Summary
Indian diplomat Petal Gahlot launched a strong counter-attack against Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s remarks at the UN General Assembly, calling Pakistan’s stance ‘absurd theatrics’ and accusing Islamabad of making terrorism ‘central to their foreign policy.’ The exchange followed Pakistan’s claim of having ‘won the war’ against India.
India has delivered a forceful rebuttal to Pakistan at the United Nations General Assembly, rejecting Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s characterization of recent military engagements and his portrayal of Pakistan as a victim of Indian aggression. Indian diplomat Petal Gahlot, exercising India’s right of reply at the 80th UNGA session, launched a sharp counter-attack against Pakistan’s claims, calling them “absurd theatrics” and accusing Islamabad of “once again glorifying terrorism.
Historic Context
The current exchange builds upon decades of India-Pakistan tensions, particularly regarding cross-border terrorism. Pakistan’s historical support for militant groups operating in Kashmir has long been a point of contention. The mention of Osama bin Laden’s decade-long refuge in Pakistan before his 2011 killing echoes previous diplomatic confrontations. Operation Sindoor appears to be India’s most significant military response since the 2019 Balakot airstrikes following the Pulwama attack, though with reportedly more extensive military engagement.
Event Detail
During his UN address, Sharif claimed Pakistan had faced “unprovoked aggression” from India earlier this year, referring to Operation Sindoor, and declared that Pakistan’s armed forces had “repelled the attack with stunning professionalism, bravery and acumen,” adding “we have won the war and now we seek to win peace.
Gahlot responded with pointed criticism, stating: “If destroyed runways and burnt-out hangars look like victory, as the Prime Minister claimed, Pakistan is welcome to enjoy it.” She referenced photographic evidence of damage to Pakistani military infrastructure, noting that on May 10, Pakistan’s military “pleaded with us directly for a cessation to the fighting.”
The Indian diplomat directly challenged Pakistan’s stance on terrorism, stating it is “central to their foreign policy” and exposing Pakistan for protecting ‘The Resistance Front,’ a terror outfit responsible for the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 people. “No degree of drama and no level of lies can conceal the facts,” Gahlot stated. “This is the very same Pakistan which, at the UN Security Council on 25 April 2025, shielded ‘The Resistance Front,’ a Pakistani-sponsored terror outfit, from the responsibility of carrying out the barbaric massacre of tourists in Jammu and Kashmir.”
Gahlot also recalled Pakistan’s history of harboring terrorists, mentioning how the country “sheltered Osama bin Laden for a decade, even while pretending to partner in the war against terrorism.” Sharif had claimed Pakistan’s foreign policy is based on “peace, mutual respect and cooperation” and called for “proactive rather than provocative leadership” in South Asia. In response, Gahlot laid out clear conditions: “If he is indeed sincere, the pathway is clear. Pakistan must immediately shut down all terrorist camps and hand over to us the terrorists wanted in India.” The exchange also addressed Pakistan’s claim about US President Donald Trump “facilitating a ceasefire” between the nations. Sharif stated that “President Trump’s efforts for peace helped avert a more threatening war in South Asia,” suggesting that without his intervention, the consequences would have been “catastrophic.” India firmly rejected this narrative, with Gahlot reiterating that any outstanding issues with Pakistan “will be addressed bilaterally” and there is “no room for any third party.”
This continues India’s longstanding position of denying claims that Trump brokered a ceasefire following Operation Sindoor. Sharif had also raised concerns about the abeyance of the Indus Waters Treaty, accusing India of holding water “illegally” and stating that any violation represents “an act of war.” The treaty was suspended following the Pahalgam terror attack. In her concluding remarks, Gahlot emphasized India’s uncompromising stance on terrorism: “India made it clear that when it comes to terrorism, there will be no distinction between the terrorists and their sponsors. Both will be held accountable. Nor will we allow terrorism to be practised under the cover of nuclear blackmail. India will never bow to such threats. India’s message to the world is clear; there must be zero tolerance for terrorism.” The diplomatic exchange comes amid heightened tensions following Operation Sindoor, India’s military response to the Pahalgam attack, and underscores the deep mistrust between the two nuclear-armed neighbors despite occasional diplomatic overtures.
Current Situtation
Tensions remain high between the two nations following Operation Sindoor in May 2025. While Pakistan claims to have ‘won the war,’ India’s position at the UN suggests a decisive military outcome favoring India, with references to damaged Pakistani runways and hangars. The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty indicates a complete breakdown in water-sharing cooperation that has historically survived previous military conflicts. Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif’s recent fumbled speech at the UN Security Council referencing AI in warfare suggests continued military tensions, though Pakistan appears to be struggling with diplomatic messaging.
Global Implication
The exchange highlights the limitations of third-party mediation in India-Pakistan relations, with India firmly rejecting any role for external actors like the United States. India’s consistent message of ‘zero tolerance for terrorism’ aligns with global counterterrorism norms, though the effectiveness of this stance depends on convincing the international community of Pakistan’s continued support for terrorist groups. The reference to AI in warfare during Pakistan’s separate UNSC appearance indicates how emerging technologies are becoming new dimensions in the longstanding conflict.
