Islamabad and New Delhi confronted each other in a multi-dimensional warfare, launching ‘Operation Sindoor’ by India and ‘Operation Bunyan-un-Marsus’ by Pakistan recently. Both states have been at daggers drawn with each other throughout history in wars, conflicts, border skirmishes, or low-intensity conflicts along multiple domains: the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir, water resources, and so on and so forth. The current escalation needs a thorough examination.
Why? What approach has been adopted and manifested during this warfare is important to understand the posture and position of both states in South Asia. As much as it is needed to grasp the future implications for bilateral relations, equally, it is significant to estimate the prospects for peace and security in South Asia. Given the need for a holistic analysis of this comprehensive multi-domain warfare, human security analysis better serves the purpose.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, why the human security approach fits well with the analysis of current tensions is important for two reasons. First, Pakistan, in its latest National Security Policy (2022-2026), adopts a human security approach as part of its central security framework. To what extent this approach has been operationalized in warfare to ensure national security is tantamount to assessing the viability of the policy framework. Second, what might the human security approach offer for future policy ventures in Pakistan?
The concept of Human Security was presented by Dr. Mahboob-ul-Haq, an international development theorist, economist, and former finance minister of Pakistan, through the policy platform of the United Nations. According to the human security perspective, the conception and practices of security must prioritize the security of people, considering the individual the primary referent of security. In contrast, the traditional security paradigm focuses solely on the security of the state and borders, even at the expense of people’s security through military means.
Now, if we look at the current dissension, it seems all over the place, engaging with these dimensions. It could be divided into the conflict period that started from the Pahalgam attack on 22nd April to the start of the combat period from May 7th to May 10th.
According to Human Security Analysts Mary Kaldor and Iavor Rangelove, however, even “within the framework of International Humanitarian Law, the killing of civilians is permitted if it is necessary to achieve the military objectives. From a Human Security Perspective, the rules of engagement are just the opposite; the killing of combatants is permitted provided it is necessary to protect civilians.”
The rules of engagement in warfare are clear, though this statement could be tested against Operation Sindoor and Operation Banyan-um-Marsus. Nevertheless, the Human security perspective is a comprehensive doctrine that includes three components: Freedom from fear (physical safety and security), freedom from want (deprivation), and freedom from indignity (wellbeing), which further have multiple dimensions.
For analysis, we will be focusing on different dimensions of each component. The physical security, damages to life and properties of civilians, Water Security, and Psychological Security serve as analytical tools to assess the actions taken during the period of conflict and combat time.
The Pahalgam incident of terrorism on April 22 in India serves as the immediate cause. This terror incident reportedly targeted and killed 26 people in a brutal gun shootout. India accused Pakistan of involvement through Pakistan-based terrorist groups after these attacks and brushed off Pakistan’s demand to provide proof or start a neutral international inquiry. It further suspended the Indus Water Treaty 1960 along with taking other steps: cutting off trade relations, downsizing the diplomatic staff, declaring Pakistan military and Air Force staff persona non grata, evacuating Pakistani citizens from its territory, and cancelling the visas of all Pakistanis issued through SAARC arrangements.
The suspension of the Indus Water Treaty 1960, which has survived all conflicts and wars between Pakistan and India, exposes Pakistan to Water Insecurity. Since this international treaty provided the water distributary formula for shared water sources, and Pakistan is a lower riparian agricultural state, which is dependent on water originating from India for its progress and prosperity. Further, environmental changes have turned water into a developmental and survival currency in the present times. Exposing Pakistan to water insecurity through a unilateral and internationally illegal action is an act of blatantly putting the survival of the population at risk. Likewise, during active warfare, India also attacked the water resources, violating Article 54 Additional Protocol I and Article 14 of Additional Protocol II of Geneva convention in 1977. Although reciprocating with the countermeasures against India, Pakistan cut the Pakistan air airspace to Indian flights but avoided targeting any natural reservoir or exposing the civilian population to the shortfall of their basic need.
The combat started on May 7th, 2025, when Indian armed forces, under ‘Operation Sindoor,’ attacked different Pakistani regions. Operation Sindoor manifested the breach of the international legal framework by abrogating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of an independent state and abrogation of International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Convention 1949 by targeting densely populated civilian areas through missiles. International Humanitarian Law, for instance, makes a distinction between civilians and combatants and prohibits attacking civilians during warfare.
Under this operation, India launched missile strikes targeting densely populated civilian inhabited areas and mosques: Bahawalpur and Muridke in Punjab and Kotli, Bagh, and Muzaffarabad in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. It resulted in 31 civilian casualties, including 6 children, along with many women, and left more than 50 people injured. The Missile attack was followed by a swarm drone attack on the civilian areas. Pakistan’s responsive strategy in ‘Operation Bunyan-um-Marsus’ (the wall of lead) on May 10th was limited to a heavy-handed responsive missile strike at military installations and checkposts. No civilian populated area was hit, keeping Article 54 and 14 of Additional Protocols of the Geneva Convention in account.
The current tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad exposed how either of the states interacts with its citizenry during the crisis. Psychological Security refers to the perception of security or insecurity amongst people. Generally, it could be called a ‘sense of being secure.’ The psychological state of people in both countries differs a lot. During the tensions, the Indian general public has reported the fear and trauma to national and international media. The Tribune in New Delhi shares the story of a child whose mental state got disturbed by an awareness session in her school that left her saying that “Pakistan will attack us” whenever she heard a knock on the door and stopped her father from opening the door. The same article also discusses the affected mental state of 36 year 36-year-old male ‘Awasthi’ due to doomscrolling on social media and consequent confusion between truth and reality.
Apart from the content and method of institutional awareness campaigns and social media platforms, the Indian media has also contributed to the psychological insecurity of its people through fake news, disinformation, and war-mongering news on a large scale. A person from Indian illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir laments that “the fear is not just from the blasts; it is from the uncertainty and lack of transparency,” according to Aljazeera news.
Reporting on Pakistani people, American National Public, a radio broadcast, reports that a Pakistani told, “We are proud of our army…the enemy will have to face them before they can reach us.” He further states that he is more concerned about his livelihood than his safety in case if war gets prolonged. This psychological state of trust and sense of unity has largely been observed in Pakistani people.
The human security analysis of contemporary Indo-Pak tensions provides an assessment of convergence or divergence between policy development and security practices. The current practices in the security domain seem a befitting action in the right direction: Policy making in the Human Security domain. Although, the tensions or war with India is a special case in terms of long history of rivalry and high sentiments of people from all quarters of society, yet it serves as the test case to assess the synchronization or cacophony between policy ‘wor(l)d’ and institutional ‘action.’ Nonetheless, whether the move in the right direction sustains, prevails, or becomes equally relevant in peacetime is yet to be seen.
The writer can be reached at [email protected]