India hits back at Pakistan at UN, rejects 'false' Op Sindoor narrative, asserts 'no locus standi' on J-K

India Rejects Pakistan's "False Narrative" on Military Operation

India has mounted a forceful response to Pakistan's accusations regarding Operation Sindoor at the United Nations, with New Delhi's Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Parvathaneni Harish, directly challenging what he characterized as Islamabad's "false and self-serving account" of the military operation. During the Security Council proceedings, Harish emphasized that the facts surrounding the operation were clear and well-documented, rejecting Pakistan's framing of events with considerable force. India's diplomatic offensive came in response to Pakistan's own statements at the UN General Debate, where Islamabad had criticized India's military response and called for investigations into what Pakistan referred to as the "Pelgam incident." The exchange highlights the deep divide between the two nations over the characterization and justification of the May 2025 military operation.

"Measured and Responsible" Response, India Insists

India's representative described Operation Sindoor as a "measured, non-escalatory, and responsible" military response specifically aimed at "dismantling the terrorist infrastructure and disabling terrorists." Harish pointed to concrete evidence of the operation's scope, referencing "images of destroyed runways and burnt-out hangars" at Pakistani airbases that he characterized as being "in the public domain." According to India's account, the military operation was a calibrated response to threats emanating from Pakistani territory, with the Indian government maintaining that such action was necessary to protect its citizens from cross-border terrorism. India further claimed that Pakistan itself initiated requests for a ceasefire, with the Pakistani military allegedly "pleading for a cessation to the fighting" on May 10, thereby effectively acknowledging the severity of the situation.

Terrorism Cannot Be "Normalized," India Declares

A central theme of India's UN response was the assertion that terrorism cannot and should not be normalized or legitimized at international forums. This statement directly challenged what India perceives as Pakistan's attempt to reframe its support for militant organizations as a standard aspect of regional politics. India's argument centered on the principle that state-sponsored terrorism represents a fundamental violation of international norms and cannot be accepted as a legitimate policy instrument, regardless of geopolitical considerations or bilateral disputes.

Terrorism can never be normalised as Pakistan wishes to do. It is not normal to tolerate Pakistan's continued use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy.

Broader Diplomatic and Structural Concerns

Beyond the immediate dispute over Operation Sindoor, India's UN intervention also touched upon larger systemic issues within the international organization itself. Ambassador Harish called for sweeping reforms of the UN Security Council, arguing that the current structure reflects "a geopolitical reality of a bygone era" and has become paralyzed in addressing contemporary conflicts effectively. India pressed for expansion of the Security Council in both permanent and non-permanent categories, asserting that global governance structures must evolve to remain "effective and credible" in a rapidly changing world. The representative also emphasized that the rule of law carries little weight without enforceability, urging a shift toward "pragmatic solutions and outcomes that positively impact the daily lives of our citizens." India further reiterated its position on the Indus Waters Treaty, stating that it remains in abeyance until Pakistan "credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism."

Pakistan's Counterclaim and Regional Tensions

Pakistan's position, articulated through its statements at the UN General Debate, presented a markedly different narrative of events. Islamabad condemned what it described as India's "unwarranted aggression" from May 7 to 10, 2025, and alleged that India's military actions resulted in the killing of "innocent men, women, and children." Pakistan characterized itself as having "maintained a principled and calibrated approach before, during and after the conflict, avoiding harm to civilian and civilian infrastructure." The Pakistani delegation also raised concerns about India's management of shared water resources, accusing India of weaponizing water through its handling of the Indus Waters Treaty, which affects the livelihoods of approximately 240 million people in Pakistan. These competing narratives underscore the fundamental disagreement between the two nations over both the causes and consequences of the May 2025 military confrontation.

Sovereignty and Kashmir Assertions

India has consistently and firmly reasserted its position on Jammu and Kashmir, with government spokespersons declaring that "the entire union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh are an integral and inalienable part of India." This assertion directly counters Pakistan's longstanding claims regarding Kashmir's status and reflects India's rejection of any international mediation or third-party involvement in what New Delhi considers a purely domestic matter. India has also formally protested Chinese activities in what it considers disputed territory, reserving "the right to take necessary measures to safeguard our interests." The emphasis on Kashmir sovereignty forms a critical component of India's broader diplomatic messaging, serving as a foundation for its arguments against Pakistan's international campaigns and attempts to internationalize bilateral disputes.

The escalating diplomatic confrontation at the UN illustrates the persistent tensions between India and Pakistan, with both nations utilizing international forums to advance competing narratives about military operations, terrorism, and regional security. India's forceful rejection of Pakistan's characterization of Operation Sindoor, combined with its broader calls for UN reform and reassertions of sovereignty over Kashmir, reflects New Delhi's determination to shape the international discourse surrounding their bilateral relationship. Meanwhile, Pakistan's counter-narrative emphasizing civilian casualties, water security, and alleged Indian aggression demonstrates Islamabad's parallel effort to secure international sympathy and support for its position. These exchanges suggest that the underlying disputes between the two nations remain unresolved and will likely continue to generate friction at international diplomatic venues.