What Shashi Tharoor Said On Pakistan At United Nations Anti-Terror Panels
Washington:
India is not friendless in the UN Security Council and Pakistan chairing its Taliban Sanctions Committee and being named vice-chair of the Counter-Terrorism Committee is a designation without much practical consequence, Congress leader Shashi Tharoor has said.
Tharoor is leading a multi-party Parliamentary delegation to the US to brief key interlocutors about the threat of Pakistan-backed terrorism faced by India and India's strong resolve against terrorism.
"These committees all work on consensus and it's not really possible for a chairman to single-handedly get something through that the others resist or push a particular line that other countries are not in favour of," Tharoor said during an interaction at the Indian Embassy here on Thursday.
Pakistan, a non-permanent member of the Security Council for the 2025-26 term, will chair the Council's Taliban Sanctions Committee for 2025 and will be vice-chair of the Counter-Terrorism Committee of the 15-nation UN organ.
Guyana and Russia will be vice-chair of the 1988 Taliban Sanctions Committee. Algeria will chair the 1373 Counter-Terrorism Committee while France and Russia will be the other vice-chairs.
Pakistan will also be co-chair of the Informal Working Groups on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions and on the General UNSC Sanctions Issues.
India has consistently reminded the international community that Pakistan is host to the world's largest number of UN-proscribed terrorists and entities. Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan's Abbottabad for years and was killed in an operation by the US Navy Seals in May 2011. During the Parliamentary delegation's interaction at the Embassy with think tankers and young professionals, Tharoor was asked about Pakistan chairing the two UNSC sanctions committees.
Noting that there are half a dozen counterterrorism committees of the UNSC, he said that Council members take turns presiding over such bodies. "So as long as Pakistan is on the Security Council, this kind of "privilege" might come their way... We are not exactly friendless on the Security Council, so we're fairly confident that that is going to be a designation without much practical consequence," he said.
He underlined that India's Permanent Mission to the UN in New York will monitor this carefully. On Wednesday, during a press conference at the Embassy, responding to a question by PTI on Pakistan given charge of the two committees, Tharoor said "it's a Taliban Committee these guys have got. I don't know what the feelings of the Afghans are about this, but there you are." Tharoor said UNSC members get the monthly rotating presidency of the Council.
"It's as simple as that. There's nothing more than that. And many of these positions are rotational.... There are a number of UN institutions and committees, and so one shouldn't exaggerate, all the members of the Council automatically belong to all these committees and chairmanship rotates." He highlighted that there are various committees of the Security Council, such as one pursuant to resolution 1540 that deals with preventing non-state actors from acquiring, developing or using nuclear weapons.
"It would have been really funny if Pakistan had been given that particular chairmanship, but that at least mercifully, has not happened." Pointing out that the UNSC committees work on consensus, he said there is no way that the chairman, whoever it may be, can get a particular point of view through or get something accepted or rejected merely by virtue of being chairman.
"The others will weigh in very heavily. And we are not exactly friendless in the Security Council, and therefore in its committees," he said.
The delegation, which had arrived from India in New York on May 24, had travelled to Guyana, Panama, Colombia and Brazil before arriving in Washington Tuesday afternoon for the last leg of the tour. Tharoor pointed out that the delegation did not go to the United Nations headquarters in New York.
"For us, it's more a series of bilateral exercises with countries that we believe need to be sensitised to our point of view, and as I said, that mission has been successful." The delegation led by Tharoor includes Sarfaraz Ahmad (JMM), Ganti Harish Madhur Balayogi (TDP), Shashank Mani Tripathi (BJP), Bhubaneswar Kalita (BJP), Milind Deora (Shiv Sena), Tejasvi Surya (BJP) and India's former Ambassador to the US Taranjit Sandhu.
It met US Vice President J D Vance, with Tharoor describing the meeting as "excellent".
A parliamentary delegation from Pakistan led by Chairman of the Pakistan People's Party and former Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari also landed in the US at the same time as the Tharoor-led delegation from India.
Bhutto met UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres with his delegation as well as Security Council Ambassadors in Pakistan's bid to internationalise the conflict with India as well as the Kashmir issue.
Tripathi added that during the delegation's travels, countries voiced support for a permanent seat for India at the UN Security Council.
