Authored By: NANDANA B S
GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ABSTRACT
The year 2025 didn’t merely turn a page in the Indo-Pakistani narrative; it ripped out the old script and penned a new one, a far more intricate one. Ignited by the tragic Pahalgam terror attack and India’s resolute “Operation Sindoor,” this conflict transcended conventional military engagements, morphing into a sophisticated dance of aggressive diplomatic downgrades and economic blockages. Ultimately, the 2025 escalation serves as a stark, compelling reminder of the enduring challenge of conflict resolution in a region where geopolitical power frequently eclipses legal principles, underscoring the urgent, almost desperate, need for innovative diplomatic pathways.
This article ventures into the intricate legal ballet performed by India’s post-Pahalgam actions: the diplomatic deep-freeze, the iron curtain descending on borders, and the abrupt cessation of trade. Can “terror, talks, and trade” truly coexist when a nation’s leader declares, with a poignant finality, that “water and blood cannot flow together”?
INTRODUCTION
The catalyst for the 2025 crisis was a devastating terror attack on April 22, 2025, in Pahalgam, a beautiful and peaceful town in Indian-administered Kashmir. This tragic incident resulted in the deaths of 26 civilians, including 25 Indian nationals and one Nepali national. India swiftly attributed responsibility for the attack to Pakistan-backed groups, specifically linking it to The Resistance Front (TRF), an entity that India claims is connected to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a terrorist organization already sanctioned by the UN Security Council.
In response to the Pahalgam attack, India launched “Operation Sindoor” on May 7, 2025.1 This military operation involved conventional missile strikes targeting what India termed “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir.
Pakistan fervently condemned India’s actions, labelling the missile strikes as an “Act of War” and a direct violation of its sovereignty. Conflicting reports emerged regarding casualties, with Pakistan reporting 31 civilians killed and 46 wounded, while another account stated 13 military personnel and 40 civilians were killed. Pakistan explicitly reserved its “right to respond appropriately” at a time and place of its choosing. The conflict rapidly escalated into multi domain warfare, encompassing airstrikes, drone operations, cyber-attacks, and naval maneuvers, pushing the nuclear-armed adversaries “perilously close to the edge”. Further demonstrating its capabilities, Pakistan conducted tests of Fatah and Abdali surface-to-surface missiles.2
De-escalation was eventually achieved through a U.S.-brokered ceasefire on May 10, 2025, which temporarily halted military operations. However, continued violations along the Line of Control (LoC) underscored the inherent fragility of the truce, signalling that underlying tensions remained unresolved.
BORDERS AS BATTLEGROUNDS: HUMANITARIAN HURDLES AND HYDRO DIPLOMACY
The immediate aftermath of the Pahalgam attack saw India close the Attari-Wagah border, suspending all bilateral trade and effectively severing the primary land-based trade route between the two nations. This was not merely a trade disruption; it carried profound humanitarian implications, particularly for populations dependent on cross-border flows. While states generally possess sovereign control over their borders, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) imposes significant obligations during armed conflict, especially regarding unimpeded humanitarian access.
The Indus Waters Treaty: A River Runs Through Borders (Until It Doesn’t) 3
Perhaps the most audacious move by India was the termination of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960, effective immediately, until Pakistan “credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism.” This decision, framed by Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi as a “historic move” that “water and blood cannot flow together”, sent shockwaves, with Pakistan warning that water diversion would be considered a military conflict.
The suspension of a vital resource-sharing treaty during conflict risks escalating tensions dramatically, potentially transforming a non-military measure into a casus belli or an internationally wrongful act if it violates other international obligations (e.g., human rights to water). It also highlights the dangerous trend of weaponizing essential resources in geopolitical disputes, pushing the boundaries of what is permissible under international law to exert maximum pressure, with potentially catastrophic long-term regional instability.
