On the dawn of May 7, as the world scrolled through morning headlines and war correspondents stirred in newsrooms, India’s military jets ripped through the pretense of peace and into Pakistani airspace. ‘Operation Sindoor’, they called it, a name soaked in Hindu symbolism and martial mythology. Nine strikes. Civilians injured and lives lost. A madrassa flattened. A mosque desecrated. And for what?

The official rationale was swift: retaliation for the tragic April 22 Pahalgam attack, which killed Indian tourists in Occupied Kashmir. But scratch beneath the surface, and India’s narrative unravels faster than the hastily drawn maps behind a press conference podium.

There is no proof, no dossier, no publicly available evidence linking Pakistan to the attack. No intercepted communications, no recovered weapons trail, no credible claim from a group operating within Pakistani territory. Instead, what we witness is India, yet again, weaponising presumption, turning grief into theatre, suspicion into strategy. Operation Sindoor isn’t counterterrorism. It is state spectacle. A retaliatory charade aimed at inflating Delhi’s chest and shrinking its conscience.

Let us cut through the fog: this was an act of aggression under international law. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter categorically prohibits the use of force by one state against another. The only legal loophole, Article 51’s right to self-defence, demands not just a past attack, but an ongoing or imminent threat, not a suspected plot or a retaliatory impulse. The ICJ in Nicaragua v United States (1986) clarified that even arming or aiding non-state actors does not justify force unless there is clear attribution and evidence of a significant armed attack by or on behalf of the state in question. India has provided none.

The Caroline Test of 1837, a cornerstone of customary international law, demands that any act of anticipatory self-defence meet the criteria of being “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment........

© The News International