Acts of Destructive Violence Unraveled: Potential Classification of such Terrorist Attacks as Acts of Warfare

In a fiery response, top sources reveal that any future act of terrorism will be treated as a full-blown war by the government. Amidst ongoing drone attacks and cross-border shelling from Pakistan, the situation in the country is escalating rapidly. In retaliation to the Pahalgam attack, India's anti-terror operations are being intensified, leading to fresh attempts at striking military and civilian infrastructure in the nation. Thankfully, our robust air defense systems managed to successfully neutralize all threats.

What is an act of terrorism exactly?

A terror attack is an act aimed to undermine the country's unity, integrity, and security, intimidate the public, or disrupt peace and order, according to Indian law.
It's an act of deliberate violence designed to create fear among citizens.
Terror attacks may include bombings, gun attacks, hijacking planes, cyberattacks, biological, nuclear, or chemical attacks, or assaults on government buildings, military camps, or institutions.
Wreaking havoc on critical infrastructure like dams, power stations, or crucial infrastructures can also be considered a terror attack.
Terror attacks could also involve the use or threat of criminal force to kill or injure public officials to pressure the government, as per Section 113 of the Indian Penal Code.
Kidnapping anyone or threatening them to force the federal or state government or any international body to take or abstain from a certain action can also be seen as terrorism.
Typically, it's the non-state actors who carry out terror attacks. However, state-sponsored terrorism is not unheard of, and Pakistan’s funding and training of terrorists is a well-known fact. The latest military action following Indian strikes on terror camps across the border further reveals the backing Pakistan's government has been providing to groups that cause terror in India.
An act of terror could be classified under the purview of any treaties listed in the Second Schedule of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and registered accordingly.

International Legal Definition of Terrorism

Although there's no universally accepted definition of terrorism under international law, different frameworks and conventions provide some guidelines. For example, the Draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism attempted to establish a broad international definition and mandate states to assert jurisdiction over terrorist acts. A common understanding of terrorism generally involves acts that use or threaten violence with a political or ideological motive, often targeting civilians or non-combatants.

Application to the India-Pakistan Conflict

The troubles between India and Pakistan revolve around complex issues, such as territorial disputes, political tensions, and violence in areas like Kashmir.

Terrorism Allegations: Both countries have leveled accusations of sponsoring terrorism against each other. India accuses Pakistan of backing militant groups perpetrating terrorist acts within India, mainly in Kashmir. Pakistan refutes these claims and alleges India of human rights violations in Kashmir.
International Law Application: Applying international law, including terrorism definitions and conventions, is a daunting task due to the lack of a clear international consensus on what defines terrorism. However, both countries are expected to adhere to global norms and anti-terrorism conventions, such as those promoted by the United Nations.
State-Sponsored Terrorism: The concept of state-sponsored terrorism (where a government supports non-state actors) comes into play when considering accusations of support for militant groups. Proving state sponsorship under international law, however, is tough and often subject to diplomatic interpretation.

In conclusion, there's no single international legal definition of terrorism. The conflict between India and Pakistan revolves around arguments of terrorism based on broader understandings and conventions of violent political actions. The legal framework remains complex, with both sides accusing each other of breaching these norms.

Sanhita should be aware that, according to Indian law, an act of terrorism is defined as an act aimed to undermine a country's unity, integrity, and security, intimidate the public, or disrupt peace and order.
Terrorism can involve acts of deliberate violence designed to create fear among citizens, such as bombings, gun attacks, or the use of cyberattacks, biological, nuclear, or chemical warfare.
In the India-Pakistan conflict, both countries have been accused of sponsoring terrorism, often in the disputed region of Kashmir. This can be considered terrorism under international law, which has no universally accepted definition but generally involves acts using or threatening violence with a political or ideological motive, often targeting civilians or non-combatants.
Nations are expected to adhere to global norms and anti-terrorism conventions, such as those promoted by the United Nations, in such situations. However, proving state sponsorship of terrorism under international law can be difficult and is often subject to diplomatic interpretation.