Modern warning is no longer limited to battlefields alone; It is increasingly violating civil daily life. The conscious target of non-bordering marks one of the major violations of international law that undermines both humanitarian principles and the global rules-based order.
In May 2025, India’s Operation Sindoor applied just such a violation. Beating home, mosques, marketplaces and important services resulted in the operation in the death of at least 40 civilians in Pakistan and Azad Jammu & Kashmir.
These deaths were not random or collateral, but rather the clear result of strikes on spaces where no military target was present.
The consequences of such actions extend far beyond the immediate loss of life. They erode the credibility of the global rules -based order, normalize impunity and set a dangerous precedent where humanitarian protection is seen as optional rather than mandatory.
In an era where conflicts extend over land, air, cyber and information domains, the erosion of humanitarian principles threatens to draw the boundaries of acceptable behavior in wartime in in-depth destructive ways.
From a legal perspective, the case against Operation Sindoor is clear. Article 2 (2). 4, of the UN-Charter, prohibits the use of force against the sovereignty of another state, while Article 51 only allows self-defense in the event of an armed attack. By invoking Article 51 to justify his strikes abused India International Law. Terrorism, however, does not constitute an armed attack that justifies interstate military aggression unless the state’s involvement can be established credibly.
In the event of the Pahagam event, no credible evidence was presented that connects Pakistan to the events. Instead, a tragedy of Indian soil was used as pretext for cross -border strikes that violated the letter and spirit in international law.
The Geneva Conventions offer even clearer bans. Articles 15, 27 and 32–34 as well as ordinary Article 3 explicitly protect civilians from being targeted, tortured or punished. Operation Sindoor’s strikes on civilian neighborhoods and religious places fell square within the ambition of prohibited behavior.
The international community cannot afford to treat violations as routine features of conflict. This would make protection declined in humanitarian law meaningless, reducing them to ambition ideals rather than enforceable obligations.
The moral efforts are just as sharp. When civilians – women who pick up water, children in play and families in prayer – become conscious targets, the war ceases to be fought between armies and instead becomes a campaign against humanity itself.
The normalization of this practice has serious consequences for global security. It sets a cycle of retaliation, radicalization and eternal instability, while undermining the credibility of states claiming to maintain human rights.
The wider geopolitical context also requires control. Operation Sindoor is not alone; It is part of a wider pattern of policies marginalizing and dehumanizing Muslim populations in South Asia.
The parallels with other theaters of conflict, especially Israel’s operations in Palestine, are difficult to ignore. In both cases, civilians are dehumanized by being labeled as “terrorists” or “security injuries”, a rhetorical hand that masks systematic violations of humanitarian law.
The erosion of norms in a conflict is always wasted over in others and weakens the global architecture of accountability.
The lessons for Pakistan are urgent. First, there is a need for systematic legal readiness. Attribution and documentation are the building blocks of accountability.
Without evidence, photographs, testimonies and forensic items, claims of civil targeting risk are rejected as political rhetoric. Legal audits, structured dossiers and independent studies must form the backbone of Pakistan’s case on international forums.
Institutions such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court may not guarantee Swift Justice, but they provide platforms to establish a legal record that could affect the global opinion and politics.
This speed was repeated at a recent seminar hosted by the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad (Issi) on “Civil Protection in Multidomain Conflicts: Legal and Humanitarian Perspectives on Operation Sindoor”.
Ambassador Sohail Mahmood, the Director -General of Issi, emphasized the need for Pakistan to build stronger diplomatic coalitions to highlight these violations on multilateral forums.
In his closing remarks, Mr Ahmer Bilal Soofi, former Minister of Law and Justice, emphasized the importance of structured legal documentation and emergency preparedness so that Pakistan can effectively pursue accountability under international humanitarian law.
Secondly, Pakistan must calibrate its diplomatic strategy. Dependence on bilateralism with India has repeatedly failed to provide accountability. Multilateral platforms – UN, organizing Islamic cooperation and even regional groupings – offer several viable paths to reinforce Pakistan’s concerns.
Diplomatic outreach must connect Operation Sindoor with the wider continuum of India’s human rights record in Kashmir, its treatment of minority and its use of water as a forced tool. Building coalitions of states around these issues can create speed where one -sided protests cannot.
Third, narrative building is central. International law operates not only in courts but also for the public opinion. Stories of victims, families displaced, children who are orphans and communities destroyed carry moral weight that statistics alone cannot convey.
Social media platforms, international media and civil society organizations are critical of turning legal arguments into compelling tales that resonate globally. Without this, the human dimension of such tragedies drowned by noise from geopolitics.
Finally, Pakistan must strengthen its own internal resilience. Civil protection is a matter of national cohesion, not just for law and diplomacy. Divided societies are less able to advocate for their citizens abroad. Stronger social entity, economic resilience and institutional capacity are important to ensure that external advocates are matched by internal stability.
A country that is perceived as broken and unstable will struggle to gain sympathy for its victims, no matter where just their case.
Operation Sindoor raises questions that go beyond the immediate tragedy in May 2025. It asks if the international community is prepared to maintain the humanitarian principles it so often invokes. It asks whether powerful states will be held to the same standards as weaker, or whether selective enforcement will continue to erode the legitimacy of international law.
Most of all, it asks if civilians in conflict zones can ever expect the protection promised to them by treaties and conventions.
For Pakistan the path is ahead. Legal use, diplomatic outreach and narrative building must work in Tandem. None of these tools alone can secure accountability, but together they can challenge impunity and maintain the principle that civilians must never be the goal of the war. Operation Sindoor was an attack on the idea that war has boundaries.
To allow such action to adopt undisputed would invite repetition, not only in South Asia, but no matter how powerful states choose to bend the rules.
Civil protection must therefore remain in the heart of Pakistan’s foreign policy and national security strategy.
It is not only a legal imperative, but also a moral. To defend civilians is to defend the very principle of humanity in war. Operation Sindoor has tested this principle. The response must confirm it with clarity and conviction before the erosion of humanitarian norms becomes irreversible.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and does not necessarily reflect Pakinomist.tv’s editorial policy.
The author is a public political expert and leads the Country Partner Institute of the World Economic Forum in Pakistan. He posts @amirjahangir and can be reached at: [email protected]
Originally published in the news
