Proportionality In Times Of Asymmetric Warfare

News18

17-07-2025

In a world where asymmetry has become the norm, there is a need to push the limits of proportionality
At a time when the world finds itself engulfed in overlapping crises—the US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, the war between Iran and Israel, the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, and, closer to home, the violence in Myanmar—the question that repeatedly surfaces is that of 'proportionality'. We live at a time when the sky has become a battleground and drone attacks redefine notions of accountability. In this context, the doctrine of proportionality finds itself both, invoked and interrogated.
This cardinal principle of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is no longer being merely referenced, it is being distorted, challenged, and sometimes even misused. With every retaliatory strike undertaken by a sovereign state, proportionality becomes a tool of political cudgel.
Proportionality, in its most distilled legal form, is about equilibrium: the requirement that the anticipated military advantage of an attack not be outweighed by the incidental harm to civilians. The St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, a foundational text of IHL, enshrined this moral-legal compromise: the necessities of war must be reconciled with the laws of humanity. But this balance has become infinitely more precarious in contemporary warfare where Non-State Actors embed themselves within civilian populations; where states are forced to confront transnational terrorism with 'measured' force; and where the boundaries between principles and policy in warfare grow obscure each passing day.
Against this backdrop, take a look at India's Operation Sindoor. It was New Delhi's response to the April 22nd Pahalgam terrorist attack perpetrated by Pakistan, and targeted innocent Hindu tourists. India's retaliatory strike on terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan was described by India as 'focused, measured, and non-escalatory". This is a phrase that mirrors proportionality's ethical objectives. No Pakistani military establishments were targeted. India's deliberate choice underscored the intent to not cross escalation thresholds while also reaffirming deterrence.
While India was praised for offering a powerful lesson in restraint, there were a few instances where India's response was called 'an act of war" and 'regrettable". This mostly came from Pakistan, and its all-weather ally, China. However, it does push us to think: Can proportionality, as traditionally conceived, account for state responses to threats posed by terrorist organizations often sheltered by complicit regimes like Pakistan?
Proportionality in counterinsurgency is a vital wing of modern-day warfare, albeit evolving. It is an extension of the application of IHL. While IHL developed primarily for conflicts between states, present times force a revamp of the principle. This is because modern-day wars are fought in the non-international armed conflict (NIAC) setting—where state actors often engage with non-state actors. Scholars remain divided on this, exposing the unresolved contours of proportionality in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency.
Maintaining the status quo on the application of proportionality may, inadvertently, promote insurgencies by giving them a safe space. Insurgents exploit those spaces as operational bases that have dense civilian population, as states avoid attacking such areas due to fears of legal overreach, thereby making them de facto sanctuaries. Governments face a grim dilemma: risk civilian harm and face accusations of war crimes; or abstain from targeting these zones and give tactical advantage to the insurgents. The strategy of civilian camouflage is being increasingly employed in wars all around the globe. In such cases, proportionality risks becoming a weapon in the insurgent's arsenal and not a legal standard for the state to follow.
Moreover, the principle of proportionality must not be examined in isolation from its moral cousin: the principle of distinction. This principle states that protection is afforded not to places or objects per se, but to those not actively participating in hostilities. The challenge is that modern, asymmetric warfare has effectively erased this line. Whatever remains of it is becoming increasingly porous as insurgents seek cover among the innocent civilians.
India's Operation Sindoor, therefore, can become a case study in how proportionality can and should function in modern conflicts and warfare. By targeting only terrorist camps, calibrating intensity to match the provocation, and abstaining from escalation, India not only affirmed its sovereign right to self-defense but did so within the parameters of legal and ethical warfare. It not only kept the lines of communication open with Pakistan, but also reassured them that India's fight was with terrorism, and not Pakistan and its civilians. This stands in contrast to the prevailing pattern of permissiveness that increasingly defines contemporary, global anti-terror operations. For example, data shows that the United States has killed more than 1,000 people in counterterrorism operations in Yemen. There is growing concern about whether necessity and proportionality are being gradually hollowed out in the name of realpolitik.
To conclude, it must be underscored that the principle of proportionality is not broken; however, it is being increasingly challenged. Proportionality is a crucial principle that acts as a safeguard against unchecked violence. However, the time has come to revisit the principle – not by recalibrating the standards, but by its application. In a world where asymmetry has become the norm, there is a need to push the limits of proportionality.
Esha Banerji is presently associated with a premier think-tank in India, specialising in defence, security, and strategic studies. Her research interest and focuses of analysis are defence strategy, geo-economics, foreign affairs, and the implications of Chinese security developments on the region, especially India. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
view comments
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.