Legal statecraft in the India–Pakistan conflict – Firstpost

India has positioned itself over the last decade as the voice of the Global South—an emerging power with the moral authority and institutional depth to help shape global rules. The strength of this positioning was front and centre in the context of the Pahalgam terror attack and the ensuing conflict between India and Pakistan.

The conflict that followed was not just a bilateral confrontation. It was a test of how an emerging power like India conducts itself under pressure—how it responds, exercises restraint, and narrates its story through the lens of international law. What unfolded was not merely crisis management. It was legal statecraft—the calibrated use of treaties and linguistic precision to project strength without forfeiting legitimacy.

Treaty Suspension as Legal Pressure

India’s very first move to place the Indus Waters Treaty “in abeyance” set the tone. It was a studied decision rooted in the principle that treaty performance presupposes mutual obligation—in this case, the duty not to allow one’s territory to be used for transnational terrorism. India framed the action not as withdrawal, nor did it invoke material breach—likely cognisant of the evidentiary and political thresholds such a claim would trigger. As a master of its treaties, it relied on its own position of conditional compliance—leveraging legal doctrine to create diplomatic consequences without legal breach.

Pakistan responded by placing all bilateral agreements in abeyance—trade, airspace, cultural exchanges. But while India’s action was issue-specific and surgically framed, Pakistan’s blanket suspension appeared reactive. In legal diplomacy, specificity signals control; generality suggests improvisation.

Operational Precision and Legal Framing

India’s briefings on “Operation Sindoor” invoked language carefully chosen to satisfy international legal thresholds: “non-State infrastructure”, “imminent threat”, “precision targeting”. These were doctrinal markers, aligning India’s response with Article 51 of the UN Charter and the customary law on anticipatory self-defence.

Crucially, India initially avoided targeting state military assets, reinforcing its claim that the operation was not an act of war, but a counter-terrorism strike within international legal bounds. The message to global powers was that this is restraint, not weakness.

Pakistan’s retaliatory strikes used similar legal language—necessity, proportionality, territorial defence—but struggled to shift the narrative India had already defined: that this was a security crisis rooted in Pakistan’s non-compliance with its counter-terrorism obligations.

Why ‘Stoppage’ Mattered More Than ‘Ceasefire’

As the crisis de-escalated, India referred to a “stoppage of firing and military action”—not a ceasefire. The distinction was strategic. A ceasefire, particularly in the circumstances, could imply false equivalence between state parties, and could risk internationalising a dispute India insists is anchored in terrorism, not territory.

By choosing “stoppage”, India preserved its legal posture while avoiding unintended commitments. The terminology left room for both restraint and response—a linguistically minimalist approach with maximum strategic flexibility.

Tailored Legal Narratives, Global Playbook

Both sides engaged international platforms. But India’s legal messaging—calibrated, modular, and audience-specific—was notably more sophisticated. In Western capitals, India emphasised its counter-terrorism obligations. In Global South venues, it emphasised sovereignty, proportionate response, and regional stability.

India’s institutional capacity—refined through its expanding bilateral diplomatic partnerships—ensured that these legal messages landed where they mattered. This was the use of law as power in diplomacy.

Rule-Shaping, Not Just Restraint

This conflict was not just about managing escalation. It was also about managing legitimacy. India did not simply meet legal thresholds—it used them to frame the terms of engagement.

In a global system that increasingly rewards restraint over rhetoric, and legitimacy over spectacle, India has demonstrated how a rising power can navigate conflict without collapsing into crisis. The use of law—selectively, precisely, and assertively—showed what leadership from the Global South can look like: not reactive, not rule-breaking, but rule-shaping.

Niyati Gandhi is a lawyer specialising in international law and strategic dispute resolution. She writes on India’s role in shaping legal order in a multipolar world. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.