In the wake of the April 22, 2025 terrorist attack in Pahalgam that claimed the lives of tourists and an off-duty Army officer, the Indian State launched a retaliatory military operation later dubbed Operation Sindoor. The name, drawn from the martyrdom of a soldier on his wedding leave, struck a chord with a public already inflamed by grief and nationalism.
However, behind the emotionally charged symbolism lies a sobering legal question: Is the use of military force by the Indian State in retaliation to terror attacks consistent with the constitutional promise of due process and international law?
Constitutional limits on State powerIndia, despite its security challenges, is a constitutional democracy. The use of force—especially military force must comply with both domestic law and international humanitarian norms. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty to all persons, including those in conflict zones.
Even under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, the powers granted to the military are subject to judicial scrutiny (Naga People's Movement for Human Rights v. Union of India, 1998). The retaliatory use of force in Pahalgam must therefore be tested not only on its success in neutralising threats but also on its necessity, proportionality, and legality.
Symbolism versus legalityNaming a military mission after a fallen soldier may serve as an emotive gesture of respect. Yet, the State’s legal justification for using lethal force must not rest on sentiment. The martyrdom of a soldier, however tragic, cannot transform an act of State retaliation into a sacred crusade. The risk of symbolism clouding objectivity becomes heightened in conflict zones like Kashmir, where militarisation has long coexisted with democratic fragility. A democracy must uphold rule of law over retributive instincts.
Operation Sindoor and the Pahalgam context
It is essential to ask: Was Operation Sindoor authorised under any pre-existing doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence? Did the Army act within the bounds of legitimate counter-insurgency or drift into extrajudicial action? Without formal declarations of intent, transparent operational objectives, or mechanisms of independent review, such military actions risk slipping into the grey zone of unconstitutional overreach.
The media’s role in manufacturing consent
Public discourse has been largely celebratory, aided by media houses portraying the operation as a justified and necessary act of vengeance. While the media may reflect public emotion, it also carries the burden of fostering constitutional awareness.
When the Fourth Estate amplifies military triumphalism without questioning the legal basis, it risks shaping a public that becomes complacent about civil liberties. In democracies, patriotism must not substitute constitutional reasoning.
Comparative perspective: Israel’s use of force
India’s military doctrine must also be evaluated in light of international parallels, especially Israel’s approach in Gaza. In South Africa v. Israel, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that Israel’s actions in Gaza presented a plausible risk of genocide, warranting urgent preventive measures.
The ICJ ordered Israel to prevent and punish acts of genocide, ensure humanitarian access, and preserve evidence of alleged crimes (International Court of Justice, 2024). It concluded that Palestinians formed a protected group, and their large-scale displacement and mass suffering could not be dismissed as collateral damage.
In stark contrast to India, Israel’s continued assertion of self-defence has led to widespread international condemnation. The ICJ emphasised that even counter-terrorism operations must not violate international norms. It stated that: “The scope of the present case… is limited… to obligations under the Genocide Convention… but the real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice compelled the Court to act” (ICJ, 2024, para. 61).
India must avoid this slippery slope. Retaliatory violence not grounded in law, but in outrage, sets a dangerous precedent—especially in an era where governments seek to consolidate power through militarised nationalism.
Kashmir after Article 370: Increased Central powers
Since the abrogation of Article 370, Jammu & Kashmir is now a Union Territory, placing internal security squarely under the Union List. While this empowers the central government, it also raises concerns of unchecked militarisation. The broader powers must not lead to a dilution of constitutional safeguards, nor must they embolden operational opacity. The use of force, even within India’s territory, must continue to be scrutinised through judicial and constitutional lenses.
Fraternity and legal consciousness
To critique the State’s use of force is not to betray the nation. It is, in fact, to preserve the values enshrined in the Constitution. While the martyrdom of soldiers deserves solemn honour, State action cannot be sanctified by grief alone. Patriotism must be guided by principles, not passions. The ignorant citizenry, if fed only media-fuelled narratives of glory, will struggle to recognise when the State itself deviates from law.
Conclusion
Operation Sindoor may have succeeded tactically. But its legality remains unaddressed in the public conscience. As South Africa reminded the ICJ, silence and inaction in the face of unlawful military conduct breed impunity. India must not emulate the shoddy justifications employed by Israel. Instead, it must champion a military doctrine governed by transparency, proportionality, and accountability. Only then can it claim to defend its people, not merely avenge them.
