Articles on 11 May 2025

What’s in Today’s Article?

• India-Pakistan Ceasefire 2025 Latest News
• India and Pakistan Agree to Cease Military Action
• End of the Most Intense India-Pakistan Conflict in Decades
• India-Pakistan Ceasefire 2025 FAQs

India-Pakistan Ceasefire 2025 Latest News

• Eighteen days after a terror attack in Pahalgam, J&K, triggered an Indian military strike and four days of intense conflict with Pakistan, both nuclear-armed nations agreed to cease hostilities and halt military action from 5 pm on May 10.

India and Pakistan Agree to Cease Military Action

• After three days of intense hostilities, India and Pakistan reached an "understanding" to stop all military action and firing. 
• The announcement was made by External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar on May 10, 2025.

Ceasefire Bilaterally Agreed, Punitive Measures Unaffected

• Official sources emphasized that the decision was a bilateral agreement, not mediated by any third party. 
• India clarified that the ceasefire would not impact the punitive actions taken in response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack.

Role of the United States

• US President Donald Trump claimed credit for brokering the ceasefire after overnight negotiations. 
• Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance engaged with senior Indian and Pakistani leaders. 
• Rubio said both nations agreed to begin broader talks at a neutral venue, a claim India later refuted.
  • Despite US claims, Indian officials emphasized that the ceasefire was a bilateral understanding with no foreign mediation, consistent with the 1972 Simla Agreement. 

End of the Most Intense India-Pakistan Conflict in Decades

• The recent India-Pakistan military confrontation, the most intense in 20 years, has concluded. 
• However, the nature of engagement between the two countries has shifted significantly.

India Redefines Terms of Engagement

• Since 2014, India has moved to dismantle the framework that allowed Pakistan to exploit nuclear deterrence and cross-border terrorism. 
• Key steps include:
  • Crossing the LoC post-Uri (2016)
  • Striking deep into Pakistan during Balakot (2019)
  • Revoking J&K’s special status
  • Attacking terror camps in West Punjab (2025)
  • Suspending the Indus Waters Treaty

Delhi Signals No More Restraint

• The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and deep strikes inside Pakistan mark a new posture: India is prepared to hit core areas if provoked by terror. 
• Talks, if they occur, will likely include demands to renegotiate the Indus treaty and revise the engagement framework set during India’s weaker 1990s phase.

Third-Party Mediation Diminished but Still Present

• Although U.S. initially adopted a hands-off approach, it re-engaged as hostilities escalated. 
• U.S. National Security Adviser Marco Rubio facilitated calls between Delhi and Rawalpindi. 
• Still, India and Pakistan demonstrated the ability to manage escalation directly — a shift from the heavily mediated past.

History of Missed Diplomatic Opportunities

• Past ceasefires and backchannel negotiations (e.g., 2004–2007, 2021) have failed due to political instability in Pakistan and internal military-civilian rifts. 
• The rise of Gen. Asim Munir in 2022 hardened Pakistan’s stance and derailed earlier initiatives.

Need for Defence Reform and Strategic Military Edge

• India’s broader national power has increased, but military superiority over Pakistan remains limited. 
• Achieving operational dominance is crucial for treating terrorism as an "act of war" and deterring future provocations.

Engagement Beyond the Pakistan Army

• India may need to build links with Pakistani civil society and political elements to reduce military dominance and promote peace. 
• Large conflicts often cause internal shifts in Pakistan — whether this latest one weakens or strengthens Gen. Munir’s grip is still unclear.

A Wake-Up Call for Both Nations

• For the first time in years, Indian cities experienced the consequences of modern warfare, including drone strikes and long-range attacks. 
• The trauma of urban warfare could prompt reflection on the long-troubled state of India-Pakistan relations, even after 75+ years of independence.

India-Pakistan Ceasefire 2025 FAQs

Q1. Why did India and Pakistan agree to a ceasefire?

Ans. To stop hostilities after the Pahalgam terror attack and ensuing intense military engagement across borders.

Q2. Was the ceasefire mediated by a third party?

Ans. No. India emphasized it was a bilateral decision, contrary to U.S. claims of brokering the agreement.

Q3. How has India’s military stance changed?

Ans. India has shifted toward deep strikes and reduced restraint, aiming to deter terror by redefining engagement rules.

Q4. What is the role of the Indus Waters Treaty now?

Ans. India suspended it, signaling a tougher stance that includes water as leverage in future negotiations.

Q5. What reforms does India seek post-conflict?

