Pahalgam to Poonch: Two tales of responses, India follows UNSC as Pakistan commits war crimes

First Post

08-05-2025

Pakistan's shelling of Poonch civilians seen as a war crime and breach of international law read more
On May 7, the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir became the centre of a serious and tragic event. Pakistan's military began heavy and random artillery shelling on civilian areas in the Poonch district. The attack went on for almost nine hours and led to the deaths of 15 Indian civilians. More than 40 others were hurt.
Among those killed were four children between the ages of seven and fourteen, four people from the Sikh community, a Muslim cleric from a local madrasa and villagers from places like Mankote, Bandichechian, and Sandigate. Sadly, an Indian soldier, Lance Naik Dinesh Kumar of the 5 Field Regiment, Royal Artillery, also died in the attack.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
As mortar shells hit homes, places of worship and public buildings, the attack showed how dangerous and unstable the LoC has become. It also showed Pakistan's clear and cruel disregard for basic international laws. These were not accidents—they were direct and random attacks on ordinary people and important civilian places.
This attack was not a one-time event. It was part of a bigger pattern of broken ceasefires, back-and-forth attacks and the use of civilian suffering as a weapon. After Indian forces carried out precision strikes on nine terror-linked locations in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir—in response to the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam that killed 26 civilians—Pakistan's military didn't strike Indian Army posts.
Instead, they fired on areas where no soldiers were present, hitting civilians. Attacking civilians and public buildings without any military reason breaks international humanitarian law and could lead to serious legal and diplomatic problems for Pakistan.
War crimes and violations
Pakistan's actions in Poonch clearly break many rules of international humanitarian law (IHL), human rights law and global treaties. The most important of these are the Geneva Conventions of 1949, especially the Fourth Convention, which is meant to protect civilians during wartime.
Article 27 says civilians must be treated humanely, and Article 32 bans violence like murder and torture. Additional Protocol I (1977), in Articles 51 and 52, also strictly bans attacks on civilians and civilian buildings. Customary international humanitarian law—based on long-standing practices and court rulings—also says there must be a clear difference between soldiers and civilians (Rule 1), bans random attacks (Rule 11) and requires military responses to be proportional (Rule 14).
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The killing of non-combatants, like a family of five—including three children—who died inside their home, is a clear example of these rules being broken. There were no military targets in the affected villages, so Pakistan cannot claim there was military necessity. This also breaks the rule of proportionality. According to Rule 156 of customary IHL, such serious violations are considered war crimes.
These actions also fall under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998). Article 8(2)(b)(i)–(ii) defines war crimes as 'intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population' and 'civilian objects not being military objectives.'
In cases of internal conflict, Article 8(2)(e)(i) bans the same actions. If it is proven that these attacks were planned and aimed at civilians without military targets, then Pakistan's shelling in Poonch would be considered war crimes under the Rome Statute.
India's actions were different. Its strikes were aimed at specific terrorist sites and were meant to stop immediate threats. These operations follow the widely accepted right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Briefing on Operation Sindoor on Wednesday Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri referred to the recent United Nations Security Council (UNSC) statement on the Pahalgam terror attack, saying that India's military strikes were in line with the UNSC's call for bringing perpetrators of the meadow massacre to justice.
In comparison, Pakistan's random shelling of homes, religious places and public buildings—with no military reason—is not an act of war but a war crime.
Breach of bilateral and international agreements
In addition to the global treaties mentioned earlier, Pakistan's actions also directly break the India-Pakistan Ceasefire Agreement of February 25, 2021. This agreement, which both countries publicly supported, helped reduce violence in the years before.
However, in 2025, Pakistan violated the ceasefire 15 times before the May 7 shelling, showing a clear and planned move towards aggression. These violations are not just political problems—they break international laws that both countries agreed to, especially when ceasefires are clearly declared and recognised by both sides.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The shelling also goes against the United Nations Charter, specifically Article 2(4), which forbids using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country. Moreover, by intentionally killing civilians, including women and children, Pakistan has violated Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This article protects the right to life, which applies both during peace and war.
Civilian suffering as strategy
This escalation is not just a military action. It is an attack on the mental well-being and lives of the people in India's border communities. The mortar and artillery attacks spread far beyond Poonch, reaching Kupwara, Baramulla, Tangdhar and even the outskirts of Srinagar.
Civilian areas like Salamabad, Kamalkote and Batapora were also hit. Local people, like Mohammad Aslam from Salamabad, described sleepless nights filled with fear. The heavy shelling made it impossible to sleep from midnight onward, as he told Hindustan Times. In Chowkibal and Kandi Tangdhar, families hid in bunkers and mud homes, hoping for survival.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Lt Gen (Retd) Rakesh Sharma, who served in Jammu and Kashmir five times, believes Pakistan's goal might be to force people to leave important areas like Poonch by making life unbearable for civilians.
Reports from Bagh Hussain Rathore, a former village leader, support this idea. He told Daily Excelsior that only five to seven per cent of the local population stayed in the area, with most people fleeing due to constant shelling and leaving behind their homes, animals and livelihoods.
Important roads like the Poonch-Kalai national highway and the Sher-e-Kashmir bridge, which are essential for civilian travel and emergencies, were also targeted. These were not military points, but critical lifelines for the local communities, now trapped in trauma and forced to move away.
Political and military responses
Facing a serious humanitarian and security crisis, the Indian government took quick action to coordinate a response. Jammu and Kashmir Lt Governor Manoj Sinha held urgent meetings with district officials and security forces. He assured the public, through official statements and also Hindustan Times reported that food, healthcare and evacuation plans were being set up.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
At the same time, Chief Minister Omar Abdullah condemned the shelling during a video call with local officials, saying that civilian areas were the main targets. His comments reflected the fear and displacement felt by the local people.
In terms of military response, India acted carefully. According to the Additional Directorate General of Public Information, the Indian Army responded in a 'calibrated manner,' to avoid escalating the situation.
Civilians as strategic pawns
Pakistan increasingly finds itself under pressure from the international community to act against terror network that its military is widely known to have created over decades. Its attempts to swing the opinion in the UNSC, eyeing to take advantage of being a non-permanent member at this time, have failed. Several UNSC members have sought accountability from it for the Pahalgam terror attack. They viewed Pakistan's actions were escalatory in nature.
Several India leaders have called for justice for the people of Poonch and other places targeted by Pakistan, whose actions are being increasingly seen as escalatory. International rules call for protection of civilians even in the times of war, indicating that sooner or later, Pakistan may be held accountable for the suffering of civilians in response to India's strike on terror hubs which came after New Delhi gave Islamabad a fortnight after the Pahalgam terror attack to act on its own against the perpetrators. But Pakistan was seen shielding the terrorist outfit that claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam massacre not only on its territory but also at the UNSC.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD