The recent developments at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) have turned into a diplomatic embarrassment for Pakistan. In an attempt to internationalize the Kashmir issue by raising the Pahalgam terror attack in a closed-door UNSC meeting, Pakistan found itself at the receiving end of tough questions and criticism from other member states. What was intended to be a move against India instead exposed Pakistan’s own inconsistencies on terrorism and regional stability.
Background: Pakistan’s Bid to Corner India
Currently a non-permanent member of the UNSC for the 2025–26 term, Pakistan tried to exploit its position by pushing for an urgent discussion on the recent terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir. The attack, which tragically targeted Hindu pilgrims, was condemned widely. However, Pakistan took an unsubstantiated stance, alleging that the incident was a “false flag operation” orchestrated by India itself — a claim meant to paint India as the aggressor and revive global attention on the Kashmir dispute.
Pakistan’s goal was two-fold:
- Reignite international interest in the Kashmir issue.
- Divert attention away from India’s possible military response and actions following the attack.
UNSC Turns the Tables
Rather than gaining sympathy, Pakistan’s narrative was firmly rejected. Instead of issuing strong statements against India, the UNSC members questioned Pakistan’s handling of terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) — the group India blames for the Pahalgam attack.
Key concerns raised by the UNSC members included:
- What concrete steps has Pakistan taken to dismantle terror networks like LeT?
- Why does Hafiz Saeed, LeT’s chief and a globally designated terrorist, continue to receive protection from Pakistan’s intelligence agency (ISI)?
- How does Pakistan justify hosting such entities despite existing UN designations?
These pointed queries exposed Pakistan’s duplicity in dealing with terrorism, especially when such groups operate freely on its soil.
Religious Targeting Condemned
The UNSC unequivocally condemned the religious targeting involved in the attack, where Hindu pilgrims were deliberately chosen as victims. This dimension of the violence was labelled a gross violation of human rights, making Pakistan’s accusations against India even less credible. The Council stressed that attacks based on religious identity are unacceptable under international norms.
Missile Tests Raise Alarm
In a surprising turn, Pakistan also found itself questioned for its recent missile launches — particularly the Abdali ballistic missile and Fateh-1 surface-to-surface missile. These tests were conducted near the Karachi coast amidst heightened regional tensions.
UNSC members expressed serious concerns over:
- The timing of the missile launches, which appeared provocative.
- Pakistan’s intentions in escalating an already volatile situation rather than helping defuse it.
- The inconsistency of calling for peace while demonstrating aggressive military posturing.
Rather than being seen as a responsible player seeking de-escalation, Pakistan came across as intentionally trying to provoke a reaction from India.
Advice to Pakistan: Resolve Bilaterally
In a diplomatic snub, UNSC members advised Pakistan to resolve all issues bilaterally with India, citing the Shimla Agreement (1972) and the Lahore Declaration (1999). Both these historic documents emphasize that India and Pakistan must address disputes through direct dialogue and without third-party interference.
It is important to note that Pakistan had recently attempted to reject the Shimla Agreement — a move not recognized by other nations. The UNSC’s reminder highlights the continued relevance and binding nature of these agreements.
Conclusion: A Diplomatic Miscalculation
Pakistan’s attempt to frame India as the aggressor at the UNSC backfired spectacularly. Far from gaining international support, Islamabad faced intense scrutiny over its own counter-terrorism failures and military provocations.
This episode underscores a shifting global narrative: India is increasingly seen as a responsible global actor, while Pakistan continues to face questions over its associations with terrorism and regional instability. Rather than isolating India, Pakistan’s actions have only isolated itself further.
Follow Fusion IAS