Ans. India aims to build strategic military superiority and engage beyond Pakistan’s military to influence civil society.

Source: IE | TH | IE

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Understanding Safe Harbour Latest News
• Understanding Safe Harbour
• Regulatory Framework in India
• Government Concerns and Motivation
• Global Context and Future Legislative Steps
• Conclusion
• Understanding Safe Harbour FAQs

Understanding Safe Harbour Latest News

• The government of India is reconsidering the concept of safe harbour for social media platforms, citing growing concerns about fake news online, cyber fraud, and AI-generated deepfakes.
• This has been indicated by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in its submissions to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communication and Information Technology.

Understanding Safe Harbour

• Definition and origin:
  • Safe harbour is a legal concept that protects online intermediaries (websites/platforms hosting user-generated content) from criminal liability for third-party content.
  • It forms a key safeguard in promoting innovation and shielding platforms from being punished for content they did not create.
  • In the U.S., this is covered under Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, introduced in 1996.
  • In India, Section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, provides similar protection to intermediaries.
• Limitations of safe harbour in India:
  • Protection is conditional: If intermediaries receive “actual knowledge” of illegal content (via court order or government notification), they must act swiftly to remove it, else lose protection under Section 79.
  • Notable case: In 2004, the head of eBay India was arrested over a child sexual abuse material listing.

Regulatory Framework in India

• IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021: 
  • Platforms must appoint:
    • A Nodal Officer,
    • A Grievance Officer (resident in India),
    • Periodically submit reports of complaints they receive on content, and action taken against them for this.
  • These are mandatory to retain safe harbour protections.
  • Different parts of the IT Rules have been challenged in courts in the last few years.
• IT Amendment Rules, 2023:
  • Fact Check Unit: Empowered Press Information Bureau's Fact Check Unit to label content as "fake news", leading to possible removal of safe harbour.
  • Legal challenge: Comedian Kunal Kamra and others challenged the amendment in the Bombay High Court, for exceeding its authority and not following due process. 
  • The Bombay HC ruled in his favour, and the case is being appealed by the government.

Government Concerns and Motivation

• Non-compliance by platforms:
  • Allegations that platforms (e.g., Twitter/X) are:
    • Flouting Indian laws,
    • Delaying takedowns,
    • Ignoring government orders without prior user notice.
  • This includes ongoing litigation involving X (Twitter) in the Karnataka High Court.
• Need for proactive moderation: The government seeks amendments to ensure social media companies proactively address: fake news, AI deepfakes, cyber frauds, and other online harms.

Global Context and Future Legislative Steps

• U.S. debate on safe harbour:
  • President Joe Biden: Advocated revising Section 230 to increase platform accountability for extremist content.
  • President Donald Trump: Criticised Section 230 for enabling censorship of conservative voices.
• Digital India Act (DIA): 
  • The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) plans to introduce a Digital India Act, potentially revising safe harbour protections.
  • However, the draft of the DIA is yet to be released, and details remain unclear.

Conclusion

• The reconsideration of safe harbour reflects the Indian government’s evolving strategy to balance freedom of expression, digital innovation, and national security in the face of rising online misinformation and platform unaccountability. 
• It is a significant development in the cybersecurity and governance domain, and closely tied to debates on intermediary liability, free speech, and digital regulation.

Understanding Safe Harbour FAQs

Q1. What is the concept of 'safe harbour' in the context of online intermediaries?

Ans. Safe harbour is a legal provision that protects online intermediaries from liability for user-generated content, provided they comply with certain conditions such as prompt takedown of unlawful content upon receiving official notice.

Q2. Under which legal provision is safe harbour granted to intermediaries in India, and what are its limitations?

Ans. Safe harbour is granted under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, but intermediaries lose this protection if they fail to act on government or court orders to remove illegal content.

Q3. What changes were introduced by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021?

Ans. The 2021 Rules mandated appointment of grievance and nodal officers, and periodic compliance reporting to retain safe harbour protection.

Q4. Why has the Government of India considered amending the safe harbour clause recently?

Ans. The government is reconsidering the clause to ensure platforms act proactively against misinformation, deepfakes, and cyber fraud, citing delays and non-compliance by major social media companies.

Q5. What is the proposed Digital India Act (DIA), and what is its relevance to the safe harbour debate?

Ans. The DIA is a forthcoming legislation aimed at overhauling digital governance in India, potentially redefining the scope and applicability of safe harbour protections for online platforms.

