Editorial 1: Operation Sindoor — a reshaping of confrontation
Context
The key takeaway is that modern warfare is now multi-dimensional.
Introduction
The recent India-Pakistan standoff marks a major change in modern warfare. It shows a shift in India’s military strategy that goes beyond the usual way wars were fought in South Asia and elsewhere. Operation Sindoor should no longer be viewed just as a bilateral conflict between the two countries, but as an example of how wars are fought worldwide. It highlights how technology, strategy, and information manipulation have changed the way military conflicts occur.
- Drone warfare is the most revolutionary feature of this war.
- The use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) marks a shift from traditional military strategies.
- Prime Minister Narendra Modi highlighted this shift in his recent speech.
- Unlike traditional air combat with costly, manned fighter jets, drone warfare involves asymmetric technology.
- Operation Sindoor demonstrated that modern military force isn’t just about expensive platforms.
- It’s about deploying swarms of inexpensive, expendable reconnaissance and strike vehicles to overwhelm the enemy.
Drones in the matrix
| Key Aspect | Details |
| Drone Interception | India intercepted Pakistan’s attempt to intrude with 300-400 Songar drones (Turkish-made) across 36 locations, showing the scale of the technological revolution. |
| Shift in Aerial Warfare | This shift has transformed aerial warfare from a high-risk engagement to a calculated, probabilistic domain. |
| SkyStriker Kamekazi Drones | India used SkyStriker Kamekazi drones to probe Pakistan’s defensive capabilities, gather intelligence on their air defence, and conduct precision strikes with minimal risk and damage. |
| Proliferation of Drone Technology | The spread of drone technologies in modern conflicts signifies the normalisation of aerial warfare, which was unimaginable a decade ago. |
| Air Defence Evolution | Air defence has evolved from fixed, hardware-based systems to dynamic, layered defence networks. |
| India’s Multi-layered Air Defence | India’s defence includes indigenous systems like Akash and QRSAM, and advanced imported systems like S-400 and Barak-8 (developed with Israel). |
| Akashteer System | The Akashteer system merges radar information for real-time decision-making, representing an evolutionary step in India’s defensive capabilities. |
| Adaptive Defence Networks | India’s focus is now on developing adaptive, smart defence networks that can handle multiple simultaneous threats, rather than relying solely on missile systems. |
Information Warfare: A New Battlefield
- Information warfare has become one of the most advanced and sophisticated forms of conflict.
- Disinformation has evolved from a propaganda tool to a strategic weapon on an unprecedented scale.
- Pakistan’s information operations used digital platforms to create alternative narratives, manipulate perceptions, and damage India’s morale.
- This involved circulating doctored videos, fabricated claims, and strategically crafted social media content.
- Demonstrates how psychological operations now extend far beyond traditional propaganda methods.
Modern Warfare Parallels
- Israel-Palestine and Russia-Ukraine wars highlight how modern warfare has moved beyond physical combat zones.
- Information spaces have become theatres of engagement, showcasing the importance of controlling narratives, manipulating international attention, and creating strategic ambiguity.
- Perception management is as critical as traditional military capabilities.
Technological Independence: Strategic Necessity
- Technological independence has become an imperative strategic goal.
- India’s use of indigenous platforms like the Akash missile system and its work on Project Kusha reflect the global trend of reducing foreign dependency.
- It’s not just about military strength; it’s also a strategy to:
- Minimize foreign dependency.
- Generate economic opportunities through defence product exports.
- Assert technological credibility globally.
India’s Strategic Deterrence Transformation
- The India-Pakistan standoff revealed a sophisticated escalation management style, where India signalled its strategic capabilities without resorting to full-scale war.
- This model allowed India to project military intent while maintaining diplomatic flexibility.
- This approach is a shift from traditional models of military engagement, where conflicts were viewed as either total war or total peace.
Shift in India’s Military Doctrine
- A visible shift is evident in India’s military warfighting doctrine, from a defensive posture to a proactive, precision-oriented strategy.
- The Prime Minister’s May 12 address highlighted this doctrinal shift, marking a significant change in India’s strategic approach.
- This shift is characterised by three critical elements:
- Quick response to provocations with accurately measured force.
- Development of a comprehensive, layered defence combining indigenous and advanced imported systems.
- An advanced escalation control posture, allowing precise military power projection without triggering all-out war.
