India's voice at the United Nations this week was measured but firm. Addressing the Security Council’s high-level debate on promoting international peace and security through multilateralism and peaceful settlement of disputes, India’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Parvathaneni Harish, took on Pakistan’s repeated attempts to bring Kashmir and water-sharing issues into the global spotlight.
“We are at a time, where there are growing doubts about the multilateral system, especially the United Nations,” said Harish, marking the organisation’s 80th anniversary. “It is a useful moment to reflect on how far the spirit of multilateralism and peaceful settlement of disputes as enshrined in the UN Charter has been realized.”
Responding to terror and cross-border provocations
Harish spoke candidly about the changing nature of global conflicts. “In the recent decades, the nature of conflicts has transformed, with a proliferation of non-state actors, often propped up as proxies by state actors; and cross-border funding, arms trafficking, training of terrorists, and spread of radical ideologies, facilitated by modern digital and communication technologies,” he said.
The April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, in which 26 tourists were killed, formed a key part of India’s statement.
“Consequent to the gruesome terrorist attack in Pahalgam... and based on the Council Statement of 25 April... India launched Operation Sindoor targeting terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK), which was focused, measured, and non-escalatory in nature. On achieving its primary objectives, a cessation of military activities was directly concluded at the request of Pakistan,” Harish said.
He stressed the principle of accountability in matters of cross-border terrorism. “There should also be a serious cost to states who violate the spirit of good neighbourliness and international relations by fomenting cross-border terrorism,” he added.
A measured rebuttal to Pakistan
Harish didn’t mince words while responding to the remarks made by Pakistan’s representative. “The Indian Sub Continent offers a stark contrast in terms of progress, prosperity and development models. On the one hand, there is India which is a mature democracy, a surging economy and a pluralistic and inclusive society. At the other extreme is Pakistan, steeped in fanaticism and terrorism, and a serial borrower from the IMF,” he said.
He followed up with a pointed comment: “It ill behoves a member of the Council to offer homilies while indulging in practices that are unacceptable to the international community.”
Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Mohammad Ishaq Dar, had earlier described Kashmir as “an internationally recognized disputed territory” and accused India of unilaterally placing the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance. He said, “No cosmetic measures can serve as a substitute for the fundamental and inalienable right of self-determination of the Kashmiris, as guaranteed by the relevant Security Council resolutions.”
Dar also criticised India's handling of the water-sharing agreement. “It is most unfortunate and regrettable that India has chosen to illegally and unilaterally hold this treaty in abeyance on baseless grounds, with the intention of withholding the flow of water to 240 million people of Pakistan, who rely on it for their livelihood and survival,” he said.
India defends bilateral mechanisms
India rejected this position unequivocally. Harish reminded the Council that the Indus Waters Treaty is a long-standing bilateral agreement that has survived difficult periods in India-Pakistan ties. He said such treaties should not be dragged into international forums, especially when one party fails to honour its obligations.
India also dismissed any suggestion that its sovereign rights over Jammu and Kashmir were up for debate. Harish said, “As we debate promoting International Peace and Security, it is essential to recognise that there are some fundamental principles which need to be universally respected, one of them is zero tolerance for terrorism.”
He added, “It ill behoves the member of the Council to offer homilies while indulging in practices that are unacceptable to the international community.”
Broader questions for the UN system
Beyond the India-Pakistan exchange, Harish pointed to a larger issue, the credibility and effectiveness of the UN itself. “There are serious question marks over the representativeness of the UN Security Council,” he said, reiterating India’s long-standing push for reform.
India also highlighted its commitment to peacekeeping. As the largest cumulative contributor to UN Peacekeeping forces, India has played a leading role, including in promoting the participation of women in peace missions.
This is not the first time Pakistan has attempted to raise Kashmir or the Indus Waters issue in international forums. But these moves have seen limited support globally. Most member states see both as matters to be addressed bilaterally. India’s calm but clear response reflects its intent to keep discussions grounded in facts and principles.
While Pakistan continues to project its domestic grievances outward, India’s position remains consistent: sovereignty is not negotiable, terrorism is not tolerable, and disputes should be settled directly, not through megaphone diplomacy.
India may have delivered its statement in the UN chamber, but its message was directed far beyond it.
“We are at a time, where there are growing doubts about the multilateral system, especially the United Nations,” said Harish, marking the organisation’s 80th anniversary. “It is a useful moment to reflect on how far the spirit of multilateralism and peaceful settlement of disputes as enshrined in the UN Charter has been realized.”
Responding to terror and cross-border provocations
Harish spoke candidly about the changing nature of global conflicts. “In the recent decades, the nature of conflicts has transformed, with a proliferation of non-state actors, often propped up as proxies by state actors; and cross-border funding, arms trafficking, training of terrorists, and spread of radical ideologies, facilitated by modern digital and communication technologies,” he said.
The April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, in which 26 tourists were killed, formed a key part of India’s statement.
“Consequent to the gruesome terrorist attack in Pahalgam... and based on the Council Statement of 25 April... India launched Operation Sindoor targeting terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK), which was focused, measured, and non-escalatory in nature. On achieving its primary objectives, a cessation of military activities was directly concluded at the request of Pakistan,” Harish said.
He stressed the principle of accountability in matters of cross-border terrorism. “There should also be a serious cost to states who violate the spirit of good neighbourliness and international relations by fomenting cross-border terrorism,” he added.
#WATCH | The statement of the Permanent Representative of India to the UN in New York, Ambassador Parvathaneni Harish, on promoting International Peace and Security through Multilateralism and Peaceful Settlement of Disputes.
— ANI (@ANI) July 23, 2025
He says, "As we complete 80 years of the United… pic.twitter.com/P09E3mEDSL
A measured rebuttal to Pakistan
Harish didn’t mince words while responding to the remarks made by Pakistan’s representative. “The Indian Sub Continent offers a stark contrast in terms of progress, prosperity and development models. On the one hand, there is India which is a mature democracy, a surging economy and a pluralistic and inclusive society. At the other extreme is Pakistan, steeped in fanaticism and terrorism, and a serial borrower from the IMF,” he said.
He followed up with a pointed comment: “It ill behoves a member of the Council to offer homilies while indulging in practices that are unacceptable to the international community.”
Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Mohammad Ishaq Dar, had earlier described Kashmir as “an internationally recognized disputed territory” and accused India of unilaterally placing the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance. He said, “No cosmetic measures can serve as a substitute for the fundamental and inalienable right of self-determination of the Kashmiris, as guaranteed by the relevant Security Council resolutions.”
Dar also criticised India's handling of the water-sharing agreement. “It is most unfortunate and regrettable that India has chosen to illegally and unilaterally hold this treaty in abeyance on baseless grounds, with the intention of withholding the flow of water to 240 million people of Pakistan, who rely on it for their livelihood and survival,” he said.
India defends bilateral mechanisms
India rejected this position unequivocally. Harish reminded the Council that the Indus Waters Treaty is a long-standing bilateral agreement that has survived difficult periods in India-Pakistan ties. He said such treaties should not be dragged into international forums, especially when one party fails to honour its obligations.
India also dismissed any suggestion that its sovereign rights over Jammu and Kashmir were up for debate. Harish said, “As we debate promoting International Peace and Security, it is essential to recognise that there are some fundamental principles which need to be universally respected, one of them is zero tolerance for terrorism.”
He added, “It ill behoves the member of the Council to offer homilies while indulging in practices that are unacceptable to the international community.”
Broader questions for the UN system
Beyond the India-Pakistan exchange, Harish pointed to a larger issue, the credibility and effectiveness of the UN itself. “There are serious question marks over the representativeness of the UN Security Council,” he said, reiterating India’s long-standing push for reform.
India also highlighted its commitment to peacekeeping. As the largest cumulative contributor to UN Peacekeeping forces, India has played a leading role, including in promoting the participation of women in peace missions.
This is not the first time Pakistan has attempted to raise Kashmir or the Indus Waters issue in international forums. But these moves have seen limited support globally. Most member states see both as matters to be addressed bilaterally. India’s calm but clear response reflects its intent to keep discussions grounded in facts and principles.
While Pakistan continues to project its domestic grievances outward, India’s position remains consistent: sovereignty is not negotiable, terrorism is not tolerable, and disputes should be settled directly, not through megaphone diplomacy.
India may have delivered its statement in the UN chamber, but its message was directed far beyond it.
You may also like
'I spent £3 on Greggs Too Good To Go Bag and was floored by what was in it'
Post Office: Money will double in this scheme, make 2 lakh rupees from 1 lakh..
Kartik Aaryan: Kartik Aaryan met Rajasthan Chief Minister Bhajanlal Sharma, video surfaced..
How to eliminate dandruff from the roots? Expert told to mix this spice in curd and apply it, the scalp will be cleaned
PM Modi Pays Tribute to Chandra Shekhar Azad on Birth Anniversary
