WEB DESK: The United Nations has raised serious concerns over India’s Operation Sindoor on Pakistani territory, terming it a violation of the UN Charter.
In yet another disgrace for the Modi regime, Independent UN experts have called on India to provide explanations and emphasized the need to uphold global legal standards.
In a detailed analysis of the ongoing India-Pakistan tensions, UN special rapporteurs examined India’s Operation Sindoor conducted on May 7. They strongly condemned the unilateral application of force within Pakistani territory, deeming it incompatible with UN Charter obligations.
The experts stated that Pakistan rejected any involvement in the Pahalgam incident and called for an independent probe. However, India proceeded with airstrikes without prior notification to the UN Security Council.
The analysis said that the operations caused damage to civilian areas, including places of worship, leading to several civilian deaths and injuries.
The rapporteurs maintained that targeting civilians through military force could violate the fundamental right to life as protected under international human rights law.
Furthermore, the experts observed that India has yet to present concrete evidence establishing state-level Pakistani responsibility for the Pahalgam attack.
The document argued that combating terrorism does not permit unilateral armed interventions, warning that such unlawful uses of force heighten the dangers of further escalation.
Pakistan’s right of Self-Defense
Invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter, Pakistan affirms its inherent right to self-defense should India’s actions be classified as an armed attack.
The analysis described India’s operations as a significant violation of Pakistan’s territorial integrity and the core principle of non-intervention.
Additionally, the UN experts supported Pakistan’s position on the Indus Waters Treaty, cautioning that any disruption to water supplies impacts the essential rights of millions of people and must not serve as a tool for political or economic pressure. They affirmed that unilateral suspension of the treaty is not permissible under its terms.
