The Pahalgam Incident and Its Immediate Fallout

The terrorist attack at Pahalgam on 22 April 2025 triggered a series of unlawful and unethical actions by India. Within hours, India accused a sovereign state without investigation, violating established international-law norms. Criminal liability remains specific; it cannot attach to a nation without proof. Article III of the 2005 UN Basic Principles on the Right to Remedy and Reparation (Resolution 60/147) clearly requires investigation before attribution. By skipping this obligation, India ignored its state responsibility under international human-rights and humanitarian law.

Generalization and Arbitrary Conviction

Instead of pursuing fact-based inquiry, India delivered accusation and judgment simultaneously. It declared Pakistan guilty without trial or evidence—an act incompatible with democratic principles and due process. This posture transformed a criminal investigation into political theatre, undermining trust and setting a dangerous regional precedent.

Suspension of the Indus Water Treaty

India further escalated matters by placing the Indus Water Treaty (1960) in “abeyance.” The term itself has no legal validity for treaty withdrawal. Such unilateral suspension violates pacta sunt servanda, the cornerstone of international law that mandates states to honor treaties in good faith. Acting as judge, jury, and executioner, India also expelled diplomats, revoked visas, and shut the Attari border—actions inconsistent with UN Security Council procedures governing international peace and security.

Propaganda and International Ethics

India amplified misinformation, politicizing a criminal-justice issue into a security crisis. These tactics clashed with the UN Charter’s dispute-resolution framework and undermined the moral foundation of international law. Reneging on legal obligations for political optics weakened global confidence in cooperative legal order.

Pakistan’s Legal and Diplomatic Response

Pakistan reacted with restraint and legal precision. It invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter, defining India’s move to suspend the Indus Water Treaty as an act of war. The statement balanced firmness with diplomacy. By grounding its response in international law, Pakistan reaffirmed commitment to lawful coexistence while signaling that further provocation would invite lawful self-defence.

Lawfare as a Framework for Resolution

Experts emphasize lawfare—the strategic use of law—as the only sustainable conflict-management framework. Legal scholars propose reviving the IWT dispute-resolution mechanism or approaching the UN Security Council. However, India’s aggressive posture and information warfare erode trust needed for negotiation. With global powers divided and the US–China economic rivalry intensifying, regional stability hangs on adherence to legal norms.

Universal Jurisdiction and Joint Investigations

Both India and Pakistan possess extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction under their respective Codes of Criminal Procedure. Using these provisions for universal jurisdiction against terrorism would recast the issue from “international peace and security” to criminal justice. A joint investigation mechanism, guided by the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2002), could promote cooperation and evidence-sharing. Swift action remains vital; delay risks escalating conflict and losing critical evidence.

Conclusion

The Pahalgam incident reveals how politicizing tragedy undermines law and peace. India’s unilateral actions breached legal norms, while Pakistan’s measured response upheld them. The path forward lies in lawfare—a framework that channels conflict into legal forums rather than battlefields. South Asia’s stability depends on respecting treaties, due process, and the enduring rule of law.