India Conducts Precision Strikes on Terror Camps in Pakistan, PoK Following Pahalgam Attack
New Delhi: The Indian Armed Forces early on May 7, 2025, carried out a series of precision strikes, codenamed ‘Operation Sindoor,’ targeting terrorist infrastructure located in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. The operation was launched in response to the recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22, which resulted in the deaths of 25 Indian citizens and one Nepali national.
According to a press release issued by the Ministry of Defence, nine sites were targeted during the operation. The Ministry characterized the actions as “focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature,” emphasizing that no Pakistani military facilities were deliberately struck. India stated that the selection of targets and the method of execution demonstrated “considerable restraint.”
The strikes were a direct consequence of the “barbaric Pahalgam terrorist attack,” with the government asserting its commitment to holding those responsible accountable. A detailed briefing on Operation Sindoor was expected to be provided later.
Initial reports and sources following the operation indicated that the targeted sites included facilities associated with banned terrorist organizations such as Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). Locations reportedly struck included areas in Bahawalpur and Muridke in Pakistan, known strongholds of JeM and LeT respectively, as well as several sites in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The operation reportedly involved assets from the Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force, utilizing precision weapon systems.
The Pahalgam attack, which served as the immediate provocation for Operation Sindoor, involved militants targeting tourists, leading to a significant loss of civilian lives. The brutality of the attack drew widespread condemnation and a pledge from the Indian government to retaliate against those responsible and the infrastructure supporting them.
The action by India in targeting alleged terrorist infrastructure in another territory brings to the forefront complex questions of international law, particularly concerning the principles of self-defense and the use of force against non-state actors operating from within the territory of another state. Under international law, a state’s right to self-defense is enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which permits individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs. The interpretation and application of this right in the context of attacks by non-state terrorist groups operating from another state’s territory, especially without the direct involvement or explicit consent of the host state, remain subjects of ongoing debate among international legal scholars and practitioners.
State practice and legal opinions on this matter vary. Some argue that a state subjected to terrorist attacks emanating from another state has the right to act in self-defense if the host state is unwilling or unable to prevent its territory from being used for such attacks. This perspective suggests that the unwillingness or inability of the host state to take effective action against the non-state actors operating from its territory can, in certain circumstances, justify the targeted use of force by the victim state within the host state’s territory.
Conversely, other interpretations emphasize the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity, asserting that any use of force on the territory of another state, even against non-state actors, requires the consent of the host state or explicit authorization from the United Nations Security Council. They argue that allowing unilateral strikes based on a broad interpretation of self-defense could undermine international peace and security and lead to potential escalation.
While there is no single, universally accepted judicial precedent from international courts specifically on the legality of precision strikes against terrorist infrastructure in a foreign territory without the host state’s consent, relevant legal principles can be drawn from existing international law frameworks, including the law on the use of force (jus ad bellum) and international humanitarian law (jus in bello). The principle of proportionality, which requires that the anticipated military advantage of an attack must outweigh the expected 1 civilian casualties and damage, and the principle of distinction, which mandates distinguishing between combatants and civilians and targeting only military objectives, are crucial considerations under international humanitarian law that would apply if hostilities were to occur.
In the aftermath of previous terrorist attacks attributed to groups operating from Pakistan, India has in the past asserted its right to respond to such threats. These instances have often been met with differing interpretations of international law by India and Pakistan, as well as the international community. The legal justification for such actions often hinges on demonstrating that the strikes were necessary and proportionate measures of self-defense against an ongoing or imminent threat, and that the host state was indeed unwilling or unable to take effective action.
The Ministry of Defence’s statement regarding Operation Sindoor highlighted the targeted nature of the strikes and the avoidance of Pakistani military facilities, which could be seen as an attempt to align the operation with principles of distinction and to limit the risk of escalation with the Pakistani state apparatus. However, the legal nuances of attribution of the terrorist attack to entities within Pakistan and the assessment of Pakistan’s willingness or ability to act against them remain central to the international legal discourse surrounding India’s action.
Domestic legal frameworks in various countries, including India, have evolved to address terrorism, but these primarily concern the prosecution of individuals and proscription of organizations within their own jurisdiction. They do not typically provide a direct legal basis under international law for cross-border military actions.
In conclusion, Operation Sindoor represents a kinetic response by India to a significant terrorist attack. The operation, targeting alleged terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, was justified by India as a necessary measure against those responsible for the Pahalgam attack. The international legality of such cross-border precision strikes in the absence of host state consent or UN Security Council authorization remains a subject of ongoing debate under international law, with differing interpretations regarding the scope of self-defense against non-state actors. The stated nature of the operation as “focused, measured and non-escalatory” and the reported avoidance of military targets are relevant factors in the context of international legal principles governing the use of force. The detailed briefing expected from the Ministry of Defence may provide further clarity on the specifics of the operation and the legal basis asserted by India.
Ministry of Defence
PRESS RELEASE
OPERATION SINDOOR : INDIAN ARMED FORCES CARRIED OUT PRECISION STRIKE AT TERRORIST CAMPS
Posted On: 07 MAY 2025 1:44AM by PIB Delhi
A little while ago, the Indian Armed Forces launched ‘OPERATION SINDOOR’, hitting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir from where terrorist attacks against India have been planned and directed.
- Altogether, nine (9) sites have been targeted.
- Our actions have been focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature. No Pakistani military facilities have been targeted. India has demonstrated considerable restraint in selection of targets and method of execution.
- These steps come in the wake of the barbaric Pahalgam terrorist attack in which 25 Indians and one Nepali citizen were murdered. We are living up to the commitment that those responsible for this attack will be held accountable.
- There will be detailed briefing on ‘OPERATION SINDOOR’, later today.
