Asif Mahmood
The recent conflict between Pakistan and India has officially ended, and President Trump has taken credit for brokering a cessation of hostilities, rightly so. Yet amid the headlines of ceasefires, diplomatic maneuvers, and military strategy, a critical question remains largely unaddressed: who bears responsibility for the Pakistani civilians who lost their lives in India’s unprovoked attacks? While analysts dissect every facet of the war, the human toll has received far too little attention.
On that day, India launched “Operation Sandur,” striking civilian and military targets across Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Sindh, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. These attacks resulted in 65 civilian deaths, including women, children, and the elderly, and over 240 injuries. Military casualties included seven Pakistan Army personnel and six Pakistan Air Force officers killed, with an additional 78 armed forces members wounded. The scale and severity of the attacks raise serious questions under both domestic and international law.
The deliberate targeting of civilians constitutes a clear violation of international humanitarian law (IHL). The Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), Article 27, explicitly protects civilians from violence, while Article 33 prohibits collective punishment. Additionally, Protocol I, Article 51, obliges parties to distinguish between combatants and civilians and prohibits attacks “which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects” that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. The destruction of homes, loss of family breadwinners, and orphaning of children in Muzaffarabad, Bahawalpur, Sahiwal, and Kotli exemplify violations of these fundamental protections.
Under the principles of state responsibility codified in the International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), India may be held accountable for acts constituting internationally wrongful conduct. Furthermore, under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 8(2)(b)(i) and 8(2)(b)(iv)), intentionally directing attacks against civilians or civilian objects in armed conflict constitutes a war crime. The attacks on Pakistan’s urban centers and civilian populations fall squarely within this framework.
Pakistan has demanded justice, calling upon the international community to hold India accountable. The ongoing silence of global actors risks creating a precedent of impunity, undermining the enforcement of IHL and emboldening further aggression. Legal accountability is not merely symbolic, it is essential to deter violations, uphold the rule of law, and prevent further regional destabilization.
Civilian casualties of this magnitude demonstrate a failure to comply with these principles. Command responsibility, as recognized under customary international law and codified in Article 28 of the Rome Statute, may further implicate those directing or ordering attacks.
Justice for victims of Operation Sandur requires rigorous application of international law, including investigations into the legality of targeting decisions, accountability for command structures, and reparations for affected families. International bodies such as the United Nations Human Rights Council and the International Court of Justice have a mandate to address violations of IHL and human rights obligations.
The cessation of hostilities should not overshadow the legal and human consequences of this conflict. Civilian deaths, destruction of property, and orphaned children demand accountability. Upholding international humanitarian law, documenting violations, and pursuing remedies are indispensable to preventing impunity and ensuring sustainable peace. The world must recognize that justice for the innocent is not negotiable, and that violations of IHL require firm legal response.
India has killed Pakistani civilians, and action should be taken against India according to international law.