Background

• Pakistan has historically supported terrorism, as demonstrated by the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. India has consistently presented evidence of Pakistan's involvement in these attacks.
• Despite international pressure, Pakistan continues to operate under a strategy of "non-punishment" for its terrorist groups.
• A crucial aspect of counter-terrorism is financial control. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) lists countries that support or engage in money laundering and terrorist financing.
• Pakistan has faced international scrutiny for its lack of effective measures to counter terrorist financing.
• The Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT), adopted by the UN General Assembly, provides a legal framework for international cooperation against terrorism. India is a strong advocate for this convention.
• Regional counter-terrorism efforts, such as those under the SAARC Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism, are also crucial.
• The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (ICSFT) and the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (ICSTB) are key international instruments that criminalize terrorist financing and bombings.

• Following the Mumbai terror attacks in 2008, India provided evidence of Pakistan's involvement in terrorist activities. Despite this, Pakistan has largely failed to address these concerns.
• India continues to advocate for international legal action against individuals and groups involved in terrorism, such as the Falah-i-Insaniat Foundation (FIF).
• India urges all international bodies to create a legal framework for prosecuting individuals involved in terrorist financing. This includes advancing proposals to the UN Security Council and other international organizations.
• A clear and compelling narrative is essential to expose Pakistan's support for cross-border terrorism. India's diplomatic efforts have highlighted Pakistan's inconsistent statements and actions on terrorism.
• A critical aspect of counter-terrorism lies with the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Its jurisdiction extends to cases involving terrorist bombing and financing, requiring states to extradite or prosecute individuals suspected of these crimes.
• These provisions underscore the importance of international law in addressing cross-border terrorism.
• Currently, Pakistan has not accepted the ICJ's jurisdiction in its entirety, hindering efforts to hold individuals accountable. However, India believes the ICJ could still hear cases involving alleged support for terrorism.
• Pakistan's partial reservation on the ICJ's jurisdiction over the ICSTB is a significant obstacle. India interprets this as an attempt to evade accountability.
• Comparisons have been drawn to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, where a similar legal challenge arose in the ICJ. Justice Charlesworth's dissenting opinion in that case suggests a possible way forward for India.
• Ultimately, the international community needs to actively promote a global narrative against Pakistan's state-sponsored terrorism.
• International law and courts are crucial to combat terrorism. Building mutual trust and a mainstream international law framework are essential for effective counter-terrorism efforts.

• India must continue its diplomatic efforts to ensure that Pakistan is held accountable for its support of terrorism.
• Strengthening international legal frameworks and mechanisms for counter-terrorism, including those related to terrorist financing, is crucial.
• India should persist in its efforts to gain international consensus on the CCIT and other relevant conventions.
• Leveraging international legal bodies like the ICJ to address cross-border terrorism is vital, even with jurisdictional challenges.
• India must continue to build a strong and compelling narrative to expose Pakistan's role in supporting terrorism.
• Promoting greater international cooperation and information sharing is essential for effective counter-terrorism strategies.
• The focus should be on building a global consensus that unequivocally condemns and acts against all forms of terrorism, regardless of state sponsorship.
• The international community must prioritize holding states accountable for their actions related to terrorism and ensure that justice is served.

Background

• The recent escalation of military tensions between India and Pakistan, coupled with misinformation and propaganda campaigns, has created a complex environment for public understanding.
• Independent journalist Nirupama Subramanian highlights the challenge of separating fact from fiction, as media outlets frequently spread unverified claims and distorted information.
• M.N. Kondaddu, a co-founder of a fact-checking website, emphasizes the need for careful verification of information, especially during times of conflict.
• The spread of unverified information can lead to internal conflicts and damage the credibility of governments.
• During conflicts, countries often prioritize their own interests, leading to biased reporting and manipulation of information.

• Pratik Sinha observes a significant increase in unverified claims and misinformation, particularly concerning the 2019 Balakot airstrike. This includes fabricated reports of casualties and damaged structures.
• The spread of such false narratives can have a tangible impact on public perception and decision-making.
• Media channels and social media platforms play a significant role in disseminating both factual and fabricated information, making it difficult for the public to discern the truth.
• The issue of trust in media is critical. Many citizens question the government's official narratives, leading to a reliance on alternative sources that may be biased.
• The challenge extends to how governments communicate with their citizens and the international community. In an environment saturated with misinformation, gaining trust and credibility is paramount.
• The situation is further complicated by state-sponsored propaganda, where governments actively manipulate information to achieve political objectives.
• The ongoing conflict has highlighted the need for critical media literacy among the public to effectively navigate the deluge of information and identify reliable sources.
• Organisations like Opindia, Swarajya, and Postcard News are often seen as purveyors of misinformation, targeting specific communities and creating a hostile environment.
• The absence of independent fact-checking mechanisms and the proliferation of unverified content pose a serious threat to public discourse.
• Mainstream media outlets often succumb to the pressure of sensationalism, further eroding public trust.
• The narrative surrounding China and its activities also reflects a similar pattern of misinformation and distrust.
• The issue of accountability for spreading false information is a significant challenge, with many individuals and entities operating without oversight.

• There is a pressing need for increased media literacy among the public to help individuals critically evaluate information.
• Governments and media organizations must prioritize transparency and accuracy in their reporting, especially during conflicts.
• Independent fact-checking organizations play a crucial role in debunking misinformation and providing reliable information. Their work should be supported and amplified.
• International cooperation is vital to combat cross-border misinformation campaigns and ensure that factual information reaches the public.
• Accountability mechanisms for those who deliberately spread false information should be strengthened to deter future instances of misinformation.
• The focus should shift from merely presenting facts to building trust and credibility through consistent, transparent, and empathetic communication.
• Promoting critical thinking skills is essential to enable individuals to differentiate between credible and unreliable sources.
• The public should be encouraged to question official narratives and seek diverse perspectives to form informed opinions.