The recent Indian military incursion into Pakistani territory, executed under the directive of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, marks a disturbing escalation in South Asian geopolitics. The strike, launched in the immediate aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack, resulted in casualties within Pakistan and pushed the subcontinent dangerously close to nuclear brinkmanship. This maneuver-militarily aggressive and legally questionable-deserves the world’s unwavering scrutiny.
India’s justification for the cross-border strike was allegedly grounded in Pakistan’s involvement in the Pahalgam incident. Yet, a glaring contradiction emerged from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs just three days before the strike: the investigation into the attack was ongoing, with no foreign entity conclusively implicated. This temporal dissonance suggests that the military operation was not a calculated response to verified intelligence but rather a premature, politically motivated act with devastating consequences.
International law is unequivocal on the use of force. Under the Charter of the United Nations, Article 2(4), member states are prohibited from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state unless it is in self-defense against an armed attack, or with express authorization from the UN Security Council. Neither of these justifications were satisfied in this case. No conclusive attribution of the Pahalgam attack had been made, nor had diplomatic avenues been exhausted. The Indian leadership’s decision to proceed with military action, therefore, appears to constitute a flagrant violation of international law.
This incident also signals a distressing erosion of the principles underpinning international humanitarian law. Sovereignty remains a cornerstone of the modern international system; for one state to violate another’s territorial integrity without clear, imminent threat or multilateral endorsement is not just aggression-it is the harbinger of disorder in an already volatile region. For the 1.6 billion people who inhabit South Asia, such impulsive decision-making is not a theoretical concern-it’s an existential one. Moreover, the responsibility for this decision is not diffuse. It lies squarely with India’s highest echelons of power: Modi, Shah, and Doval. These are not low-level tactical errors made in the fog of war. This was a top-down directive, executed with full knowledge of the geopolitical risks, and, notably, devoid of legal or evidentiary grounding. These individuals must be held accountable-not merely in the court of public opinion, but within the frameworks of international legal institutions.
The International Criminal Court (ICC), though limited in jurisdiction, has a mandate to investigate and prosecute individuals responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and acts of aggression. India is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, but this does not preclude the international community from convening ad-hoc tribunals or independent inquiries, particularly if the United Nations General Assembly or Security Council deems the violation grave enough to warrant such measures. Inaction in the face of such a transgression would only embolden future violations, by India or other nations emboldened by impunity.
The loss of life in Pakistan as a result of the Indian strike is not merely collateral damage-it represents a human cost born of political recklessness. Families have been shattered. Communities have been traumatized. What’s worse, this escalation has severely undermined peacebuilding efforts in a region where conflict is never far beneath the surface. Nuclear war between India and Pakistan is not an abstract fear; it is a statistically plausible outcome in the event of future miscalculations like this. Adding another layer of concern is the political utility of the strike for the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP). Reports indicate that the military action is already being politicized in the lead-up to local elections. “Operation Sindoor,” as it has been dubbed, is being paraded as a symbol of strength and decisive leadership. This transformation of cross-border military aggression into a tool of electoral theater is morally grotesque. The use of force must always be a last resort, measured and lawful-not an applause line on a campaign trail.
To be clear, this is not about undermining India’s legitimate right to self-defense or diminishing the gravity of terrorism. Every state has the right and duty to protect its citizens. But that right does not extend to unilateral military operations unsupported by evidence and executed in disregard of international norms. A state governed by rule of law must demonstrate that it can act within those laws even under duress. In this case, India has failed that test.
What happens next is critical. If the international community chooses silence or mere diplomatic platitudes in response, it signals to powerful states that violations of international law will be tolerated so long as they are politically convenient. That is a recipe for global instability. Instead, nations and international organizations must demand an independent investigation into the Pahalgam incident and India’s response. If violations are confirmed, Modi, Shah, and Doval should be subject to legal proceedings and sanctions.
Accountability is not vengeance. It is a necessary prerequisite for peace. If we truly believe in a rules-based international order, then there must be consequences for breaking the rules-even when the violators are heads of state.
The writer is a research fellow at Epis Think-tank Germany and an intern at Kashmir institute of International relations. His fields of studies include Foreign Policy, Peacebuilding and Conflict Resolution. He can be reached at [email protected]