Seeing Red: ‘Operation Sindoor’ And The Proportionality Of A Pre-Emptive Response
- IJLLR Journal
- 14 minutes ago
- 2 min read
Hardik Anand, LL.B.(Hons.), National Law School of India University
“It is lawful to kill him who is preparing to kill”
- Hugo Grotius.
ABSTRACT
On 22 April 2025, a fatal terrorist incident in Pahalgam led India to initiate “Operation Sindoor,” involving a calibrated set of forward-looking military strikes directed at terrorist installations located in Pakistan and Pakistan- occupied Kashmir. The operation reopened a long-standing and deeply contested question in public international law, namely the permissibility of anticipatory uses of force and the scope of self-defence when the threat originates from non-state actors based beyond a state’s borders. Central to this controversy are the interlinked principles of necessity, proportionality, and self-defence which are foundational doctrines of international humanitarian law that restrict attacks where foreseeable civilian harm would outweigh the concrete military advantage expected. Embedded both in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions and in customary international law, the proportionality rule demands a constant balancing exercise between military imperatives and humanitarian considerations. This paper undertakes a critical evaluation of whether Operation Sindoor may be defended as a lawful instance of anticipatory self-defence, or whether it should instead be characterised as an impermissible use of force contrary to the United Nations Charter. In doing so, it analyses the relevance of the Caroline formulation on overwhelming necessity, alongside the general prohibition on force under Article 2(4) and the narrowly framed self-defence exception under Article 51 of the Charter. The study seeks to determine the degree to which India’s actions conformed to, or departed from, established international legal standards. It further situates the discussion within broader debates on pre-emptive self-defence and the evolving trajectory of international law in response to transnational terrorism. Structurally, the paper proceeds in four parts. The introductory section sets out the factual context surrounding the Pahalgam attack and India’s military response. The second section revisits the classical doctrines of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, highlighting the friction between Charter-based restraints and customary rules on self-defence. The third section applies the principles of necessity, distinction, and proportionality to the conduct of Operation Sindoor, assessing India’s assertion that civilian harm was minimised while security threats were neutralised. The paper concludes by advancing the case for targeted reforms to the UN Charter to ensure its continued relevance and effectiveness.
Keywords: Operation Sindoor; anticipatory self-defence; pre-emptive strikes; proportionality; international humanitarian law; UN Charter Article 51; cross-border terrorism; jus ad bello.