"So this whole idea of Security Council that we've been saying, what was very interesting for us is that other countries are thinking the same about India, which is a very helpful thing." Sandhu added this highlights how seriously Pakistan will take terrorism, especially in the "responsible position" they are given and it also talks of how much authority and power the Pakistani "General or Field Marshal" has given the delegation led by Bhutto.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
37 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Pakistan govt responds to PM Modi speech on their involvement in Pahalgam attack. Here's what they said
Pakistan on Friday reacted to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's speech about Islamabad's involvement in the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack and said it was "dismayed". Addressing an event in Jammu and Kashmir's Katra, the PM said that the terror incident in Pahalgam was an at attack on the "insaniyat and Kashmiriyat", adding that it was aimed at triggering riots in India. 'Its intent was to incite riots in India and to disrupt the livelihood of the hardworking people of Kashmir. That is why Pakistan targeted the tourists," he added. PM Modi took a sharp jibe at Pakistan and said that Islamabad "intended to incite communal violence in India and cripple the earnings of hard working Kashmiris. Pakistan's foreign minister commented on PM Modi's remarks and said it 'firmly rejects the baseless and misleading' comments. 'We are deeply dismayed that the Indian prime minister has once again chosen to accuse Pakistan of involvement in the Pahalgam attack, without presenting a single piece of credible evidence,' it said in a statement. PM Modi also heaped praises on the people of Jammu and Kashmir for standing up against Pakistan's conspiracy. 'The youth of Jammu and Kashmir are now determined to give a strong response to terrorism. This is the same terrorism that burned down schools, destroyed hospitals in the Valley, and ruined generations," he added. Tensions escalated between the two nuclear-armed neighbours after terrorists opened fire at civilians, mostly tourists, at Baisaran near Pahalgam on April 22. At least 26 persons lost their lives during this attack. The following day, India imposed several measures against Pakistan as a response move to the terror attack, including the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty. Two weeks later, on May 7, the Indian armed forces launched Operation Sindoor, striking nine terror infrastructures in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Under this operation, more than 100 terrorists were killed. Following India's strike, Pakistan also tried to launch a retaliatory action against New Delhi. However, all its attempts, including the use of cross-border shelling, drones, and unarmed aerial vehicles, were foiled by the Indian forces. Amid the continued intense fighting, on the night of May 9-10, the Indian armed forces once again struck targets; this time, they were 13 Pakistani air bases and military installations. After four-days of cross-border fighting, on May 10, the director general of military operations of Pakistan contacted his Indian counterpart, seeking a cessation of all military actions against each other. The two nations arrived at an understanding and ceased all activities on each other.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Pakistan writes multiple letters to India urging them to restore Indus Waters Treaty
Pakistani authorities have written to their Indian counterparts several times since April to reconsider the decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty in response to the Pahalgam terror attack, people familiar with the matter said on Friday. India's decision to keep the six-decade-old Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance until Pakistan 'credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism' was part of punitive measures unveiled by New Delhi a day after the April 22 Pahalgam attack that killed 26 civilians. Also Read: Shehbaz Sharif seeks Donald Trump's mediation as India's delegation corners Pakistan in US Pakistan's water resources secretary Syed Ali Murtaza has sent a total of four letters to India's Jal Shakti ministry since then, urging a review of the decision to suspend the treaty. It wasn't immediately clear when the letters were sent, but a person aware of the matter said that three of the letters were written after Operation Sindoor. The Pakistani side has continued to claim that the treaty cannot be unilaterally suspended by India and that the suspension violates the pact's provisions, according to people familiar with the communications who spoke on condition of anonymity. Also Read: Who is Ishaan Tharoor? Shashi Tharoor's son who questioned Congress MP on Pakistan in US The letters were a response to a formal notification on April 24 from India's water resources secretary Debashree Mukherjee to her Pakistani counterpart about the decision to keep the treaty in abeyance. 