By Staff Reporter
ISLAMABAD: United Nations experts have raised alarms that India’s military strikes on Pakistan in response to an attack in Kashmir this spring violated international law and human rights, including the rights to life and security, according to a report made public this week.
The report, dated Oct. 16 and released on Dec. 15, also warned that India’s decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty in “abeyance” could infringe on Pakistanis’ rights to work, an adequate standard of living, water, food and a clean environment. The findings come amid heightened tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbors, following the April 22 attack in Pahalgam, in Indian-occupied Kashmir, which killed 26 people. India blamed Pakistan for the assault, though without providing evidence, while Pakistan’s foreign ministry dismissed the accusations as “replete with fabrications” and denied any involvement.
A day later, India announced it was holding the 1960 treaty in abeyance, prompting Pakistan to call any disruption to its water share an “act of war” and note that the agreement lacks provisions for unilateral suspension. Under the treaty, brokered by the World Bank, Pakistan was allocated the westward-flowing Indus, Chenab and Jhelum rivers, while India received the eastward-flowing Ravi, Beas and Sutlej.
Roughly two weeks after the Pahalgam incident, India carried out strikes across the border into Pakistan on May 7, igniting a four-day clash that involved fighter jets, missiles, artillery and drones. Dozens were killed before a ceasefire was reached, marking the most intense fighting between the rivals in decades.
The UN report was compiled by five experts: Ben Saul, the special rapporteur on human rights while countering terrorism; Astrid Puentes Riaño, on the right to a clean environment; Morris Tidball-Binz, on extrajudicial executions; Pedro Arrojo-Agudo, on safe drinking water and sanitation; and George Katrougalos, an independent expert on a democratic international order.
Unlawful Use of Force
In their analysis, the experts said India’s strikes appeared to breach the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force against another state’s territorial integrity. While India claimed the operations were to “respond and preempt, as well as deter … cross-border attacks,” the experts noted that New Delhi “did not notify the UN Security Council that its operation was in the exercise of the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, under the procedures required by that article.”
They stressed that Article 2(4) of the Charter and customary international law “prohibits India from the threat or use of armed force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Pakistan, whether such force is targeting state or non-state actors.” “We note further that under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and customary international law, India may only exercise the right of self-defence in foreign territory where it is necessary and proportionate in response to an armed attack committed by a foreign state, whether directly by state forces or where a state ‘sends’ non-state forces to attack,” the experts wrote.
Article 51, they added, requires the victim state to report the attack to the Security Council. “There is no separate right to unilaterally use military force in foreign territory in order to counter terrorism,” the report stated. The experts expressed concern that “India has not disclosed credible evidence that the militants who committed the Pahalgam attack were sent to attack India by the Government of Pakistan.”
Without notifying the Security Council of a self-defense claim, they said, “It appears that India has violated the prohibition on the use of force under article 2(4) of the UN Charter, and may itself have committed an armed attack on Pakistan, entitling Pakistan to exercise self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter, risking escalation that could pose grave danger to life in both states.”
Such unlawful force, they concluded, “would consequently constitute a violation of the right to life under Article 6 of the ICCPR,” referring to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The strikes also violated Pakistan’s sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention, the experts said.
Risks to Water and Livelihoods
Turning to the Indus Waters Treaty, the experts underscored its critical role for Pakistan, where the rivers irrigate 18 million hectares of farmland — about 80 percent of the country’s arable land — mainly in Punjab and Sindh, contributing 24 percent of gross domestic product. “The rivers are thus vital in providing food security and livelihoods within Pakistan’s population of 240 million people,” the report said. “Limited water storage in Pakistan means that it relies on the unimpeded flow of river water.”
Any disruption, such as filling reservoirs, flooding downstream or releasing sediment, “could have serious impacts on human rights in Pakistan including the right to work and livelihood, the right to an adequate standard of living (including the right to water and the right to food), the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment and the right to development.”
Pakistan, they noted, is already water-stressed and among the 10 countries most vulnerable to climate change, including scarcity. “We are deeply concerned” that holding the treaty in abeyance could “severely affect the human rights of millions of people […] who rely on the river for agriculture, industry, drinking water and sanitation and healthy ecosystems,” the experts wrote.
