Pakistan slams India at UNGA over human rights abuses, state terrorism
Pakistan, in a strongly worded statement at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), accused India of widespread human rights abuses, religious persecution, and sponsoring terrorism within Pakistan.
Responding to remarks made earlier by the Indian representative, Second Secretary at Pakistan's Permanent Mission to the UN Rabia Ijaz said she was compelled to reply to what she termed a 'misleading and hypocritical narrative' presented by New Delhi.
'This is a classic case of an oppressor masquerading as the victim,' she said, adding that India had 'weaponised hate, normalised mob violence, and institutionalised discrimination' against its own citizens, particularly religious minorities, as well as against the people of Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK).
She rejected India's invocation of the principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), arguing that a state system built on exclusion and repression had 'no moral ground' to invoke such doctrines.
Read More: Pakistan assumes UNSC presidency today
The Pakistani diplomat stated that India, under the BJP-RSS nexus, had transformed into a 'majoritarian autocracy,' where Muslims, Christians, and Dalits were living under 'constant fear.'
She pointed to a spate of mob lynchings, the use of bulldozers for collective punishment, the demolition of mosques, and discriminatory laws that strip citizenship on religious grounds as evidence of systematic state-sponsored oppression.
On the Kashmir dispute, Rabia rejected India's claims that the region is an internal matter while reiterating Pakistan's long-standing position that Jammu and Kashmir is an internationally recognised disputed territory.
Citing UN Security Council resolutions — including 47 (1948), 91 (1951), and 122 (1957) — she said the people of Kashmir must be allowed to exercise their right to self-determination through a 'free and impartial plebiscite.'
'India had accepted these resolutions and is bound under Article 25 of the UN Charter to implement them,' she said. 'Its continued refusal is a persistent violation of international law.'
Ijaz also accused India of launching unprovoked attacks on civilian areas in Pakistan on May 6 and 7 this year, resulting in the deaths of 35 innocent people. She condemned the strikes as a violation of the UN Charter and international humanitarian law.
Also Read: Pakistan advances peace at UNSC
Raising the issue of children in conflict zones, the Pakistani representative noted India was responsible for the killing of 15 children in Pakistan in what she described as a 'massacre.' She urged the UN to document these incidents in all relevant reports, saying the attacks were not the result of military engagements but deliberate targeting of civilians.
Rabia further shared Indian involvement in a series of terrorist incidents inside Pakistan, ranging from the 2014 Army Public School attack to a recent assault on a school bus in Khuzdar.
She stated that Indian intelligence agencies were supporting banned outfits such as the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) in an ongoing 'covert war' against Pakistan.
'These are not mere accusations,' she said, adding, 'They are backed by documented evidence and public admissions made by former Indian officials.'
Concluding her address, the Pakistani envoy cautioned against the selective use of international principles, saying R2P must not become a 'slogan' for states that themselves engage in systematic oppression at home and destabilisation abroad.
'If the international community is truly committed to the principle of protection, it must begin by holding all perpetrators accountable — India included. There can be no exceptions, no blind spots, and no double standards,' she added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Reuters' X account withheld in India citing legal demand: reports
The official X (formerly Twitter) handle of international news agency Reuters has been withheld in India, reportedly 'in response to a legal demand,' Indian media reported on Sunday. Users attempting to access @Reuters and @ReutersWorld from within India were greeted with the message: 'Account withheld. @Reuters has been withheld in IN (India) in response to a legal demand.' While Indian media outlet The Print first reported the restriction took effect around midnight on July 6, the Indian government has denied issuing any recent legal directive related to Reuters' accounts. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) told India Today that no such request had been made, adding that the government was working with X to resolve what it termed a 'mistake' by the platform. 'There is no requirement from the Government of India to withhold the Reuters handle,' a ministry spokesperson told India Today. Citing official sources, Indian news agency PTI reported that the original demand for blocking Reuters' X account — along with several hundred others — dates back to Operation Sindoor, a military offensive launched in May during which India reportedly targeted sites in Pakistan. At the time, a number of social media accounts were withheld, though Reuters' had remained accessible until now. Government sources suggested that X appears to have acted on that earlier directive belatedly, possibly in error. Despite the restriction on the main handles, affiliated Reuters accounts — including @ReutersTech, @ReutersChina, @ReutersAsia, and @ReutersFacts — remain accessible within India. The agency's main website also remains unaffected. Reuters, which employs over 2,600 journalists in 165 countries, has not issued an official statement on the development. This is not the first time X has restricted access to accounts in India in response to legal demands. On May 8, 2025, the platform revealed it had received executive orders from the Indian government to block over 8,000 accounts. At the time, X said the orders included demands to block accounts belonging to international news organisations and prominent individuals — without specifying the posts in violation or providing sufficient evidence. The company, which was acquired by Elon Musk in 2022, has consistently expressed its disagreement with such demands, terming the blanket restrictions as censorship and a violation of free speech. 'Blocking entire accounts is not only unnecessary, it amounts to censorship of existing and future content,' X said in a May statement. However, it noted it was unable to publish the orders due to legal constraints.