'The obligation to honour a treaty in good faith is fundamental to a treaty. However, what we have seen instead is sustained cross-border terrorism by Pakistan targeting the Indian Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir,' Mukherjee had written. There has been no Indian response to Pakistan's letters so far, with people familiar with the matter saying India 'remains firm on its decision.' External affairs ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal reiterated on April 29 that the country would not engage in talks with Pakistan until the neighbour 'credibly and irrevocably abjures cross-border terrorism.' The Indian side has stopped sharing all data related to the flows of the western rivers – Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab – that were allocated to Pakistan under the 1960 treaty. Also Read: Malaysia rejects Pakistan's 'Islamic solidarity' attempt to derail Indian delegation's visit: Report The water sharing arrangement under the treaty stands at 80:20 in favour of Pakistan, making the South Asian nation heavily dependent on the Indus waters system for its economy and agriculture. Former Union water resources secretary Shashi Shekhar said Pakistan is 'desperate' because about a quarter of its gross domestic product depends on the Indus waters. 'The consequences of the treaty's abeyance would be fairly serious I would assume because it can stoke civil unrest too,' Shekhar said. Shekhar revealed that he had recommended suspending or pulling out of the treaty in 2016 as the top water resources bureaucrat. 'But Prime Minister Narendra Modi said water resources should be for benefit of all, but he had warned then that water and flood can't flow together. And when the Pahalgam attacks took place, the room for talks or tolerance ceased,' he said. Pakistani leaders have responded with strong rhetoric, saying any reduction of water flows allowed under the Indus Waters Treaty will be seen as an 'act of war.' The Indus Waters Treaty has survived four wars between India and Pakistan since its signing in 1960, making this the first time the pact has been suspended. Even before the Pahalgam attacks, India had been asking for the treaty to be mutually reworked, citing natural changes in the Indus river basin that had diminished India's share amid a burgeoning population.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Columbia Crisis: Trump's crackdown sends chill through Indian students
New Delhi: A recent notification by the Trump administration that Columbia University failed to meet the standards for accreditation could have far-reaching consequences for students, particularly international students, many of whom are from India, experts said. Loss of accreditation could mean that securing a visa for studying at Columbia will not be possible. Students may become ineligible for scholarships and grants, and those graduating could struggle for jobs as their degrees would lose recognition. The US Department of Education announced on Wednesday that it formally notified the Middle States Commission on Higher Education , Columbia's accrediting body, that the university may have violated federal anti-discrimination laws by allegedly failing to protect Jewish students on campus. The move, which comes after Trump's order restricting Harvard University from enrolling international students, suggests the US administration is escalating its scrutiny of elite universities. Indians form the second largest student community at Columbia University. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Live Comfortably: 60 m² Prefab Bungalow for Seniors in Denliko Pre Fabricated Homes | Search Ads Search Now Undo In the 2024-25 academic year, 1,241 Indian students were enrolled at Columbia. While the latest US action may face legal obstacles, as in the case of Harvard, it does raise uncertainty, said study-abroad experts. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) Live Events "This sends a chilling message to Indian students and families," said Adarsh Khandelwal, cofounder of Collegify, a college-admissions consultancy. "These students are not just numbers; they represent dreams, aspirations, and significant investments." Sukanya Raman, country head at immigration law firm Davies & Associates, explained the risks in stark terms. "Accreditation is a prerequisite for issuing student visas and serves as a foundational eligibility criterion for participation in federal financial aid programmes. Should an institution lose its accredited status, international students may become ineligible for scholarships, grants, or financial assistance that require enrolment in an accredited academic institution." The absence of institutional accreditation may render academic degrees unrecognised by employers, professional licensing authorities and other educational institutions, said Raman. "This lack of recognition can materially impair a student's ability to pursue gainful employment or advanced academic study, thereby affecting long-term professional and educational outcomes." Columbia may challenge the threat legally, arguing it undermines academic freedom and institutional autonomy, said experts. On Thursday, a federal judge in Boston granted a temporary restraining order on Trump's directive banning US entry of foreign nationals seeking admission at Harvard for six months. In her order, US District Judge Allison Burroughs said Harvard would face "immediate and irreparable injury" if the proclamation were to go into effect. A hearing has been scheduled for June 16, giving the university a narrow legal window to push back. Judge Burroughs had last month blocked another Trump order prohibiting Harvard from enrolling international students. Despite the uncertainty, education consultants are urging students not to panic. "We have come across some natural questions and concerns around visa validity," said Manisha Zaveri, joint managing director at education consultancy Career Mosaic. "We are reassuring them that such proclamations often undergo legal review and clarification, and universities typically step up support mechanisms when such uncertainty arises." Many US institutions are already reaching out to students, clarifying their visa status, providing legal assistance where needed, and even exploring credit transfers or deferral options, she said.
