India hits Pakistan over rule of law at UN, defends Operation Sindoor after Pahalgam attack

India on Sunday accused Pakistan of deflecting attention from its own treatment of minorities, its record on judicial independence and its curbs on the media, after Islamabad raised questions about religious minorities in India at the United Nations General Assembly. Speaking at the Sixth Committee debate on the rule of law at national and international levels, Indian diplomat Mythili R, a counsellor at India’s Permanent Mission to the UN, said Pakistan was portraying itself as a champion of legality abroad while failing to uphold those standards at home.

Mythili’s intervention came amid another sharp exchange between New Delhi and Islamabad at the UN, with both sides using the forum to contest each other’s claims over minority rights, terrorism and state conduct. India’s remarks were framed as a direct rebuttal to Pakistan’s criticism of India, while also pressing Islamabad on allegations concerning the role of its military, restrictions on political opposition and the state of its institutions.

“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 issued by India’s Permanent Mission to the UN. The comment was aimed at countering Pakistan’s criticism of India and shifting the focus to what India described as the functioning of Pakistan’s own domestic institutions.

India counters Pakistan’s minority-rights allegations

Mythili also responded to Pakistan’s claims on minority rights by pointing to what she described as a persistent decline in the proportion of minorities in Pakistan’s population since the country’s creation. She argued that instead of repeatedly raising allegations against India, Pakistan should confront its own record on religious freedom and minority protections.

India’s representative further questioned Pakistan’s press-freedom credentials, citing Foreign Media Facilitation Guidelines issued by Pakistan’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Under those rules, foreign media organisations are required to obtain a “No-Objection Certificate” to report freely outside Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi, a restriction India cited as evidence of controls on journalism and reporting.

Mythili said Pakistan had repeatedly failed to live up to the principles of the rule of law and argued that the core obligation of that principle was to ensure that those in power act in the interests of the people they govern. “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 dismissed the notion that India was obsessed with Pakistan, saying the repeated focus on India was in fact coming from Islamabad.

Operation Sindoor and the Pahalgam attack

The UN exchange also brought India and Pakistan’s competing accounts of cross-border terrorism into sharper focus. Mythili defended India’s response to the Pahalgam terror attack in 2025, in which 26 people were killed, and described Operation Sindoor as measured and proportionate.

She urged Pakistan to stop repeating what India views as baseless allegations against it, saying such claims would not erase accountability for commitments made by Pakistani representatives to their own citizens.

Commenting on Pakistan’s description 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 comments reflected New Delhi’s rejection of Islamabad’s account of the confrontation and its insistence that Operation Sindoor was a response to the Pahalgam attack.

India’s broader message on terrorism and nuclear blackmail

The latest exchange followed India’s response on Saturday to Pakistan’s comments before the UN General Assembly’s First Committee, where delegations were discussing disarmament and international security. India’s First Secretary Anmol Sher Singh Bedi said India’s military posture was defensive and driven by its own security requirements rather than directed at any particular country.

Bedi described India’s response to the Pahalgam attack as “measured, targeted, and non-escalatory”, and said it was an exercise of India’s right to self-defence. He set out three principles guiding India’s position: any terrorist attack on India would receive a fitting response, India would not bow to nuclear blackmail, and New Delhi would make no distinction between those who sponsor terrorism and those who mastermind it.

He also argued that states could not avoid responsibility for supporting militant groups by relying on non-state actors, saying such arrangements did not weaken India’s right to defend itself. On the issue of nuclear escalation, Bedi said it was state conduct, not rhetoric, that should determine how escalation risks are assessed. He warned against treating nuclear weapons as a routine instrument of statecraft and said invoking nuclear threats to limit the consequences of sub-conventional activity only raised the risk of escalation.

Bedi criticised what he described as a recurring pattern during regional crises: provocation, denial of responsibility and then appeals for restraint after retaliation. He said that when those in power lack accountability, crises can become tools of political authority and instability itself can be used as 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 could become merely a pause between crises.

The exchanges at the UN highlighted the continuing diplomatic confrontation between India and Pakistan over minority rights, democratic accountability, press freedom and cross-border terrorism. India’s representatives used the debate to reject Pakistan’s criticism of New Delhi, defend Operation Sindoor and reiterate that India’s security decisions would be shaped by its own requirements and its stated right to self-defence.