The pilot’s decision to destroy sensitive documents was also standard protocol to prevent strategic information from falling into the adversary’s hands.
According to Additional Protocol I, 1977, of the Geneva Conventions, attacking a parachutist from a distressed aircraft constitutes a war crime. Article 42 of Protocol I expressly deals with this specific situation, noting:
1. That no person parachuting from a distressed aircraft shall be made the object of attack during his descent;
2. That upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.
According to Geneva Convention III, 1949, “all effects and articles of personal use, except arms, horses, military equipment and military documents, shall remain in the possession of prisoners of war.”
While Article 42 does not explicitly mention non-combatants, the basic rules of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols in the role of civilian and neutral parties, provides that the civilian population must respect the wounded, even if they belong to the adverse party, and shall not commit any act of violence against them.
Moreover, in cases not covered by the Conventions or additional Protocols, civilians and combatants “remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom and from the principles of humanity.”
Conduct under detention
The group of boys only stopped beating up the pilot when Pakistani personnel showed up and took him into custody. A video of that scene, presumably shot by locals, soon made its way to social media.
After being “captured”, the Pakistani government’s media wing released a video of Wing Commander Abhinandan stating “on record, even if he goes back to [India],” that the officers of the Pakistani army looked after him “very well.” He went on to thank the captain who rescued him, and said he was “very impressed” with the Pakistani army.
Referring to the interviewer (off camera) as “major,” Abhinandan responded to a question about where he is from with a polite, “[Sorry], am I supposed to tell you this, Major?”
The “major” persisted, asking what aircraft he was flying and what his mission was, to which Abhinandan responded, “Sorry, major, I am not supposed to tell you this, but I’m sure you found the wreckage.”
Under Article 17 of the GCIII, “every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information.”
By circulating the videos it made on social media, Pakistan’s military may have been in violation of Article 13 of Geneva Convention III, which affords prisoners protection from “public curiosity.”
The videos show that the pilot maintained professional conduct, followed protocol and prioritised India’s national security interests.
His treatment and release
On Thursday, Pakistan army’s director general, Inter-Services Public Relations, General major Asif Ghafoor tweeted: “There is only one pilot under Pakistan Army’s custody. Wing Comd Abhi Nandan is being treated as per norms of military ethics,” along with a video that purportedly showed the pilot in safe surroundings, drinking tea and politely refusing to divulge information.
Pakistan’s custody of Varthaman is governed by the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which lay out rules for how to treat prisoners of war. POWs are protected from prosecution for directly taking part in hostilities. Their detention does not amount to a form of punishment, but strictly aims to prevent further participation in hostilities.
It was presumably in accordance with these provisions that Pakistan announced its decision to release the Indian pilot.