India need not be defensive about Pakistan at UN

Pakistan is currently a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). It has been made chair of the committee established under the council's Resolution 1988 of 2011. The committee is generally called the Taliban committee. Pakistan has also become vice-chair of the counter-terrorism committee established under UNSC Resolution 1373 of 2001. Both these committees seek to staunch the flow of funds to terrorists.In the current charged India-Pakistan atmosphere, in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, Pakistan has taken these UNSC designations on June 4 as a mark of diplomatic success. Taking to social media platform X, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif proudly wrote: "These key appointments validate the international community's confidence and trust in Pakistan's counter-terrorism credentials as well as an acknowledgement of our strong will and unwavering commitment to eradicate this global menace."This is utter nonsense because, as the cognoscenti know, the designation of heading 'committees of the whole'— meaning all 15 council members are also members of these committees — is a chore and does not give any substantial or substantive leverage to those who are their chairs, leave alone, vice-chairs. Hence, the permanent five (P5) UNSC members allow the non-permanent members take these positions, but do not always meet their choices.Thus, for instance, neither India nor Pakistan have ever been chairs of the UNSC 1267 committee which lists Al Qaeda and ISIS individuals and entities as terrorists. In doing so, it marks out the 'listed' and expects all countries to catch and prosecute them if they are in their territory.With the Afghan Taliban in power in Kabul since August 2021, the importance of the 1988 committee has naturally diminished, though, as chair, Pakistan may try to use it to pressure Kabul. These designations can, therefore, be used for domestic publicity, not diplomatic advantage.In the face of these diplomatic realities, it is inexplicable that India has taken Pakistani chest-thumping seriously and become defensive. India should merely have said that these were routine designations and did not mean that Pakistan has not incubated, harboured and sponsored terrorist groups for over three and a half decades.Instead, Raksha Mantri Rajnath Singh criticised the international community for these designations; thus, giving them importance where none was needed. West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee called the designations as a mark of India's diplomatic failure.Indian diplomats in New York, perhaps on instructions from Delhi, gave long, non-attributable clarifications to sections of the Indian media that the council members did not meet Pakistan's demand to become chair of the UNSC 1267 committee. Besides, its demands delayed the process of the committees' formation for months. Ultimately, Pakistan was only put on committees of low significance and was also not made chair of the 1373 committee, as India had been in the past.Clearly, the political as well as 'technical' routes adopted by India to refute Pakistani claims were aimed at preventing opposition parties from asserting that these UNSC designations showed the failure of Indian diplomacy. They have done so nevertheless, as seen by Mamata Banerjee's reaction.Perhaps, the designations got greater profile because they occurred while the seven all-party delegations' trips were on or had just concluded. Hence, the government's defensiveness stemmed from domestic, and not diplomatic, considerations.The international community does not equate India and Pakistan on the issue of terrorism. Indeed, it cannot do so because Pakistan's three-and-a-half-decade long nurturing of Islamist organisations wedded to terror is well recognised. These groups include the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) and the Jaish-e-Mohamad (JeM), whose record of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere in India is known worldwide. Indeed, backed by the Pakistani intelligence agencies, the LeT's Mumbai terrorist attack of November 26, 2008 is embedded in international memory, especially, of those who deal with terrorism issues.Unfortunately, at present, global terrorism is not a priority because the international community is grappling with the ongoing traumas inflicted by Trump and his policy and actions.While India should maturely dismiss the UNSC designations to Pakistan as just routine ones, it needs to evaluate if the Nijjar case in Canada and the Pannun case in the US have made an impact on the perception of India's time-honoured and firm position against global criminality and use of violence.Relations with Canada, which had reached the lowest ever point because of the immature manner in which former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau handled the Nijjar issue, have now the potential to be restored to a semblance of normalcy because Trudeau's successor Mark Carney has invited Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the G7 outreach. Modi has accepted the invitation and will be travelling to Canada.Clearly, the Canadians do not have any evidence to substantiate Trudeau's allegations of the potential involvement of 'agents of the Government of India' in Nijjar's killing.On the other hand, the Pannun case is in a US court. While neither India nor the US have allowed it to impact general bilateral ties, has it effected the western and other intelligence agencies' outlook towards India?Pakistan keeps making allegations regarding India's relations with the Balochi militant groups and also the Tehreek-e-Taliban-Pakistan (TTP). These groups have taken up arms against the Pakistan state. Their struggle against the Pakistan state is purely indigenous. Significant sections of the Balochi people have never reconciled to Pakistan's forced amalgamation of the state of Kalat whose territories comprised the major part of what is now Pakistan's Balochistan province. The ongoing insurgency is the fifth one, which the Baluch resistance groups have undertaken against the Pakistan state.Hence, while there is no comparison between the Baloch groups wedded to nationalism and the Islamist LeT and JeM organisations, India must always carefully monitor Pakistani allegations regarding its so-called connections with Baloch groups to ascertain if they are making an impression on the thinking of important intelligence agencies and the international diplomatic community. The TTP has the support of the Afghan Taliban, but Pakistani claims on its Indian connection also have to be carefully followed.In the diplomatic game, nothing should be left to chance but ghosts should not be given flesh, blood and bones.Vivek Katju is former Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs.

India need not be defensive about Pakistan at UN

Vivek Katju

Unlock Premium Insights in This Article