Joint operations by the forces
| Key Aspect | Details |
| Joint Operations Transformation | Unprecedented inter-service coordination across the Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force. |
| IACCS Role | IACCS synchronized actions in real-time, turning integration into an operational reality. |
| Intelligence Support | Unified support from internal and external intelligence facilitated strategic decisions. |
| Technological Challenges | Accessible warfare technologies pose both challenges and opportunities for India. |
| Asymmetric Warfare Threat | Pakistan’s ability to create asymmetric warfare challenges India’s conventional power. |
| Need for Overhaul | Calls for a complete overhaul of military strategy and defence planning. |
Conclusion
The key takeaway from this confrontation is that modern warfare is multi-dimensional. Winning is no longer about territory or military strength, but about the ability to combine technology, information, and psychological tactics in a coordinated way. This shift requires a deeper understanding of how these elements work together to achieve success, making traditional approaches to warfare less effective.
Editorial 2: Principled criminalisation and the police as pivot
Context
A recent ruling by the top court highlights how principled criminalisation is closely tied to responsible actions and commitment by the police.
Introduction
Procedural law often receives less attention than substantive law in discussions of criminal law. A key reason is that procedural criminal law is viewed as addressing the practical question of ‘how’, while the more dramatic question of ‘what’ crimes and punishments exist is linked to substantive criminal law. However, in reality, procedure is the coreof action. The recent Supreme Court of India ruling in Imran Pratapgarhi vs State of Gujarat serves as a reminder that principled criminalisation depends on the police’s adherence to India’s criminal procedure law, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
- Criminalisation is the exercise of state power and duty.
- It involves the state’s authority to define a wrong or harm as a crime and to impose a punishment.
- It also reflects the state’s responsibility to address wrongdoing by holding individuals accountable and administering appropriate penalties.
- In a constitutional democracy, criminal law ensures that this significant power and responsibility are used appropriately.
Legal Philosophy and Criminalisation
- Victor Tadros, a legal philosopher, argues that the state’s duty to criminalise is part of a broader complex duty.
- This includes not just criminalising, but also prosecuting, convicting, publicly condemning, and punishingwrongful conduct.
- Criminalisation exists as part of broader social institutions that address wrongdoing, like families and private law.
- Criminalisation has an independent role, which can be realized through the operations of criminal law, regardless of its direct legal effects.
The basis
| Key Aspect | Details |
| Full Force of Criminalisation | The full force of criminalisation relies on the criminal law and the criminal justice system. The effects of criminalisation are both symbolic and concrete. |
| Master Principles for Criminalisation | Legal scholars seek principles to determine behaviours that should be criminalised. Tatjana Hörnle proposes three principles: |
| 1. Incompatibility with collective interests | |
| 2. Violent attacks against others | |
| 3. Violation of non-intervention rights | |
| Principles in Indian Criminal Law | These principles align with India’s substantive criminal law, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which structures criminalisation around these guiding values. |
| Over and Under-Criminalisation | Certain social groups or behaviours may be over-criminalised or under-criminalised, despite a structured approach in substantive criminal law. |
| Criminal Justice Process | Beyond conceptual labelling, criminal acts and individuals are labeled as ‘crime’ through processes of detection, recording, arresting, charging, prosecuting, and sentencing. |
| Importance of Procedural Law | Equal attention should be given to the powers and functions of criminal justice agencies under procedural law, as they govern the practical process of criminalisation. |
Role of Police in Criminalisation Process
- The police play a central role in the process of criminalisation, leading efforts in detecting, registering, investigating crimes, and notably, arresting suspects.
- Police officers have significant discretion in their daily work, influencing the nature and extent of criminalisation.
- Discretionary authority impacts how criminalisation unfolds, which could lead to issues like overzealous policing of minor infractions, potentially shifting focus away from more harmful wrongdoing.
Key Provision: Section 173(3) of BNSS
- Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) gives police the discretion to decide which cases to investigate.
- The provision aims to prevent unnecessary criminalisation due to police overreach.
- When an officer receives information about a cognisable offence punishable by 3 to 7 years, they do not need to immediately register a First Information Report (FIR).
- Instead, the officer has the option to conduct a preliminary inquiry within 14 days to assess if there is a prima facie case to proceed.
Imran Pratapgarhi Case: Court’s Interpretation
- The Court in the Imran Pratapgarhi case ruled that a preliminary inquiry is required when the offence involves the fundamental right to freedom of speech.
- The Court quashed the FIR against Mr. Pratapgarhi for posting an alleged inflammatory poem on social media, finding the police acted without following the preliminary inquiry procedure under Section 173(3).
- The ruling highlighted that Section 173(3) aims to prevent frivolous FIRs, particularly in cases related to freedom of speech.
Conclusion
Principled criminalisation is essential to the legitimacy of the state’s power to criminalise. Similarly, it is just as important for substantive law to be guided by judicious principles as it is for procedural law to regulate the actual effects of criminalisation. However, this system can only function effectively if the police demonstrate a commitment to responsible criminalisation and are held accountable.
