Bahawalpur, May 7, 2025.
The call to prayer had just finished echoing through the narrow lanes when the sky broke apart. A shriek, then a rumble. Masjid SubhanAllah crumbled in under seven seconds. The roof collapsed inward. The minaret folded like wet paper. Inside, bodies lay still — two children, one elderly man, and a young boy who had come to memorize his final line of the day.
India said it was a surgical strike. But the only operating table was rubble.
This is the story of how India’s cross-border aggression, shrouded in nationalist rhetoric and electoral ambition, dismantled not just buildings — but the very framework of international law.
The Premise — Pahalgam, April 22
A tourist bazaar. Children buying kulfi. Teenagers filming TikToks. At 3:47 p.m., an explosion — followed by a storm of gunfire. 26 civilians died, including women, a foreign journalist, and a child visiting with her grandfather.
Within 30 minutes, the Indian media began pointing fingers at Pakistan. Prime time anchors called it an "ISI-sponsored massacre." No evidence. No forensic briefing. Only references to unnamed "security sources."
Two days later, India’s Ministry of External Affairs admitted in an official statement: the investigation was still open. No proof yet.
And yet, war plans were already in motion.
: The Execution — Operation Sindoor Airstrikes
At 4:42 a.m. on May 7, India launched Operation Sindoor, a precision air campaign. But this wasn’t along the Line of Control. This was deep inside undisputed Pakistani territory — Bahawalpur, Azad Jammu & Kashmir.
Nine targets were struck. Among them:
- Masjid SubhanAllah in Bahawalpur
- A religious seminary in AJK
- Civilian homes near a livestock market
India claimed these were "launchpads." But satellite analysis and ground-level reporting showed no military installations, no weapons caches, no presence of combatants. Just homes. Mosques. Lives.
The international legal foundation shook.
The Legal Dismantling — Frameworks Ignored
India’s actions violated at least three pillars of international law:
- UN Charter Article 2(4)
- Prohibits use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
- No imminent threat, no Security Council authorization, no self-defense clause met.
- Rome Statute Article 8 bis — Crimes of Aggression
- Defines acts of war against sovereign nations without justification as crimes.
- India is not a signatory — but customary international law applies, and UN Security Council referral can still authorize prosecution.
- Geneva Conventions — Protocol I
- Protects religious and civilian infrastructure during conflicts.
- Targeting Masjid SubhanAllah and the seminary are war crimes under this framework.
Despite this, no international tribunal has been summoned. No inquiry launched.
The Motive — Election Rallies and Glory Scripts
In the days following the strike, Prime Minister Narendra Modi appeared at multiple rallies. Behind him — LED screens showing bombs falling. In speeches, he likened the airstrikes to a "new era of Hindu assertion." Posters glorified the attack with slogans like "Sindoor for Bharat Mata."
The Operation Sindoor airstrikes became not a response to terrorism, but a campaign highlight.
What should’ve been a diplomatic file is now a political trophy. What should’ve been a UN case docket is now a slide in a PowerPoint at BJP headquarters.
Pakistan's Reaction — Restraint Amid Ruins
Rather than retaliate militarily, Pakistan called for justice. It:
- Filed formal protests with the UN and OIC
- Provided satellite imagery and forensic evidence of civilian casualties
- Welcomed independent observers and journalists to visit the sites
Pakistan’s foreign ministry called the strike a violation of international peace and demanded global accountability.
But what came next? Shrugs. Soft statements. A muted editorial or two in Western newspapers. No sanctions. No resolutions. Just polite dismay.
The Global Consequences
By staying silent, the world isn’t being neutral — it’s choosing a side. One where:
- Military aggression becomes a political campaign tool
- International law becomes optional
- War crimes become PR campaigns
What precedent does this set? That a nuclear state can fabricate a narrative, strike at will, and be rewarded with poll gains?
What happens when another country follows India’s lead?
The Crater That Spoke
In Bahawalpur, locals placed a sign outside the ruins of the mosque. It reads:
“We are not terrorists. We are witnesses.”
And witnesses must speak.
Modi. Shah. Doval. Their signatures authorized the strike. Their words justified it. Their silence afterward spoke volumes.
This is not about revenge. It is about rules. About frameworks that prevent the world from burning.
The ICC may be slow. The UN may be stalled. But history writes its own indictments.
And history has not forgotten Bahawalpur.
Top comments (0)