I refer to your editorial of August 12, headlined, 'Shooting down peace', denouncing what you describe as India's 'reckless overreaction' in shooting down Pakistan's naval surveillance aircraft, which you say 'offered no real threat' and 'could probably have been chased away'.
I would like to put the facts in perspective.
The action taken by the Indian Air Force was entirely in response to the blatant and aggressive airspace violation by the Pakistani Atlantique aircraft which engaged in hostile activity. The aircraft had intruded 10 kilometres into Indian airspace.
While Pakistan claims that the aircraft was unarmed, what is relevant is that apart from its capability of reconnaissance and surveillance, such an aircraft is capable of carrying an array of lethal weapons and stores, including air-to-air missiles, air-to-surface missiles, anti-submarine warfare torpedoes and various bombs.
It clearly falls under the definition of combat aircraft in the context of the India-Pakistan Agreement on the Prevention of Airspace Violations signed in 1991. According to the agreement, such an aircraft is not to fly within 10 kilometres of each other's airspace. The incident is a clear violation of this agreement and of the norms of conduct between sovereign nations.
What is important to note is that every opportunity was given to the Pakistani aircraft to correct its course and land. It was repeatedly warned of the violation, but it disregarded all warnings and signals.