INDIAN NATIONAL SECURITY AND COUNTER-TERRORISM: LEGAL FRAMEWORKS 4
Following the Pahalgam attack, India announced a series of diplomatic measures against Pakistan, including the downgrading of diplomatic ties, the cancellation of certain visas for Pakistani nationals, and the declaration of Pakistani diplomats as ‘persona non grata’. These actions were justified by India based on serious political disputes, specifically citing Pakistan’s alleged failure to address terrorist activities and “cross-border linkages” to the Pahalgam attack. India’s foreign policy has evolved since its independence, but relations with Pakistan have consistently been strained by territorial disputes, particularly over Kashmir.
India possesses a comprehensive, albeit controversial, set of domestic laws governing national security and counter-terrorism, which inform its approach to armed conflict and cross-border threats. However, India’s domestic legislative landscape for national security has frequently drawn criticism for its broad powers and potential for human rights infringements.
Key relevant Indian laws include:
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA):
This law is operative in “disturbed areas,” including large parts of Jammu & Kashmir and the Northeast region. It grants sweeping powers to armed forces, including the authority to arrest without warrant, search property, and shoot to kill in circumstances where security forces are not at imminent risk.
The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA, 1985-1995): TADA was India’s first anti-terrorism law to define and counter terrorist activities. It
granted wide powers to law enforcement, allowing detention for up to one year without formal charges, and controversially, admitting confessions made to police officers as evidence in court. Despite its stated purpose, TADA was eventually repealed in 1995 due to widespread allegations of abuse, with less than 2% of those arrested being convicted. The Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), replaced TADA and also contained controversial elements, leading to its subsequent repeal in 2004.
The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA, 1967, strengthened 2004): This act replaced POTA and remains in force, focusing on prosecuting offenses related to terrorism and unlawful activities. It allows for detention without trial and has been criticized for its broad definitions of terrorism.
The National Security Act (NSA, 1980):
The NSA empowers both central and state governments to detain individuals for up to 12 months without formal charges for preventive reasons, aiming to prevent threats to national security or disrupt public order. Like other anti-terrorism laws, its provisions have been a topic of heated debate due to their implications for human rights, as critics argue it allows for detention without formal charges, leading to potential abuses of power.
CONSEQUENCES OF DIPLOMATIC DOWNGRADE ON BILATERAL CHANNELS AND INTERNATIONAL STANDING
The most immediate and critical consequence of severing diplomatic relations is the severe hindering of communication and cooperation between the two states, making dispute resolution exceptionally difficult. This communication breakdown is particularly extreme in a nuclearized environment, where direct channels are vital to prevent miscalculation and inadvertent escalation. The diplomatic downgrade, while seemingly a peaceful measure, is increasingly being integrated as an integral component of an escalatory ladder. It serves as a clear and public signal of intent for potential military action. This strategic use blurs the traditional lines between diplomatic pressure and pre-belligerent acts, making de-escalation significantly more challenging as critical diplomatic channels are simultaneously curtailed.
Beyond communication, severing diplomatic relations often entails negative economic consequences, including reduced trade, disrupted supply chains, and potential loss of foreign investment. India’s suspension of trade with Pakistan, for instance, effectively reduced bilateral trade to zero. Furthermore, diplomatic rupture is frequently perceived as a “last warning” and can significantly escalate tensions, increasing the risk of further conflicts or even military confrontations. The legal status of individuals is also affected. In the absence of normal diplomatic relations, nationals of neutral states (“neutral persons”) lose their diplomatic protection and are instead to be treated as protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention, highlighting a shift in their legal status during conflict. It is important to note that while diplomatic relations are often severed during armed conflict, this action does not automatically terminate existing treaties. The legal framework applicable to armed conflict and its consequences, particularly international humanitarian law, remains in force. The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT)5generally applies to the effects of armed conflict on treaties, but humanitarian treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions, contain specific clauses that explicitly exclude the possibility of suspension or termination due to a material breach by another party. This is designed precisely to protect the beneficiaries of these treaties during conflict, ensuring that humanitarian obligations are upheld irrespective of the state of diplomatic ties. This implies a standing legal expectation that even amidst conflict and diplomatic breakdown, states remain bound by fundamental international law, particularly International Humanitarian Law.
INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTIONS AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS
The protracted nature of the India-Pakistan conflict, coupled with the nuclear dimension, has consistently drawn international attention and calls for intervention. The 2025 crisis once again highlighted the complex role of international actors in mediating and de-escalating tensions.
UN Security Council and Secretary-General’s Role6
The UN Security Council (UNSC) swiftly condemned the April 22, 2025, Pahalgam attack, reaffirming that “terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security” and underlining the need to hold perpetrators accountable. Council members called for India and Pakistan to exercise calm and restraint, de escalate tensions, and resolve their differences peacefully, expressing concern about incendiary rhetoric and provocative behaviour. UN Secretary-General António Guterres also condemned the attack and offered his “good offices” to the parties, underscoring the need “to avoid a military confrontation that could easily spill out of control”.
However, the UN’s effectiveness in this conflict has significantly waned over time. India’s consistent stance, particularly after the 1972 Shimla Agreement, is that Kashmir is a bilateral issue to be resolved without third-party mediation. Pakistan, conversely, continues to push the issue on global forums, including the UN. This fundamental disagreement limits the UN’s substantive intervention, forcing it to “walk a diplomatic tightrope”. Despite its declining influence, dismissing the UN’s role altogether would be precarious. The organization continues to prevent complete diplomatic breakdowns, keeps the conflict on the global radar, serves as a legal reference point for future negotiations, and provides neutral ground when bilateral efforts stall. In a region as fragile as South Asia, even a symbolic mediator holds significance.
Role of Third-Party Mediation (e.g., U.S.)7
In the immediate aftermath of the 2025 escalation, third-party mediation proved crucial, acting as the region’s reluctant crisis chaperone. The U.S.-brokered ceasefire on May 10, 2025, was widely seen as a vital “safety net” that prevented further escalation. U.S. diplomacy appears to have played a pivotal role in preventing further escalation, similar to its involvement in the 2019 Pulwama-Balakot crisis. Given the high emotions and deep mistrust between India and Pakistan, analysts emphasized the necessity of continued international mediation to prevent a spiral into all-out conflict. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio engaged directly with Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers and Pakistan’s army chief, emphasizing the need for both sides to “identify methods to de-escalate and re-establish direct communication to avoid miscalculation”. The effectiveness of such external mediation highlights the glaring absence of robust bilateral crisis management mechanisms.
CONCLUSION
The 2025 India-Pakistan conflict, triggered by the Pahalgam terror attack and India’s retaliatory “Operation Sindoor,” marks a critical juncture in the enduring rivalry between these nuclear armed neighbours. The events of 2025 have not only reshaped the immediate dynamics but have also introduced novel challenges to the application of international law in contemporary armed conflicts.
In conclusion, the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict serves as a stark reminder of the inherent complexities and dangers in a nuclearized South Asia. The evolving interpretations of international law, particularly concerning self-defences against non-state actors and the weaponization of non-military instruments, demand urgent attention from the international community. While third-party mediation, such as that provided by the United States, proved critical in de-escalating the immediate crisis, it cannot substitute for robust bilateral crisis management mechanisms. The path forward requires a renewed commitment from both India and Pakistan to diplomatic engagement, adherence to international legal norms, and a recognition of the catastrophic humanitarian and economic costs of continued conflict, not just for themselves but for the entire region.
VIII. REFERENCES
1 https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/calibrated-force-operation-sindoor and-future-indian-deterrence
2 https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2025/05/indiapakistan-drone-and-missile-conflict differing-and-disputed-narratives/
3 https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/editorial/indus-water-treaty-legal-analysis-and-current-status 4 https://sleepyclasses.com/national-security-act/
5 https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf
6 https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2025/05/india-pakistan-emergency-closed consultations.php
7https://www.spacewar.com/reports/Outside_mediation_now_crucial_for_Pakistan_and_India_999.html
