THE United Nations was set up to protect us from the `scourge of war` and its signatories undertook to live together `in peace with one another as good neighbours`. India and Pakistan are signatories to the Charter of the United Nations.

On April 22, 2025, visitors to the Baisaran Valley meadow near the town of Pahalgam in held Kashmir were murdered. Twenty-four of the slain were Hindus, one a Christian and one a Muslim. Without a care for his own safety, Syed Adil Hussain Shah wrestled with the assailants and was slain by them. He was probably galvanised by the Quranic command, `if you save a soul [nafs, not just a Muslim] it is as if you have saved all of humanity`. He died true to his faith.

However, did India, a member state of the United Nations, live by the truth and abide by what it had pledged? `Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such manner that international peace and security, and justice` are not endangered (Article 2 of the UN Charter). Hubris overshadowed international obligations and common sense. There was no interest to ascertain who was behind the attack.

Pakistan is a country most afflicted by terrorism; thousands of attacks have resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. My friends and colleagues have also fallen victim to terrorism.

The BLA, whose actions our neighbour endorses, claimed to have killed chief justice Muhammad Noor Miskanzai as he stood praying in a mosque. And years before the senior most judge of the Balochistan High Court, Muhammad Nawaz Marri, was killed when he was on his way to the high court. On Aug 8, 2016, terrorists killed over 70, predominantly lawyers, all of whom were known to me, in Quetta`s main hospital. The Supreme Court constituted a commission to inquire into the matter, and I was assigned the task. The QuettaInquiry Commission Report noted 17,503 terrorist attacks from Jan 1, 2001, to Oct 17, 2016, in Pakistan, averaging three a day. The investigators suspected foreign involvement. However, blaming neighbours without sufficient evidence, creating war hysteria, would have been unprofessionaland dishonest.

While terrorism has abated in Pakistan, it hasn`t stopped. The section of the Report titled `Recommendations` commenced by stating: `The people of Pakistan have been subjected to sustained terrorist attacks, which continue unabated, and deserve answers. Those who have failed the people of Pakistan need to be held accountable. Things cannot go on as they have been. Without top-tier accountability, it is unlikely systemic change will be possible.

Before blaming outsiders, one starts with accountability within. Is any institution in India brave enough to call for it? In our courts, like in the courts of every lawabiding country, there is a rebuttable presumption of innocence. Crimes are first investigated and evidence collected, then the prosecution proceeds to establish guilt before a neutral arbiter, the judge. Investigators, prosecutors and judges dispassionately consider the evidence and the motive; guilt is not to be assumed, nor should preconceived notions sway one.

Article 33 of the UN Charter requires that `The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice`. This India did not do. If Pakistan had not cooperated, Article 35 of the UN Charter could have been invoked to `bring any dispute, or any situation ... to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly`. Articles 39 to 46 of the UN Charterempowers the Security Council to act against recalcitrant members. The UN Charter forbids `The threat or use of force` (clause 4 of Article 2). Instead, India almost immediately after the gruesome Pahalgam attack, declared Pakistan to be guilty and elected to inflict punishment.

The UN Charter also requires that `the obligations arising from treaties` must be complied with. India and Pakistan executed the Indus Waters Treaty in 1960 for `the most complete and satisfactory utilisation of the water of the Indus system of rivers`. Prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru signed on behalf of India.

The treaty does not envisage suspension, nor does it empower either country to act unilaterally. The treaty stood the test of time for almost 65 years, till Prime Minister Narendra Modi by diktat decided to `suspend` it. He also threatened to divert the waters of the Indus. Indian munitions struck the Neelum-Jhelum River waterworks. These wanton acts, if they cause large-scale environmental destruction, would constitute ecocide.

The membership of the United Nations was opened to all `peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter` (Article 4). Compliance is not optional. If a country does not want to abide by its terms, it is inexplicable why it continues to be a member of the UN. Neither international law, nor morality, permits benefits to be gathered while disregarding one`s commitments and obligations.

Narendra Modi as chief minister of Gujarat learnt about terrorism and how best to transform hate into public opinion and win elections.

His popularity is hate-dependent, which recipe he again sought to use in the upcoming Bihar Legislative Assembly elections; for him the blood of 26 souls spilled in Kashmir served a purpose.

The writer is a former chief justice of Pakistan.