India’s Airstrikes: A Dangerous Precedent And Fraying International Norms – OpEd
May 6, 2025 midnight is etched in the history of South Asian security politics. The Indian Air Force, in a joint air and missile strike that it called Operation Sindoor, crossed the Line of Control (LoC) to pound a number of targets in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Pakistan’s Punjab province. The strikes, justified as being a pre-emptive counter-terrorist operation by Indian government, led to civilian casualties, including those of schoolchildren, and mosque destructions, something that was condemned across Pakistan as well as by some members of the international community. Disproportionate force; the targeting of civilian areas; and the strategic callousness in calculating that either an international mediation framework does not exist or that it can be bypassed all raise important questions about India’s strategic calculus, and by extension, the erosion of global norms in asymmetric regional rivalries.
India’s justification for the May 6 raids hinges on its claim that the April 22 attack in Pahalgam was the carried out by Pakistan-based militant groups, principally Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. But no independent investigation has proven the source of this attribution. In bypassing established diplomatic or multilateral channels like sharing of information under the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) or invoking international investigative options, India has played a bully, unilateralist instead of one that focusses on due process and multilateral interests over optics.
Through the lense of security, these strikes aren’t defensive from Pakistan’s point of view, rather a political show of force. The strikes resulted in the deaths of at least nine civilians, including two children and destruction of important civilian infrastructure such as the Bilal Mosque in Muzaffarabad, said the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR). Not only is this a violation of Geneva conventions (against the targeting of non-combatants and places of worship), it indicates a decaying of professionalism at the apex high command in India’s military-political establishment. Such militarized signaling, lacking in verification or international consensus, is inherently destabilizing and encourages greater militarization of bilateral disputes.
Legal and Ethical Violations
According to international law, in particular the UN Charter Article 2(4), use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state is prohibited in any circumstance, without authorization by the UN Security Council or in self-defense under Article 51. Even though India has a legal right to self-defense, the principle of proportionality must be maintained- which was blatantly violated with the bombing of civilian areas. The strikes fall squarely within what international jurists term acta de guerra– acts of war- which cannot be justified through the elastic rhetoric of counterterrorism
In addition, the act of India is eroding the regional security architecture’s credibility. In sidelining multilateral platforms and subverting bilateral apparatus such as the 2003 ceasefire, India has not only eroded diplomatic confidence, they have also retrospectively undermined the normative underpinning of crisis management in South Asia.
Restraint and Response From Pakistan
Pakistan has responded in measured terms despite the provocation. The Pakistan Air Force said it had downed Indian jets and a drone, while Islamabad’s political leadership vowed to remain committed to peace and stability in the region. But this reticence is not to be mistaken for weakness. Instead, Pakistan’s response reflects a calculated posture aimed at preserving moral and diplomatic high ground Pakistan’s response indicates that it is not interested in being triggered into escalation, yet will protect its sovereignty and populace in accord to the norms of international law.
The Foreign Office has termed India’s strikes an “act of war” and has appealed to the United Nations and big powers to pay immediate attention to the situation. After all, civilians in Pakistan are not fair game and targeting civilian infrastructure is a violation of Pakistani sovereignty and an egregious violation of customary international humanitarian law that could be brought up by the ICJ or the Human Rights Council.
International Reaction and Double Standard
The international response has not been consistently subdued. The United Nations secretary-general, António Guterres, has called on both sides to show restraint and to pursue reconciliation through dialogue. The United States president called the strikes “a shame,” a rare rebuke that emphasizes Washington’s discomfort with India’s escalation. Beijing (CNN)China said India had “violated international law” after it crossed the de facto border in the Himalayas to prevent Pakistani terrorists from entering the country, and called for an “immediate withdrawal of all troops.” “We urge India to adhere to the agreements signed between the two countries and make tangible efforts to maintain peace and stability in the border areas between China and India,” said Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) also denounced the killing of people and attack on religious sites and expressed solidarity with the people of Pakistan.
But the wider international response is held back by geopolitical considerations. So-called strategic autonomy has also provided India with some diplomatic immunity, although it is very much an open question as to how much. This double standard — whereby the great powers determine violations of sovereignty on the basis of political like – devalues the credibility of the liberal international order. If such breaches are not considered punishable, the value of deterrence as a constraint on aggression is seriously undermined.
The South Asian Future of Stability
India’s strikes of May 6 have established a dangerous precedent, not only for India-Pakistan relations but the larger global order. They represent a turning away from diplomacy toward coercion, and from accountability toward impunity. “The incident should be taken as a wake-up call for Pakistan that it is in our national interest to focus on both strategic deterrence and diplomacy,” he added.
The international community, including organizations such as the United Nations and powerful countries around the world, cannot let this kind of thing be acceptable. If international norms are worth anything, they need to be consistently enforced, whatever the geopolitical weight of the violator. The road ahead depends on strong mediation practices, reaffirmation of bilateral agreements, and, above all, no further instrumentalization of civilian distress for political advantage’.
Ultimately however, peace in South Asia will not be won through missiles and military posturing. It has to be based on mutual respect, dialogue and an unwavering respect for the rule of law. But until then, the region continues to be held prisoner to dangerous escalations-escalations that both side, and certainly not civilians, can afford.