At the heart of international law is the recognition of a state’s sovereign right to defend itself against aggression. Article 51 of the UN Charter, adopted in 1945, explicitly affirms this inherent right: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations…” This article provides a clear legal foundation for self-defense while drawing a firm distinction between prohibited acts of aggression (Article 2(4)) and legitimate defensive actions. Customary international law further reinforces this principle, as states have historically exercised the right to respond to attacks or violations of their sovereignty—even prior to the UN Charter’s existence. Today, nations frequently invoke Article 51 in official communications to the UN Security Council to justify responsive measures.
In addition to what it views as consistent aggression, India is involved in orchestrating false flag operations to justify hostile actions and deflect attention from internal challenges. Two prominent examples cited are the Pulwama and Pahalgam incidents. On February 14, 2019, a suicide bombing targeted a convoy of India’s Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in Pulwama, resulting in 40 deaths. India responded with airstrikes in Balakot, Pakistan—a significant escalation. Pakistan categorically denied involvement in the Pulwama attack, with government officials, military representatives, and independent observers suggesting that the incident may have been engineered by Indian intelligence to vilify Pakistan and galvanize public opinion. Notably, leaked messages from Indian journalist Arnab Goswami—allegedly indicating prior knowledge of the military response—have further fueled suspicions of a premeditated narrative.
More recently, in April 2025, an attack in Pahalgam led to the deaths of several Indian tourists. Indian authorities quickly blamed Pakistan-based militants, despite the absence of conclusive evidence. Pakistan, along with several independent analysts, denied involvement and characterized the attribution as another potential false flag operation designed to justify future military actions and suppress dissent in Indian-administered Kashmir. Critics, including defense analysts and political commentators, argue that such rapid accusations serve political agendas, particularly during election cycles or periods of domestic unrest. The timing of the Pahalgam attack—occurring alongside major political developments in India— led to skepticism about its authenticity. The incident further inflamed regional tensions, prompting heightened military posturing and sharp rhetoric from both sides. The international community voiced concern over the potential for further escalation, urging both India and Pakistan to exercise restraint and pursue dialogue. The recurring cycle of violence and mutual blame hindered efforts toward lasting peace and stability in South Asia. Following both the Pulwama and Pahalgam incidents, India launched substantial military responses, including airstrikes and artillery shelling. Pakistan regards these actions as acts of aggression, often framed as retaliation for attacks that may have been engineered to serve political agendas.
In the wake of the Pulwama attack, India carried out airstrikes on Balakot, Pakistan—the first time since 1971 that Indian aircraft had crossed the Line of Control. Similarly, following the Pahalgam incident, India launched missile strikes on Pakistani targets, resulting in civilian casualties. Pakistan condemned these strikes as violations of its sovereignty and pledged to defend its territory against any form of aggression. Analysts suggest that India’s military actions were not solely motivated by security concerns but were also politically driven. The timing of these operations often coincides with electoral cycles, raising accusations that they were aimed at bolstering the ruling government’s image and consolidating nationalist support. This trend sets a dangerous precedent for the use of military force for domestic political purposes.
The ongoing allegations of false flag operations and subsequent military escalations highlighted the need for independent, transparent investigations into incidents such as Pulwama and Pahalgam. Pakistan has consistently called for impartial inquiries, but India has refused. Without such investigations, the cycle of blame and retaliation is likely to persist, further destabilizing the region. Tensions between India and Pakistan have intensified significantly in recent years, particularly with a series of cross-border attacks, drone strikes, and artillery shelling, all centered around the disputed region of Kashmir. India wrongly accused Pakistan of targeting over a dozen cities, including crucial military sites, causing widespread power outages across northern and western India. Meanwhile, Pakistan denied involvement and retaliated with its own allegations of illegal Indian aggression, claiming to have downed dozens of Indian drones and inflicted substantial casualties.
The Pulwama attack of February 14, 2019, and the Pahalgam incident of April 2025, are key moments in the ongoing India-Pakistan conflict. These incidents are seen by people as alleged false flag operations orchestrated by India to justify military action and divert attention from internal issues. India’s aggression against Pakistan has often been based on assumptions rather than proof. Furthermore, it is well-documented that India’s military actions have resulted in civilian casualties, while Pakistan has generally exercised restraint to avoid harming civilians.
India’s adoption of the “Cold Start Doctrine” and rhetoric surrounding surgical strikes and preemptive actions reflects an aggressive stance that contradicts international norms prohibiting unilateral military action without a direct, imminent threat. In contrast, Pakistan maintains a deterrence-based defense posture, focused on defending against aggression rather than initiating conflict. Pakistan’s nuclear strategy, based on credible minimum deterrence, underscores a defensive security framework aimed at preventing war, not provoking one. Pakistan has consistently called for dialogue and peaceful dispute resolution, as demonstrated by its commitment to initiatives such as the Simla Agreement (1972), the Agra Summit (2001), and numerous offers of bilateral talks on Kashmir. In recent years, Pakistan has expressed a willingness to normalize trade, open religious corridors (such as Kartarpur), and support back-channel diplomacy, even in the face of India’s refusal to engage. Meanwhile, India tends to externalize its internal issues, particularly in Kashmir, by placing blame on Pakistan. The indigenous Kashmiri freedom struggle is often wrongly labeled as terrorism, while India’s military actions in the region constitute state-sponsored aggression against unarmed civilians. Instead of addressing the grievances of the Kashmiri people, India has hardened its position, revoking Article 370 in 2019 and launching diplomatic efforts to isolate Pakistan internationally—an act of non-military aggression. India has repeatedly initiated conflicts, violated agreements, escalated tensions, and militarized diplomacy. Whether through full-scale invasions, border skirmishes, or surgical strikes, India is perceived as the aggressor attempting to assert dominance over the subcontinent. In contrast, Pakistan maintains a record of strategic restraint, with its military actions framed as defensive responses to safeguard territorial sovereignty and regional stability. Pakistan consistently advocates for peace, dialogue, and multilateral resolution, particularly on the Kashmir issue.
Tensions escalated sharply when India launched another military offensive against Pakistan, driven by unsubstantiated allegations. The missile and drone strikes that targeted Pakistani territory were widely condemned as a severe act of aggression, triggering outrage across the nation. These attacks resulted in civilian casualties, prompting the Pakistani government and military to announce their intent to respond. This decision was met with overwhelming public support, as people believed the time had come to go beyond passive defense and assert Pakistan’s right to respond to such blatant hostility. The Pakistani military retaliated swiftly and with precision, striking only the Indian military sites responsible for the attacks on civilians. Pakistan mounted a comprehensive and effective response across all dimensions of warfare. The unity and resilience of the Pakistani people were remarkable, with the entire nation standing firmly behind its armed forces. This united resolve should serve as a wake-up call to both internal and external adversaries, demonstrating that the people of Pakistan stand firmly with the Pak Army, which remains fully prepared to defend the nation’s sovereignty and respond decisively to any future acts of aggression.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.