Source: TH

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Operation Sindoor Latest News
• Introduction
• Legal Basis for Use of Force
• Can the Right of Self-Defence Be Invoked Against Non-State Actors?
• The “Unwilling or Unable” Doctrine
• Necessity and Proportionality in Military Strikes
• Way Ahead
• Operation Sindoor FAQs

Operation Sindoor Latest News

• India and Pakistan on 10th May agreed to halt “all firing and military action” after several days of heightened tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.

Introduction

• In response to the Pahalgam massacre that claimed the lives of 26 civilians, India conducted precision military strikes against terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK) under “Operation Sindoor” . 
• While India described its actions as “measured and non-escalatory,” Pakistan condemned them as a “blatant act of war.” 
• The incident raises questions about the legality of India’s actions under international law and the evolving global doctrines governing state responses to cross-border terrorism.

Legal Basis for Use of Force

• The Role of Article 51 of the UN Charter
  • Article 2(4) of the UN Charter generally prohibits the use of force against any state’s territorial integrity or political independence. 
  • However, Article 51 creates an exception, allowing states to exercise the right to self-defence following an “armed attack”. 
  • Though the UN Charter doesn’t clearly define what constitutes an “armed attack,” the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Nicaragua v. United States (1986) case interpreted it as “the most grave form of the use of force.”
  • India’s Foreign Secretary did not explicitly invoke Article 51, but his description of the strikes as a response to the Pahalgam terror attack implicitly aligns with the right of self-defence. 
  • Additionally, India informed 13 out of 15 members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) about its actions, adhering to procedural requirements.

Can the Right of Self-Defence Be Invoked Against Non-State Actors?

• The UN Charter traditionally governs state conduct, complicating the application of self-defence against non-state actors like terrorist organizations. 
• However, since the 9/11 attacks, several countries, led by the United States, have argued that Article 51 extends to military action against non-state actors operating from foreign territories.
• The ICJ, however, maintains a conservative view, asserting that such actions require clear state attribution. 
• In this context, India attributed the Pahalgam massacre directly to “Pakistan-trained terrorists,” reinforcing its position under the state attribution requirement.

The “Unwilling or Unable” Doctrine

• An emerging legal concept, the “unwilling or unable” doctrine, allows states to use force against non-state actors operating from another state’s territory if that state cannot or will not neutralize the threat.
• The United States notably invoked this doctrine during its 2011 operation to kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and airstrikes against ISIS in Syria. 
• While controversial, this doctrine is gaining traction. India, although cautious, has previously indicated support for this principle, particularly when host states fail to act against terror threats.
• During his briefing, India’s Foreign Secretary emphasized that Pakistan had taken “no demonstrable step” against terror infrastructure following the Pahalgam attack, indirectly invoking this doctrine to justify India’s actions.

Necessity and Proportionality in Military Strikes

• Customary international law requires that military responses meet the standards of necessity and proportionality.
  • Necessity: India justified the strikes as necessary to prevent further terrorist activities.
  • Proportionality: India’s strikes targeted only terrorist infrastructure, avoiding Pakistani military assets and civilian areas. This restraint aligns with the broader interpretation of proportionality that allows states to prevent future attacks.
• Legal experts have noted that India’s adherence to these principles strengthens the legitimacy of its actions under international law.

Way Ahead

• While a ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan has been reached, its long-term viability remains uncertain. 
• If tensions escalate, the UNSC may intervene, but the geopolitical interests and veto powers of permanent members could complicate any consensus.
• For now, India’s military actions under “Operation Sindoor” set a significant precedent in the evolving landscape of international law concerning self-defence against terrorism.

Operation Sindoor FAQs

Q1. Under which legal provision did India justify its military strikes?

Ans. India implicitly relied on Article 51 of the UN Charter, which allows self-defence following an armed attack.

Q2. What is the ‘unwilling or unable’ doctrine in international law?

Ans. It permits states to use force against non-state actors if the host state cannot or will not neutralize the threat.

Q3. Did India’s military actions satisfy the proportionality requirement under international law?

Ans. Yes, the strikes targeted only terrorist infrastructure and avoided civilian and military assets.

Q4. Has India formally adopted the ‘unwilling or unable’ doctrine?

Ans. India’s stance remains cautious but has indicated support under specific conditions in UNSC meetings.

Q5. What is the role of the UNSC after such military actions?

Ans. The UNSC may call for ceasefires, impose sanctions, or deploy peacekeeping forces depending on future developments.

Source : TH