Express Tribune
9 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Dalai Lama at 90: succession will not be dictated by China
Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama arrives for his visit to the Tibet Institute Rikon in Rikon, Switzerland September 21, 2018. PHOTO: REUTERS The spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists, the Dalai Lama, turns 90 on Sunday after a week of celebrations by followers during which he riled China again and spoke about his hope to live beyond 130 and reincarnate after dying. The Nobel laureate is regarded as one of the world's most influential religious leaders, with a following that extends well beyond Buddhism, but not by Beijing which calls him a separatist and has sought to bring the faith under its control. Fleeing his native Tibet in 1959 in the wake of a failed uprising against Chinese rule, the 14th Dalai Lama along with hundreds of thousands of Tibetans took shelter in India and has since advocated for a peaceful "Middle Way" to seek autonomy and religious freedom for Tibetan people. Thousands of followers from around the world, celebrities, and officials from the United States and India, will attend his birthday celebrations in Dharamshala, the small Indian town in the foothills of the Himalayas where the Dalai Lama lives. During the celebrations, which will include cultural performances and remarks by long-time follower and Hollywood star Richard Gere as well as federal Indian ministers, the Dalai Lama is scheduled to deliver a speech. The preceding week of celebrations was particularly important for Tibetan Buddhists as the Dalai Lama had previously mentioned that he would speak about his succession at his 90th birthday. On Wednesday, he allayed their concerns about the future of the institution of the Dalai Lama by saying that he would reincarnate as the leader of the faith upon his death and that his non-profit institution, the Gaden Phodrang Trust, had the sole authority to recognise his successor. China has said that the succession will have to be approved by its leaders. The United States, which is seeking to counter the rise of China, has called on Beijing to cease what it describes as interference in the succession of the Dalai Lama and other Tibetan Buddhist lamas.
Express Tribune
10 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Can uniform law survive a plural society?
Pakistan's parliament has passed the eagerly awaited Islamabad Capital Territory Child Marriage Restraint Act, 2025 restricting marriage below 18 years of age, meanwhile, the Council of Islamic Ideology and conservative parties have challenged the bill publically and in the Federal Sharia Court. Similar developments are seen in neighbouring India, which endangers the enforcement of rights in a completely different way. India's Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a bill pending in the Indian national assembly (Lok Sabha) which has long been a constitutional aspiration to standardise religious groups' personal laws in India. A version of it has been already passed in the Uttarakhand state assembly in 2024. Nevertheless, passing it is proving legally and politically difficult. At stake are not only questions of legal consistency and gender justice, but also deeper concerns about religious freedom, state overreach, and democratic erosion. In India, personal laws for Muslims, Christians, Jews and Parsis exist separately from the Hindu Code which governs personal laws for Buddhists, Hindus, Jains and Sikhs. Naturally, laws governing marriage and inheritance comply with religious edicts of these groups. This has occasionally brought conflict between state and religion – with the Indian Supreme Court's rulings nudging the country toward a UCC. An oft cited ruling is Shah Bano v Muhammad Ahmad Khan where a Muslim woman was given the right to marital support against Islamic custom. Essentially this allowed the state to interject in the personal matters of this Muslim couple to provide them protection, although later a law was passed to circumvent it – this was a cause for anxiety for minorities and aggravation for the majority who felt discriminated against for their own customs. Proponents of the UCC suggest that it would streamline and simplify personal laws across various spheres such as marriage, succession, guardianship and inheritance. The UCC is also popular with groups vying for gender equality, suggesting that UCC would protect women in cases of inheritance and ensure children are supported in cases of marriage dissolution or wedlock. Religious rights groups have argued that any such bill would intrude on the Freedom of Religion of citizens, especially the Muslim minority. Individuals are also concerned about the effects of eroding democratic institutions and breaking away from the secular tradition of India. Uttarakhand became the first state in India's modern history to enact a UCC. Its version sets minimum marriage ages, standardises divorce and inheritance rules, and, controversially, mandates registration of live-in relationships. Supporters argue that the law protects women and strengthens legal clarity. But petitions have already been filed challenging the law's constitutionality, and activists fear it could open the door to surveillance and moral policing. Several BJP-led states — including Gujarat, Assam, Telangana, and Uttar Pradesh — intend to