India on Sunday accused Pakistan of using allegations concerning the treatment of religious minorities in India to divert attention from its own record on minority rights, judicial independence and press freedom. Speaking during discussions at the United Nations General Assembly’s Sixth Committee on the rule of law at national and international levels, Indian diplomat Mythili R, a counsellor at India’s Permanent Mission to the UN, criticised Islamabad’s position and questioned its commitment to legal accountability.
Mythili alleged that Pakistan was advocating the rule of law internationally while undermining it domestically. She referred to concerns over judicial independence, the trial of civilians in military courts and the suppression of political opposition.
“At the UN, Pakistan lectures others on the rule of law. Yet at home, the Army is the rule, and the Army is the law,” she said, according to a statement shared by India’s Permanent Mission to the UN. Her remarks challenged Pakistan’s criticism of India and placed the focus on the functioning of its own institutions.
India Raises Questions Over Minority Rights and Press Freedom
Addressing Pakistan’s claims concerning minority rights, Mythili pointed to what she described as a steady decline in the proportion of minorities in Pakistan’s population since the country’s creation. She questioned Islamabad’s criticism of India, arguing that Pakistan should address concerns about its own record rather than repeatedly raise allegations against its neighbour.
The Indian diplomat also raised concerns about press freedom in Pakistan, referring to Foreign Media Facilitation Guidelines issued by Pakistan’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. According to the account, foreign media organisations are required to obtain a “No-Objection Certificate” to report freely outside Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi.
Mythili argued that Pakistan had repeatedly failed to uphold the principles of the rule of law. She said the obligation associated with the rule of law was to ensure that those in positions of power acted in the interests of the people they governed.
“The rule of law bestows an obligation upon those in positions of power to do good for those they govern. However, in the case of Pakistan, unfortunately, this promise is broken again and again,” she said.
She also rejected the suggestion that India was preoccupied with Pakistan, asserting that the focus on India was coming from Islamabad.
India Defends Operation Sindoor
The exchange at the UN also brought the two countries’ opposing positions on cross-border terrorism into focus. Mythili defended India’s response to the Pahalgam terror attack in 2025, in which 26 people were killed, describing Operation Sindoor as measured and proportionate.
She urged Pakistan to stop repeating what she characterised as baseless allegations against India, arguing that such statements would not absolve Pakistani representatives of accountability for commitments made to their own people.
Commenting on Pakistan’s claims regarding the outcome of the military confrontation, Mythili said: “As far as the result of the same is concerned, if bombed airfields and destroyed hangars are victory, they are welcome to enjoy it.”
Her remarks reflected New Delhi’s rejection of Pakistan’s account of the confrontation and its defence of the operation as a response to the Pahalgam attack.
India Reiterates Position on Terrorism and Nuclear Blackmail
The latest exchange followed India’s response on Saturday to Pakistan’s remarks before the UN General Assembly’s First Committee, where discussions included disarmament and international security.
India’s First Secretary Anmol Sher Singh Bedi stated that the country’s military posture was defensive and guided by its own security requirements rather than directed against any particular country. He described India’s response to the Pahalgam attack as “measured, targeted, and non-escalatory”, maintaining that it was an exercise of the country’s right to self-defence.
Bedi outlined three principles guiding India’s stated position on terrorism and nuclear escalation. He said any terrorist attack against India would receive a fitting response, that India would not bow to nuclear blackmail, and that New Delhi would make no distinction between those who sponsor terrorism and those who mastermind it.
He further argued that states could not avoid responsibility for supporting militant groups by operating through non-state actors. Such arrangements, he said, did not diminish India’s right to defend itself.
Addressing the risks associated with nuclear escalation, Bedi said that the conduct of states, rather than their rhetoric, should be the basis for assessing escalation concerns. He cautioned against treating nuclear weapons as a routine instrument of statecraft and argued that relying on a nuclear threat to limit the consequences of sub-conventional activity increased escalation risks rather than promoting restraint.
Bedi also criticised what he described as a recurring pattern during regional crises, involving provocation, denial of responsibility and subsequent calls for restraint after retaliation. He argued that a lack of accountability among those in power could turn crises into instruments of political authority and make instability a means of exercising power.
Reaffirming India’s stated commitment to peace, Bedi said New Delhi did not seek conflict but would respond to threats. He concluded that without accountability for reckless actions, peace risked becoming only a pause between crises.
The exchanges at the UN highlighted the continuing diplomatic dispute between India and Pakistan over minority rights, democratic accountability, press freedom and cross-border terrorism. India’s representatives used the discussions to challenge Pakistan’s criticism of New Delhi, defend Operation Sindoor and reiterate that India’s security decisions would be guided by its own requirements and its stated right to self-defence.
