Practice Relating to Rule 6. Civilians’ Loss of Protection from Attack
Section A. Direct participation in hostilities
India’s Army Training Note (1995) states:
War is an act of extreme violence between two nations and not between people individually. The implications, therefore, are that, so long as an individual, may it be a soldier or a civilian, is directly contributing towards furtherance of the war effort, he is deemed to be at war. However, when he is not so employed, he is to be treated as a normal human being and must be afforded all protection and care due to him.
The Army Training Note defines the term “terrorist” as:
a person who indulges in wanton killing of persons or involves in violence or in the disruption of services or means of communications essential to the community or in damaging property with a view to putting the public or any section of the public in fear, or affecting adversely the harmony between different religious, social, linguistic groups or the sovereignty and integrity of a nation.
According to the Report on the Practice of India, this definition is “intended to help the armed forces to identify the ‘terrorists’ who may be treated as combatants if the situation can be likened to an internal conflict”.
India’s Army Act (1950) defines the term “enemy” as including “all armed mutineers, armed rebels, armed rioters, pirates and any person in arms against whom it is the duty of any person subject to military law to act”.
According to the Report on the Practice of India, “any person in arms and acting against governmental authority” or “who contributes towards the furtherance of armed conflict” would fall within the definition of enemy and lose protection.