05. Zahra Niazi-Del-Agg-Glo-Oped thumbnail-May-2025-AP (1)

On May 6, 2025, India launched ‘Operation Sindoor,’ a series of missile strikes on targets inside Pakistan, leading to the martyrdom of 26 civilians, with another 45 injured as of this writing. Yet, despite the gravity of New Delhi’s blatant breach of legal norms, the immediate international response remained largely muted. A few international actors swiftly issued statements, but these, too, fell short of the response that the situation truly warranted. President Donald Trump, for instance, labeled the strikes ‘a shame’ while hoping the crisis would end quickly. The United Nations Secretary-General called for ‘military restraint’ urging that the world could not afford a military confrontation between both countries. China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson called India’s action ‘regrettable’ and urged both sides to act in the larger interest of peace and stability. Other major international actors have also echoed similar sentiments.

However, crucial questions such as – How did India justify such a dangerous strike without releasing any verified public evidence of Islamabad’s involvement? What evidence exists that the targets comprised terrorist infrastructure? Why did civilians die if New Delhi only targeted so-called ‘terrorist’ hideouts in Pakistan? How dangerous could the consequences of India’s repeated pattern of escalation and aggression against Pakistan be? – are not being asked.

International media, while covering the crisis widely, has also failed to extend a vociferous call for reflection on these critical questions. Such questions do not constitute interference; rather, they arise from logical inquiry and sound reasoning aimed at preventing a destabilising outcome of New Delhi’s aggressive move and its recurrence.

In the aftermath of the Pahalgam incident, India swiftly blamed Pakistan for the massacre, accusing Islamabad of sponsoring the attackers. The ‘Jammu and Kashmir Police’ released unverified sketches of three assailants, which they claim were developed based on recollections by eyewitnesses. Two of the attackers were allegedly linked to Pakistan. Yet, to date, New Delhi has not shared concrete proof with the world to substantiate this claim. It is well established that in the repressive environment of Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJ&K), the prospect of an impartial investigation is systematically obstructed. Press freedom in IIOJ&K sharply declined following revocation of Articles 370 and 35A in 2019, with local journalists facing surveillance, harassment, and charges under anti-terror laws. Foreign correspondents are deported for critical reporting or denied access. On the other hand, Islamabad has been categorically demanding a ‘transparent, credible, and impartial’ investigation into the incident. International media were, in fact, taken to several areas in Azad Jammu and Kashmir that India has repeatedly labeled as hubs of terrorist activity in order to ‘debunk India’s baseless accusations.’

Even within India, opposition figures had called for a comprehensive scrutiny of the incident, citing concerns about security and intelligence failure in Pahalgam on April 22. By failing to forcefully condemn India’s illegitimate strike and demand independent investigation, the global community implicitly allows New Delhi to act unilaterally without the presence of credible proof.

Equally unfortunate has been a lack of global scrutiny of New Delhi’s unsubstantiated claim that ‘Operation Sindoor’ specifically targeted the terror infrastructure from where attacks against India have been planned and directed. New Delhi has not released any authentic (real-time) surveillance data of the existence of terrorist infrastructure at the target sites. Verified reports from the ground suggest that the missiles struck urban and civilian-populated areas, resulting in civilian casualties, including women and young children. When such a human tragedy is met with an underwhelming response, it lowers the bar for further illegitimate moves.

Likewise, while statements from world leaders reflected calls for maximum restraint and hopes for de-escalation, what remains absent is an open acknowledgement of the fact that it is New Delhi’s increasingly aggressive posture that has emerged as a recurring pattern and actively contributes to the escalation of tensions. Issuing neutral statements in such a context falsely equates both sides as equal aggressors, despite India’s repeated demonstrations of unilateral and provocative actions.

A similar pattern of global silence, surrounding India’s decision to unilaterally suspend the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) and the dissemination of unverified allegations against Pakistan (and their potential consequences), was visible in the aftermath of the Pahalgam incident.

India’s ‘Operation Sindoor’ serves as a stark reminder that the pattern of international inaction and international media silence must not be allowed to persist. The global community must move beyond perfunctory statements and take urgent and decisive action: it must demand an independent investigation of India’s justification for the missile strikes, including the legitimacy of its claimed targets and the resulting civilian casualties, and hold India decisively accountable for its reckless, self-serving actions. World leaders must confront the deeper structural injustices in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir rather than enabling their erasure through silence. Anything less would only fuel India’s hostile cycle where silence becomes complicity and innocent lives are buried underneath.

Zahra Niazi is a Research Associate at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad. The Article was first published in The News InternationalShe can be reached at: [email protected]


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The West: The History of an Idea

The world is witnessing the collapse of the Western order, if not the emergence of an alternative one. The idea of ‘West’ as against the rest is still at the root of contemporary understanding of world politics. Georgios Varouxakis, a remarkable voice on Modernity and Nationalism, has provided the historical origins and modern connotations attached with the idea of ‘West’. In his book ‘The West: The History of an Idea’, Varouxakis has argued that the West is not an eternal entity, rather it is a modern socio-political construct that emerged in the political philosophy of the early 19th century and evolved with the passage of time. The book provides an in-depth historical analysis of the idea to determine the roots of its modern interpretation.

Read More »

Space-Enabled Warfare in the 21st Century: Pathways for Developing States

Space has emerged as a distinct domain of warfare alongside land, sea, air, and cyber. Developed countries like the United States, Russia, and China possess offensive and support capabilities in space. In the shadowed expanse of Low Earth Orbit (LEO), where satellites operate like silent custodians, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine transformed the nature of modern conflict. As Russian troops marched forward, the commercial satellites like Maxar and Planet, which are operated by Western firms, captured high-resolution imagery of Russian troops, providing real-time intelligence to Ukrainian commanders, unlike ever before.

Read More »

The US-Israel War on Iran: Objectives, Strategy, and Escalation Management

Zahra Niazi
‘States tend to overestimate themselves or the benefits and swiftness of war, and to underestimate their opponents’ capabilities, intentions, or the costs and duration of war.’ If anything, the 2026 war initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran shall be remembered in the annals of warfare among the most visible manifestations of this dynamic.
The war, immediately preceded by the January mass protests in Iran, did not represent a sudden rupture but rather the continuation of a 47-year-long confrontation and a more intense phase of the June 2025 war.
The US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, defined the war’s objectives as being laser-focused: to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and its security infrastructure, while ensuring that it could never develop nuclear weapons. Beyond these stated objectives, among the priorities on the continuum also lay the objective of regime change, with both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly calling on the Iranian population to take over the government at the outset of the war.

Read More »