Rising Conflict at the Border
India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed neighbours with a fraught history, have once again entered a period of heightened military tension following a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, which killed 26 civilians, including several tourists. The assault was attributed to Pakistan-based terrorist groups, prompting India to carry out precision strikes on terror launchpads in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) on May 7. In retaliation, Pakistan launched attacks that caused limited damage to four Indian Air Force stations. Amid these developments, the Government of India has redefined its national security doctrine by declaring that any future terror attacks targeting Indian interests will be treated as acts of war.
This bold policy shift marks a new chapter in India’s strategic posture, reflecting the country’s resolve to directly link cross-border terrorism with military aggression. It also invites deeper analysis into what constitutes an “act of war” under international law and the global ramifications of such a stance.
From Counterterrorism to Warfare: India’s New Policy
India’s security establishment has long grappled with terrorism emanating from across the border, often treating it as an internal security challenge. However, in the wake of mounting provocations and increasing sophistication in the use of drones, fighter aircraft, and long-range weapons by Pakistan, Indian policymakers have decided to redraw the red lines.
According to top government sources, any future terror activity — particularly if traced back to Pakistani territory or actors — will no longer be viewed through a policing or counterinsurgency lens. Instead, such incidents will now be classified as acts of war, warranting military retaliation. This includes strikes on military assets, strategic infrastructure, or retaliatory defense operations that align with the principle of self-defence under international law.
What Constitutes an ‘Act of War’?
Under international law, particularly the United Nations Charter, an “act of war” typically refers to the use of armed force by one state against another, breaching peace and potentially triggering a formal state of armed conflict.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits member states from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state.
However, Article 51 permits a nation to act in self-defence if it is the victim of an armed attack.
Although “act of war” is not precisely defined under the Charter, historical precedent and legal interpretations suggest that actions such as cross-border military raids, aerial bombing, or state-sponsored terrorism may be viewed as de facto acts of war, justifying a military response.
By framing terrorism within this legal paradigm, India is sending a strong signal to the international community: state complicity in terrorism is equivalent to direct aggression, and will be dealt with accordingly.
Retaliatory Strikes and Diplomatic Posturing
Following the Pahalgam attack, India’s swift retaliation included targeted strikes on six key Pakistani air bases — Rafiqui, Murid, Chaklala, Rahim Yar Khan, Sukkur, and Chunia. These operations were executed with precision, focusing solely on military targets to avoid civilian casualties, demonstrating India’s intent to remain within the bounds of measured military conduct.
The escalation has led to continuous skirmishes along the Line of Control (LoC), with both countries mobilising forces and keeping diplomatic lines active but tense. Prime Minister Narendra Modi chaired a high-level security meeting with Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, and military chiefs, underscoring the gravity of the situation.
A New Red Line in South Asia’s Security Dynamics
India’s decision to categorise future terror attacks as acts of war is not merely semantic; it reflects a profound transformation in its security doctrine. This move blurs the traditional distinction between asymmetric warfare (terrorism) and conventional warfare, creating new strategic red lines for adversaries, particularly Pakistan.
While this policy may serve as a deterrent against future attacks, it also increases the risk of full-scale military conflict. The international community, especially allies and global powers, will closely watch how India navigates this policy shift within the legal framework of international humanitarian law and regional stability.
In the end, India’s redefinition of terrorism as an act of war is both a declaration of resolve and a demand for accountability — a message to its adversaries that state-sponsored terrorism will invite state-level retaliation, and that the era of restraint may well be over.
(With agency inputs)
