Explained: What India Now Considers an ‘Act of War’ Amid Ongoing Terror Threats

From drone strikes to cyberattacks, India’s updated stance outlines clear red lines on terror — any future act may trigger full-scale retaliation.

May 11, 2025: Amid ongoing cross-border hostilities and repeated drone attacks, India has sharpened its definition of what constitutes an act of terror — warning that any such act in the future will be treated as an act of war. This significant shift in policy comes in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack and India’s retaliatory Operation Sindoor, which targeted terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK).

Also Read: As Pakistan Breaks Ceasefire Within Hours, China’s Backing Sparks Diplomatic Alarm

According to top government sources, any future terror-related provocation — whether by non-state actors or with the backing of a state — could prompt full-scale military retaliation.

Here’s what qualifies as an act of terror under Indian law and may now be treated as an act of war:

Also Read: India Slams Pakistan for Ceasefire Breach, Warns of Strong Response to Further Violations

• Intentional Threats to National Security: Any action carried out to threaten India’s unity, sovereignty, or integrity, or to disrupt public order.
• Deliberate Acts of Violence: Includes bombings, mass shootings, and the use of explosives to create widespread fear or destruction.
• Attacks on Strategic or Government Infrastructure: Strikes on government buildings, military facilities, or public institutions such as hospitals, airports, or railway stations.
• Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Biological, nuclear, or chemical attacks, even attempted, are classified as acts of terrorism.
• Hijacking and Cyber Terror: Airplane hijackings, coordinated cyberattacks on government or financial systems, and similar acts fall within this category.
• Targeting Public Officials: Any forceful or violent act against a public servant or official as defined under Section 113 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS).
• Kidnappings to Intimidate Governments: Abduction or threats to life intended to coerce state or central governments or international bodies to take or refrain from action.
• Attacks on Critical Infrastructure: Sabotaging power plants, dams, communication systems, or transportation networks.
• Violations Under International Treaties: Any activity falling under the anti-terror conventions listed in the Second Schedule of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) may be similarly treated.

Also Read: Blackouts, Drones – What Happened After Ceasefire | 5 Points on India-Pak Hostilities

The decision on whether a particular incident qualifies as an act of terror — and whether it should be investigated under Section 113 of the BNS or UAPA — lies with an officer of Superintendent of Police rank or above.

Officials reiterated that while non-state actors are often involved, state-sponsored terrorism remains a real threat. Pakistan’s documented support for groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed has long been a matter of concern, and recent escalations post-Pahalgam only further confirm the deep-rooted nexus between Islamabad’s military and terror outfits.

India’s message is clear: any future aggression will not go unanswered — and now, it may mean war.

---

📌 Tags:
India Pakistan tensions, Act of terror, India act of war policy, Operation Sindoor, Pahalgam attack, drone strike India, BNS Section 113, UAPA 1967, Pakistan terrorism, national security India, OperationSindoor,