must act swiftly to uphold international law, prevent further escalation, and pressure India to return to diplomacy over destruction. Peace, not war, must define the future of South Asia. The world cannot afford the consequences of another conflict fuelled by arrogance and propaganda.
Ìý
CounterPunch.org, May 8. Dr Nazia Nazar is a freelance columnist based in Finland.
