India's war on civilians

The deliberate targeting of civilians is one of the gravest crimes under international law, an unambiguous red line that no state can cross without violating the very foundations of humanity's legal order.

Yet, in the case of Operation Sindoor, India’s cross-border military action against Pakistan’s civilian population breached that line with calculated disregard.

Entire families were obliterated, homes reduced to rubble, and lives cut short in strikes that were neither military necessity nor accident, but deliberate acts in defiance of global humanitarian norms.

These attacks were more than a breach of the rules of war; they were a violation of India’s own constitutional guarantees of the right to life and dignity. They were carried out in full view of a watching international community whose silence risks becoming complicity and whose inaction sets a dangerous precedent for future conflicts.

International law could not be clearer on the protection of civilians. The Geneva Conventions of 1949, to which India is a signatory, and their Additional Protocols categorically forbid attacks on civilian populations. Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I leaves no room for interpretation: "The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack".

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, although India has not ratified it, codifies such acts as war crimes under Article 8(2)(b)(i). Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, applicable to all armed conflicts, prohibits "violence to life and person" against civilians.

By shelling residential neighbourhoods, targeting women and children, and deliberately destroying civilian infrastructure, India’s conduct during Operation Sindoor falls squarely within the legal definition of state terrorism under UN General Assembly Resolution 49/60, which condemns intentional acts meant to intimidate civilian populations.

These violations also run counter to India’s constitutional framework. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, a right the Supreme Court of India has interpreted expansively to include the right to live with dignity and free from arbitrary state violence.

While these protections primarily apply to Indian citizens, they embody values that India has pledged to uphold as part of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which protects the right to life (Article 6) and prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (Article 7).

In executing cross-border strikes on non-combatants, India abandoned both its domestic constitutional principles and its international obligations, undermining its claim to be the world’s largest democracy bound by the rule of law.

For the victims of Operation Sindoor, justice is a legal right and not just a moral imperative. Multiple international mechanisms could be engaged if political will is mustered. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) can hear a case brought by Pakistan against India for breaches of international humanitarian law. 

The UNHRC can be petitioned through formal complaints to its Special Rapporteurs, including those on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions; Violence Against Women; and the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism.

The UN Human Rights Committee, which monitors ICCPR compliance, has the authority to investigate cases where domestic remedies are unavailable or ineffective. Even the UN General Assembly, under its ‘Uniting for Peace’ mandate, can recommend collective measures against acts of aggression that target civilians. And while neither India nor Pakistan are parties to the Rome Statute, the ICC can be given jurisdiction through a UNSC referral, as was done in the Darfur case.

However, these avenues will only work if the international community abandons its selective outrage and confronts violations wherever they occur. 

The governments of the US, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, Japan and Norway, nations whose domestic laws and political cultures strongly condemn state violence against civilians, must speak with the same clarity here that they do when similar acts occur elsewhere. The US Leahy Laws prohibit military assistance to units involved in gross human rights violations.

The UK Human Rights Act binds its government to act against abuses. Canada’s Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the European Union’s Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime, and Australia’s Magnitsky-style sanctions laws all provide frameworks for targeted accountability.

If these principles are to mean anything, then their ambassadors in Islamabad and New Delhi must demand investigations, condemn the targeting of civilians and press for justice. Anything less is just enabling impunity.

India’s actions must also be understood in the broader legal context of state terrorism. The UNGA's definition includes acts intended to cause death or serious injury to civilians with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government to act or abstain from acting.

The shelling of civilian areas in Pakistan, absent any military necessity, was designed not to win a battle on the frontlines but to spread fear among the population, pressure the Pakistani government and send a political message. This is terrorism by the state, carried out in violation of every standard of law and morality that the international system claims to uphold.

For the families of the victims, these legal debates are abstract compared to the raw pain of loss. The empty chairs at dinner tables, the children left orphaned, the ruins where homes once stood, these are the real legacies of Operation Sindoor.

Many victims were women and girls, doubly vulnerable due to the intersection of armed conflict and gender-based violence. Under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), India had a responsibility to protect women from the impacts of conflict. Instead, it became the source of their suffering.

Pakistan must now act with determination, not only to defend its territorial sovereignty but to defend the dignity of its citizens in the courts of global conscience. It means sustained diplomatic engagement with key capitals and multilateral institutions, backed by evidence so compelling that denial becomes impossible. And it means elevating the voices of survivors and families, ensuring they are heard not only in Islamabad but in Geneva, New York, London and Washington.

If the international community allows Operation Sindoor to fade into the background noise of unresolved conflicts, it will set a dangerous precedent: that state-led violence against civilians can be tolerated if the perpetrator is geopolitically useful or economically significant. Such a precedent will not only destabilise South Asia but also erode the already fragile architecture of international humanitarian law.

The choice before the world is stark: either reaffirm the principle that civilians are never a legitimate target, or watch that principle collapse under the weight of selective enforcement.

Operation Sindoor was not simply a border incident; it was a crime against humanity's shared values. The victims’ demand is for justice — a reminder that the martyrs did not die in vain. Justice, though delayed, must never be denied.

The international community, foreign ambassadors and global human rights institutions must now decide whether they will stand by the very laws and values they champion, or whether their silence will write the final chapter of this tragedy.

Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed in this piece are the writer's own and don't necessarily reflect Geo.tv's editorial policy.

The writer is a public policy expert and leads the Country Partner Institute of the World Economic Forum in Pakistan. He tweets/posts @amirjahangir and can be reached at: [email protected]

Originally published in The News