India rejects Pakistan's remarks on J&K at UN Security Council meeting
India on Tuesday rejected what it called “unwarranted” remarks by Pakistan on Jammu and Kashmir during an informal United Nations Security Council meeting, asserting that the Union Territory is a matter strictly internal to India.
India's Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Parvathaneni Harish, made the remarks at an Arria-formula meeting on 'Bridging the Implementation Gap: Security Council Resolutions and the Maintenance of International Peace and Security', organised by the Permanent Missions of Pakistan and China.
“I also refer to the unwarranted remarks made by the representative of Pakistan. It is incredible that a co-chair expected to be balanced and unbiased in conduct has chosen to politicise this forum,” Mr. Harish said.
“I would only like to stress, for brevity of time, that the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is a matter strictly internal to India. It has always been, is, and will remain so,” he added.
Mr. Harish's remarks came after Pakistan's Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, raised the Jammu and Kashmir issue during his intervention.
Pakistan is currently serving an elected two-year term as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council for 2025 and 2026.
India has consistently maintained that the entire Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh are and will always remain an integral and inalienable part of the country. Relations between India and Pakistan have remained strained over the Kashmir issue, with New Delhi firmly rejecting any third-party mediation.
Arria-formula meetings are informal and confidential gatherings that allow Security Council members and invited participants to exchange views in a flexible setting. The format originated in 1992, named after former Venezuelan ambassador Diego Arria.
Elaborating on the broader subject under discussion, Mr. Harish said the UN Security Council is entrusted with the maintenance of international peace and security, and that the UN Charter provides distinct mechanisms for addressing conflicts under Chapters VI and VII. He noted that these two Chapters are distinct in nature and their applicability varies.
Mr. Harish said Chapter VII measures are “aimed at maintenance or restoration of international peace and security” in situations involving threats to peace, breaches of peace and acts of aggression, and their non-implementation could lead to “serious consequences”. Chapter VI, he said, is “fundamentally different” and offers a wide-ranging set of options to deal with situations whose continuance is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.
Proposed tools under Chapter VI include negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, and arbitration, after taking into account any procedures that may have already been adopted bilaterally by the parties concerned.
“These interventions are drawn up in order to address the prevailing realities and do not have perpetual validity. They warrant a review in accordance with changing circumstances and contexts,” Mr. Harish said.
“Multi-decadal issues on the UNSC agenda offer valuable lessons in this regard. A case in point is the Palestine issue, wherein a defining feature is the constant churn of mediation frameworks in tune with the changing circumstances of the conflict. There exists an undeniable case for reviewing outdated mediation frameworks. Any assumption of the perpetual applicability of a Chapter VI mediation intervention is erroneous to say the least,” he added.
India also underlined that, as member states undertake reviews of UN General Assembly mandates under the UN80 initiative to improve efficiency, there is no reason why Security Council mandates should remain outside the scope of such reviews.