They invoked the obligation to respect rights by avoiding interference, including transboundary effects, and cited the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: “States parties have to respect the enjoyment of the right [to water] in other countries. International cooperation requires states parties to refrain from actions that interfere, directly or indirectly, with the enjoyment of the right to water in other countries.” “Any activities undertaken within the state party’s jurisdiction should not deprive another country of the ability to realise the right to water for persons in its jurisdiction,” the committee has said. “States must not prevent the cross-border supply of water and water should never be used as an instrument of political and economic pressure.” The duty to respect water rights includes refraining from limiting access and maintaining supplies, the experts said.
They warned against retrogressive measures, which must be justified only after considering alternatives and using maximum resources. Citing the International Court of Justice, including its 2025 advisory opinion on climate change, the experts affirmed states’ duty to prevent significant transboundary harm as customary law and an obligation to all. “In this regard, the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is indispensable for the enjoyment of all human rights and is foundational for states to fulfil their broader human rights obligations,” they stressed.
Suspending the treaty could also violate Pakistan’s rights to self-determination and development over shared resources, they said. There appear to be no valid grounds for abeyance, the experts concluded, and it would not qualify as a countermeasure under treaty law. India has not shown “credible evidence” of Pakistan’s responsibility for the Pahalgam attack or ongoing threats, they said. Even if responsible, suspension would be disproportionate given the human rights impacts, and countermeasures cannot affect fundamental rights. Procedural steps like notice and negotiation were not met, they added.
Persistent Disputes
The experts warned that terrorism and water disputes may continue without resolving the Kashmir issue “peacefully … in accordance with international law.” They posed six questions to India, seeking comments on the allegations and whether it would offer reparation and an apology for life rights violations from the strikes. They asked if India would fulfill treaty obligations “in good faith,” avoid interfering with Pakistan’s rights and prevent human rights harm from disruptions.They sought details on peaceful dispute settlement over the treaty and modification only per its terms.
Finally, they inquired about steps to settle Kashmir in line with international law and self-determination. “While awaiting a reply, we urge that all necessary interim measures be taken to halt the alleged violations and prevent their re-occurrence and in the event that the investigations support or suggest the allegations to be correct, to ensure the accountability of any person(s) responsible for the alleged violations,” the experts said.
Pakistan’s Response
In Islamabad, President Asif Ali Zardari welcomed the report, saying it “raises serious concerns over India’s military actions against Pakistan in May this year and its wider conduct affecting global and peace and stability.” The findings reinforce Pakistan’s view that unilateral force violates the UN Charter and Pakistan’s sovereignty, he said.
The observations on civilian deaths, damage to populated areas and religious sites, and escalation risks are “deeply disturbing,” Zardari added. He called the treaty a “binding international agreement and a cornerstone of regional stability,” warning that bypassing mechanisms and affecting flows “violated Pakistan’s rights and risked creating serious human rights consequences.”
The report reflects concerns over India as a “rogue state that increasingly acts as a global bully, relying on coercion, intimidation and the normalisation of force and violence rather than law and dialogue,” the president said. Reports of transnational violence attributed to India point to a “dangerous pattern that extends beyond the region and undermines global norms,” he said, calling India’s behavior “irresponsible.” “India has long stonewalled its minorities and ignored its commitments to international forums such as the UN, but this pattern of rogue behaviour cannot continue indefinitely,” he said.
The report’s rejection of unilateral counter-terrorism force and affirmation of Pakistan’s self-defense right highlight the violations’ seriousness, he noted. Zardari welcomed scrutiny of India’s conduct, “including concerns relating to support for terror outfits and the use of an illegitimate Afghan government to advance hostile objectives,” and called for accountability. He endorsed the experts’ demands for evidence, compensation, treaty adherence and dialogue on Kashmir. Pakistan remains committed to peace, restraint and international law, Zardari said, vowing to pursue diplomatic and legal avenues for sovereignty, rights and stability.
Copyright © 2021 Independent Pakistan | All rights reserved
