Pakistan a 'rogue state' fuelling global terrorism, destabilising the region: India at UN
United Nations/New Delhi, Apr 29 (UNI) India tore into Pakistan at the United Nations, terming Islamabad a 'rogue state fuelling global terrorism and destabilising the region', days after the Pahalgam terror attack by Pakistan-linked handlers that has brought bilateral ties to a nadir.
Deputy Permanent Representative of India at the UN, Yojna Patel, speaking at the launch of the Victims of Terrorism Association Network in New York, said: 'It is unfortunate that one particular delegation has chosen to misuse and undermine this forum to indulge in propaganda and make baseless allegations against India.
'The whole world has heard Pakistan's defence minister Khwaja Asif admitting and confessing Pakistan's history of supporting, training and funding terrorist organisations in a recent television interview.
'This open confession surprises no one and exposes Pakistan as a rogue state fuelling global terrorism and destabilising the region. The world can no longer turn a blind eye."
Patel was delivering India's Right of Reply at the hybrid launch event for the 'Victims of Terrorism Association Network' (VoTAN) of the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism on Monday, when Pakistan's delegate referred to the Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir.
In a recent interview on Sky News, the Pakistani defence minister Asif had said 'Well, we have been doing this dirty work (terrorism) for the United States for about three decades, you know, and West, including Britain'.
Earlier in her address, the Indian diplomat thanked the UN Office of Counterterrorism for convening this important meeting and to express India's appreciation to Spain and Iraq, the co-chairs of the Group of Friends of Victims of Terrorism, for their leadership in organising this event.
Patel emphasised India's deep appreciation for 'the strong unequivocal support and solidarity extended by leaders and governments across the world in wake of the recent terrorist attack at Pahalgam, Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir.' She said the support is 'a testimony to the international community's zero tolerance for terrorism.'
On the Pahalgam attack, she said: 'The Pahalgam terrorist attack represents the largest number of civilian casualties since the horrific 26-11 Mumbai attacks in 2008.'
'Having been a victim of cross-border terrorism for decades, India fully understands the long-lasting impact such acts have on victims, their families, and society,' she said.
Quoting the UN Security Council, she reiterated, 'perpetrators, organisers, financiers, and sponsors of reprehensible acts of terrorism must be held accountable and brought to justice.'
Patel stressed that 'acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever, and by whomever committed.' She firmly reiterated India's position: 'Terrorism in all its forms must be condemned unequivocally.'
Patel termed the establishment of the Victims of Terrorism Association as 'a significant step' that 'will create a structured, safe space for victims to be heard and supported.'
UNI RN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
20 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Himanta says drive to identify foreigners to be 'accelerated'; AAMSU protests 'harassment'
Guwahati, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Saturday asserted that the process of identifying illegal foreigners, which was "paused" due to NRC-related matters, will be accelerated, even as protests were witnessed in different parts of the state during Eid prayers on Saturday over "pushback" and "harassment" of minorities in the name of detecting illegal immigrants. Sarma maintained that the state government was looking into the details of an old law, which allows it to "push back" the declared infiltrators without having to mandatorily approach the judiciary. Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a programme in Nalbari, Sarma said that a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing a case on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, had said that there is no legal requirement for the Assam government to always approach the judiciary in order to identify foreigners. "There exists an immigrants expel order, which is an old law. The Supreme Court has said that this law is in force and a deputy commissioner can give permission for immediate pushback under it," he maintained. "For whatever reason, our lawyers had not informed us and we too didn't know about it. The entire matter has come to light in the last few days. We will now discuss it further," he added. The chief minister said pushing back illegal migrants will continue, adding that the process of identifying foreigners, which had been paused due to NRC-related matters, will now be accelerated. "And when the identification of a foreigner happens, there will be no need to send the case to any tribunal. We will directly push them back. We have been preparing for it," he added. Sarma said the process of pushback will continue, though no person with a case pending before the court will be sent back. Meanwhile, members and supporters of the All Assam Minority Students' Union wore black badges and displayed placards against the purported recent pushback of Bangladeshis in the state. They carried out the protest in different parts, including Chirang and Jogighopa, after Eid namaz. AAMSU president Rejaul Karim Sarkar maintained that more intensified protests will be carried out if the government does not stop "harassment" of genuine citizens. "We have seen cases where the entire family is Indian but one member is taken away as an illegal foreigner. Such acts are against humanity. The government should stop harassment of genuine citizens, else we will carry out more agitations in a democratic manner," he said.
Indian Express
25 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Despite its flaws, the Collegium system preserves judicial independence,' says SC judge Justice Surya Kant
Strongly defending the collegium system of judicial appointments, Supreme Court judge Justice Surya Kant said on Saturday that, 'despite its imperfections, it serves as a crucial institutional safeguard … preserving the Judiciary's autonomy.' