Pahalgam Attack | Counterproductive to club China and Pakistan in India’s UN discourse

The MEA’s efforts since 2011 at the UN are reflected in the UNSC statement condemning the Pahalgam terror attack.

The response of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to the terrorist attack in Pahalgam is a magnificent example of how far India has come in permanently influencing UN bodies in its favour despite the failure of New Delhi’s efforts to get a permanent seat in the council.

It does not serve India’s cause in global diplomacy that domestic discourse is nitpicking on whether China watered down the UNSC’s response to Pahalgam or if Beijing and Islamabad acted in concert to diminish outcomes in New Delhi’s favour. India got a good deal from the UNSC, although Pakistan is now an elected member.

Imagine that the Pahalgam attack had taken place 15 years ago. The UNSC would have, no doubt, condemned the terrorist action, but the condemnation would have been accompanied by a sermon to India to be mindful of human rights its Kashmir. The UNSC would have also tied India’s hands — to the extent possible — in considering any retaliation against Pakistan. That was then the norm in the UNSC chamber.

Look what happened when Benazir Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, was assassinated in December 2007. It was not just one more tragedy in Pakistan’s blighted history, it was a murder that was mourned worldwide. This became so because of Bhutto’s pedigree, her international stature, and her celebrity status from a young age when she was introduced to the world in Shimla by her politician-father.  

The UNSC promptly issued a statement on Bhutto’s assassination. But it had a sermon for Pakistan along with condolences. ‘The Security Council calls on all Pakistanis to exercise restraint,’ the response read. Gratuitously, the UNSC advised Pakistan to ‘maintain stability in the country.’ What business does the UNSC have to lecture Pakistanis in their moment of national grief!

Pakistan was not alone in being a victim of big power high-handedness in the UNSC in those days. Every time Pakistan engaged in a serious act of cross-border terrorism, India got an unwarranted sermon from the horseshoe table — emblematic of the 15-member UNSC — on human rights, democracy, and similar ‘values’. Going to the UNSC has always been a double-edged sword, as India very well knows from its 1948 Kashmir experience.

Remember the 2005 terrorist attack in Bali, which shattered peace in the tourist paradise and killed and injured 150 people? At the UN, Indonesia got a sermon too that it needed to be refashioned in a pro-democracy, humanistic image. Only the Western powers and the Big Five — permanent members of the UNSC — were exceptions to this rule. No one around the horseshoe table gave them any sermons. They got a free pass from the UNSC, their hands were not tied in any retaliation. They could do as they pleased.

Well, this changed in 2011-2012 when India became an elected member of the UNSC after a gap of 20 years. In July 2011, Mumbai was hit by serial bombs, which killed 26 people and injured 130. The UNSC met in the ‘Consultations Room’ to condemn terrorism, and as usual, to remind India of its obligations to uphold human rights. Hardeep Singh Puri, who was then India’s Permanent Representative to the UN, angrily banged the table during a particularly contentious consultation meeting and said India was not going to put up with these double standards anymore. The Europeans dug in their heels. The UNSC was deadlocked.

Susan Rice, who was then the United States Permanent Representative in New York, held ‘informal consultations’ among UNSC members. She told them that India would not be party to any statement that included references other than to terrorism. Under UN rules, UNSC statements to the press have to be approved by all its 15 members. India dissented, and several elected members joined Puri in his determination to end double standards on terrorism.

In the end, the UNSC statement on Mumbai simply read: ‘The members of the Security Council reiterated their determination to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations.’ In September 2011, a bomb went off in the Delhi High Court, killing 15 people and injuring almost 80. The UNSC quickly issued a statement that ‘any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed.’ No strings attached.

It is necessary to recall these pages from history because Pakistan is now a member of the UNSC. If Puri had not set a precedent — which has subsequently been faithfully followed — Islamabad would have led in injecting human rights into the UNSC statement on Pahalgam. Pakistan is helpless now. It is counterproductive to club China and Pakistan in India’s current UN discourse. China does not support terrorism, and human rights are a red rag for Beijing.

(K P Nayar has extensively covered West Asia and reported from Washington as a foreign correspondent for 15 years.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.