follow suit. Gujarat formed a high-level committee to draft its own version of a UCC, with assurances that the drafting process would include public consultation. Khalid Anwar, a member of the legislative council and the BJP-ally Janata Dal party, spoke to the media, stating that 'We will never allow the UCC to be implemented in Bihar.' At the same time, opposition-ruled states like Kerala and West Bengal have rejected the UCC on the grounds that it would infringe on religious freedom and fail to accommodate local cultural diversity. In 2023, Kerala's legislative assembly passed a resolution opposing the proposed UCC, criticising the lack of public consultation. At the heart of the UCC debate is a question of uniformity versus pluralism. The legal foundations of state-level UCCs remain unsettled. Although the Supreme Court of India has occasionally given opinion in favour of a common civil code, legal scholars warn that multiple state-level UCCs may violate the spirit of Article 44 which envisions a uniform civil code for all citizens. This also invites questions about territoriality of the UCC, Article 245 of the constitution restricts states from making laws about the whole of India. India's Muslim leadership, rights activists, and tribal representatives argue that the UCC could be selectively enforced or used as a pretext for surveillance and control. Due to the registration requirements, vulnerable segments will be hesitant to accept the UCC. The targeting of practices such as polygamy and triple talaq, they argue, reinforces stereotypes about Muslim communities while sparing similar customs among tribal or Hindu populations. Critics note that polygamy is banned under the UCC for Muslims, yet Adivasi communities, who also practice polygamy, would be exempt. The BJP has positioned the UCC as a tool for gender equality, as a protector of women's rights. However, critics argue that these reforms are selectively framed and politically motivated. They point to a broader pattern of neglect and active hostility toward the Muslim community, casting doubt on the sincerity of the BJP's gender justice rhetoric. While some welcome the UCC's promise of equal rights in inheritance and marriage, many argue that reforms must empower women to choose — whether that means adhering to religious tradition or entering civil unions. Activists such as Adv Dr Shalu Nigam have called for a more inclusive approach that does not impose uniformity from above but rather expands the choices for marriage laws available to women across communities. The Uniform Civil Code in theory, offers a pathway toward standardising personal law and enhancing gender equality. In practice, its rollout has exposed the legal, political, and social complexities that must be examined. For India, the road is uncertain. The fragmented approach —where BJP-led states adopt state-level UCCs while opposition-ruled or minority-heavy states resist — raises difficult constitutional questions. The risk is not merely legal inconsistency, but broader social and political polarisation. By touching on personal matters, the UCC has already caused national debates on secularism, federalism, and minority rights. For Pakistanis, the UCC is a familiar echo. Questions of minority rights, majoritarian nationalism, and state overreach resonate deeply in a region where religion and politics often intertwine. Pakistan has been long criticised for its human rights record however the recent legislation to stop child marriages are encouraging and show the government's inclination towards protecting the rights of women. In India, the UCC represents both promise and peril: it could be a vehicle for greater legal equality or a flashpoint for division and unrest. Its success depends on whether it can be implemented without alienating vast segments of the population. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has flagged concerns about India's treatment of minorities, including the UCC. Moreover, religious freedom and democratic governance remain key pillars of India's soft power abroad —and the UCC being used to hinder human rights may complicate India's reputation as a leader internationally. The success of the UCC project will depend on legislative momentum, whether it can be implemented in a way that safeguards constitutional rights and respects India's pluralistic fabric. Without inclusivity, legal clarity, and social consensus, the law risks becoming a symbol of division. For both India and its democratic partners, the question is not just whether the UCC can be passed but whether it can be made just. A common civil code may promise equality, but in India, many — especially Muslims — see its implementation under the BJP as politically motivated. In Pakistan, orthodox forces openly block reforms in the name of faith. Though the dynamics differ, both countries reveal how personal law remains a battleground where religion, politics, and rights collide. As India moves forward with the UCC and Pakistan stalls on its own reforms, the region shows that legal equality cannot be achieved through legislation alone. It requires trust — and trust, once lost, is hard to legislate back. Sachal Jacob is a PhD candidate at the Georgia State University who has worked with various human rights platforms. He can be reached at sachaljacob95@ All facts and information are the sole responsibility of the author
