Operation Sindoor’s precision and the Indian government’s measured statements reflect a strategic effort to walk a tightrope, addressing domestic security imperatives while averting a spiral into war.
Published May 08, 2025 | 12:55 PM ⚊ Updated May 08, 2025 | 12:55 PM
Operation Sindoor.
Synopsis: The onus now rests on Pakistan. Treating Operation Sindoor as an act of war would be a grave misstep, risking a dangerous escalation neither nation can afford. Pakistan has repeatedly faced international scrutiny for its alleged links to terrorist groups, with bodies like the Financial Action Task Force urging stronger action against terror financing.
India’s precision strike, codenamed Operation Sindoor, targeting terrorist infrastructure across the border in Pakistan, has thrust the subcontinent into a delicate and precarious moment.
Executed on Wednesday, 7 May, in retaliation for the 22 April Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 people, the operation underscores India’s resolve to counter cross-border terrorism. Yet, it raises profound questions about sovereignty, international law, and the fine line between counter-terrorism and acts that could precipitate a broader conflict.
This action, framed as a defensive measure against a persistent threat, demands a sober examination of its implications for regional stability and the global fight against terrorism.
The operation, conducted in response to credible intelligence about terrorist networks plotting attacks on Indian soil, reflects a growing trend among states confronting non-state actors operating from foreign territories.
Invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter
Historical precedents, such as the United States’ 2011 raid to eliminate Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad or Israel’s targeted strikes against militant groups in neighbouring countries, illustrate a contentious but increasingly accepted practice: when a state is perceived as unable or unwilling to curb terrorist activities within its borders, others may act unilaterally to neutralise the threat. Operation Sindoor aligns with this paradigm, driven by India’s long-standing concerns over Pakistan’s alleged tolerance of terrorist groups targeting Indian interests.
Under international law, the principle of state sovereignty prohibits the use of force on another nation’s territory without its consent or a United Nations Security Council mandate. However, Article 51 of the UN Charter recognises a state’s inherent right to self-defence against an armed attack, including imminent threats.
India’s justification for Operation Sindoor hinges on this provision, arguing that the terrorist infrastructure posed a clear and immediate danger. Legal scholars note that a state’s failure to prevent its territory from being used as a launchpad for cross-border attacks may, in extreme cases, erode its sovereign immunity, potentially legitimising limited defensive actions. Yet, such actions remain fraught with risk, as they challenge the sanctity of borders and invite reciprocal escalation.
India’s careful calibration of Operation Sindoor, targeting only terrorist assets, avoiding Pakistani military or civilian targets, and framing the operation as a counter-terrorism measure rather than an act of war, signals an intent to contain the fallout. This restraint is critical in a region where historical animosities and nuclear capabilities amplify the stakes. By eschewing rhetoric that could inflame tensions, India has sought to underscore its limited objective: neutralising terrorism, not provoking a broader conflict with Pakistan.
The operation’s precision and the government’s measured statements reflect a strategic effort to walk a tightrope, addressing domestic security imperatives while averting a spiral into war.
The onus now rests on Pakistan to respond with equal restraint. Treating Operation Sindoor as an act of war would be a grave misstep, risking a dangerous escalation neither nation can afford. Pakistan has repeatedly faced international scrutiny for its alleged links to terrorist groups, with bodies like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) urging stronger action against terror financing. The strike offers Islamabad an opportunity to demonstrate a genuine commitment to dismantling terrorist networks, thereby addressing India’s concerns and aligning with global expectations. Concrete steps, such as cracking down on groups operating from its soil and preventing the reconstitution of terrorist infrastructure, could de-escalate tensions and signal a shift towards regional cooperation.
The broader implications of India’s action extend beyond bilateral dynamics. Cross-border terrorism remains a global scourge, with nations from Afghanistan to Syria grappling with its destabilising effects. The international community, including major powers and regional organisations like the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), must support efforts to address terrorism through dialogue and collective action.
Operation Sindoor, while unilateral, underscores the urgency of developing frameworks to tackle terrorism in cases where host states fail to act. A renewed push for global counter-terrorism cooperation, including intelligence-sharing and coordinated law enforcement, could reduce the need for such high-risk operations.
Operation Sindoor serves as a stark reminder of the complexities of modern security challenges. By executing a targeted strike and emphasising restraint, New Delhi has sought to neutralise an immediate threat while preserving the possibility of de-escalation. The path forward demands wisdom from both sides: India must maintain its commitment to proportionality, and Pakistan must seize this moment to act decisively against terrorism.
The razor’s edge between counter-terrorism and conflict is perilous, but with mutual restraint and a shared resolve to combat terrorism, the subcontinent can chart a course towards stability and peace.
(The writer is a Senior Advocate. Views are personal. Edited by Majnu Babu).
