In a recent interview with CNN News18, defence minister Rajnath Singh said that India reserves the right to enter Pakistan to eliminate anyone who escapes over the border after trying to carry out terrorist activities in India. Predictably, this declaration caused a furore, including a stern response from Pakistan, which called the statement provocative. However, it must be seen in the context of the concept of hot pursuit and not in context of the allegation carried by The Guardian that India has had a role to play in the deaths of a number of terrorists on Pakistani soil.
The phrase ‘hot pursuit’ evokes images of speed, surging adrenaline, and the relentless chase after an elusive target. The term resonates deeply within the realms of military responses, law enforcement, action movies, and real-life dramas. Whether chasing criminals through the bustling streets of a city or racing against time to achieve a goal, the concept embodies intensity, urgency, and determination.
Hot pursuit in military operations is a concept deeply rooted in international law and the principles of self-defence. It refers to the pursuit of an enemy force across borders or into foreign territory in response to an ongoing attack or imminent threat. This pursuit is undertaken with the aim of neutralising the threat and protecting one’s own forces or interests. However, while hot pursuit serves as a crucial tool in military strategy, it also raises significant legal and ethical considerations.
Criteria for hot pursuit
In the context of military operations, hot pursuit typically occurs when a defending force is attacked by an enemy from across the border. In such situations, the defending force may pursue the aggressor into foreign territory to prevent further attacks or to eliminate the threat. This pursuit is considered justified under the principle of self-defence, which allows states to take necessary actions to protect themselves from armed aggression.
However, the legality of hot pursuit in military operations is subject to several conditions and limitations. According to international law, hot pursuit must meet certain criteria to be considered lawful.
Immediacy: The pursuit must be undertaken promptly, in response to an ongoing attack or imminent threat. It cannot be initiated based on past events or speculative threats.
Proportionality: The response must be proportionate to the threat posed. Excessive use of force or collateral damage may violate international humanitarian law and lead to legal repercussions.
Territorial Sovereignty: The pursuing force must respect the sovereignty of the territory it enters. While hot pursuit allows for temporary incursions into foreign territory, the pursuing force must refrain from unnecessary interference with the territorial integrity of the state.
Notification: Ideally, the pursuing force should notify the relevant authorities in the territory being entered, informing them of the pursuit and seeking their cooperation. However, in situations of urgency, such notification may not always be feasible.
Termination: Hot pursuit must cease once the immediate threat has been neutralised or once the pursuing force has reached a point of safety. Continued pursuit beyond this point may be considered unlawful aggression.
Failure to adhere to these principles may result in accusations of aggression or violations of international law, leading to diplomatic tensions or legal consequences for the pursuing state.
Also read: Is India ready for Pakistan-China threat? Two-front war would mean defeat: Gen Naravane writes
Proportionality is key
Hot pursuit is not without its risks and challenges. In the heat of the chase, emotions run high, and judgement can become clouded. Mistakes happen, obstacles arise, and setbacks occur. However, how one responds to these challenges ultimately defines the outcome. Will the pursuers develop cold feet, unsure of the backing of the establishment, or will they rise above the fear of failure and continue with the assigned task? Furthermore, hot pursuit in military operations runs the risk of potentially endangering civilians and escalating conflicts. Military commanders and the political dispensation ordering such actions must weigh the necessity of pursuing the enemy against the potential risks and consequences of their actions, both domestically and in the global arena. Civilians caught in the crossfire of hot pursuit may suffer harm or displacement, leading to humanitarian crises and further destabilisation of the region.
India’s response to cross-border acts of terrorism, whether state-sponsored or by individual groups, has to be seen in the backdrop of accepted international norms. The surgical strike astride the Myanmar-India border in 2015, in response to attacks on the Assam Rifles in Nagaland and the Army in Manipur by Indian insurgent groups operating out of Myanmar, certainly meets the criteria of hot pursuit on all counts. Similarly, the surgical strikes on terror infrastructure in Pakistan post the attack on an Indian Army camp in Uri in 2016 and the Balakot airstrikes after an attack on a convoy of the CRPF in 2019 are but an extension of the concept of hot pursuit. It may not be a hot pursuit in the classical sense of pursuing a fleeing enemy, but neutralising a known threat-in-being is certainly just good common sense.
In each instance, the principle of proportionality was paramount to ensure that the terrorist-initiated incident and the response thereto did not enter an escalatory spiral culminating in an all-out conflagration. Some instances, for example, the Israeli response to the Hamas attack of October 2023 have not adhered to this principle, making it a global crisis. It is not only drawing more and more nations into the fray but also expanding the footprint of the conflict-zone right up to Syria and the Red Sea.
Moreover, in India’s case, the surgical strikes were meant to drive home a lesson and had no territorial ambitions. A quick in and out, with minimum time on target whether on land or in the air, once again quite different from the ongoing operations in the Gaza strip.
Apropos, hot pursuit in military operations is an accepted legal theory based on the principles of self-defence and international norms. While it allows states to respond to armed aggression and protect their interests, it also raises significant legal and ethical considerations. The political leadership and military commanders must exercise caution and restraint in the planning and conduct of such operations including the leeway given to local commanders, ensuring that the actions are justified, proportionate, and respectful of international norms and human rights. ‘Ghus ke marenge’ should be a fair warning to all our inimical neighbours and extremist groups that acts of terrorism against the Indian Union will not be tolerated.
General Manoj Mukund Naravane PVSM AVSM SM VSM ADC is a retired Indian Army General who served as the 28th Chief of the Army Staff. Views are personal.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)