The conflict between India and Pakistan has long been marked by episodes of tension and military standoffs, but the recent escalation following the Pahalgam incident has introduced a new and troubling dimension: the widespread use of drones in cross-border operations. The Pahalgam incident, which involved a deadly attack in the Indian-administered region of Kashmir, quickly spiralled into a broader confrontation, with both nations trading accusations of cross-border aggression and airspace violations. In the immediate aftermath, India claimed that Pakistan had launched drone and missile strikes targeting Indian cities, including Amritsar, and that these attacks were intended to destabilize the region and provoke a military response. Pakistan, for its part, denied the allegations, arguing that India was using these claims as a pretext for aggressive military action and to inflame anti-Pakistan sentiment among certain communities within India.
In response to the perceived threat, India initiated a series of military operations, including Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD) and Destruction of Enemy Air Defences (DEAD) missions, targeting Pakistani air defence installations in Lahore and other strategic locations. Central to these operations was the deployment of advanced unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), many of which were Israeli-made models such as the Harop loitering munition and the Heron surveillance drone. These drones, capable of both high-resolution surveillance and precision strikes, represented a significant escalation in the conflict. Pakistani authorities reported that over a dozen Indian drones, including several bearing components from Israeli defence contractors, had violated their airspace, with some being shot down over major cities like Lahore, Rawalpindi, and Sialkot. Pakistan claimed to have destroyed approximately 70 Indian drones during the conflict, including 25 shot down in and around Rawalpindi alone, as well as numerous others intercepted over Karachi, Lahore, and other cities. This large-scale drone interception marked a significant aspect of the new drone-centric warfare between the two nuclear-armed neighbours and underscored Pakistan’s efforts to counter India’s increasing reliance on unmanned aerial systems for offensive operations.
The use of drones in this context has blurred the traditional lines between reconnaissance and offensive military operations. Unlike manned aircraft, drones can be deployed with minimal risk to personnel, making them attractive tools for cross-border missions that might otherwise be deemed too risky or provocative. However, this very characteristic also makes drone warfare particularly problematic from a legal standpoint. Under established principles of international law, the unauthorized intrusion of military aircraft-including drones-into another country’s airspace constitutes a violation of that country’s sovereignty. The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation explicitly prohibits the unauthorized overflight of state aircraft, and the United Nations Charter, in Article 2(4), forbids the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
India’s drone strikes inside Pakistani territory, particularly those that targeted civilian infrastructure and religious sites, have drawn widespread condemnation from legal experts and international observers. Such actions are seen as clear breaches of international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, which prohibit deliberate or disproportionate attacks on civilians and non-military infrastructure. Reports of civilian casualties in both the initial Pahalgam incident and subsequent drone strikes have raised serious concerns about compliance with the principles of proportionality and distinction-cornerstones of the laws of armed conflict. These principles require that parties to a conflict distinguish between combatants and civilians, and that any use of force be proportionate to the military advantage gained.
India has sought to justify its actions under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which recognizes the inherent right of states to self-defence in the event of an armed attack. However, the legal threshold for invoking self-defence is high, as established by the Caroline Doctrine, which holds that the necessity of self-defence must be instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means or moment for deliberation. Many legal scholars argue that India’s actions do not meet these criteria, particularly given the lack of clear evidence linking Pakistan to the initial Pahalgam attack and the apparent retaliatory nature of the drone strikes. Instead, the strikes appear to be punitive in nature, which is not permissible under international law.
The situation is further complicated by the lack of transparency and the refusal of India to allow impartial, international investigations into the incidents. Pakistan has offered to permit a neutral third-party investigation to establish an objective account of the cross-border strikes and drone incursions, aiming to foster transparency and accountability. However, India has declined these offers, shifting its justification from self-defence to retaliation without accepting external scrutiny. This refusal to permit impartial investigations has been criticized for undermining transparency and accountability, complicating efforts to resolve the conflict under international legal norms. Pakistan’s willingness to engage in neutral inquiry contrasts with India’s stance, highlighting a key point of contention in the post-conflict diplomatic landscape.
The escalation of drone warfare between India and Pakistan is not just a regional flashpoint-it is a stark warning to the global community. As unmanned systems redefine the battlefield, the world faces a critical crossroads: either adapt international law to rein in these new tools of war or risk sliding into unchecked conflict marked by secrecy, impunity, and civilian suffering. The stakes could not be higher. Without urgent legal reforms and genuine commitments to transparency and accountability, drone warfare threatens to erode the very principles of sovereignty and humanitarian protection that underpin global peace and security. The India-Pakistan drone saga must serve as a catalyst for decisive action-before the skies over conflict zones everywhere become battlegrounds without rules.
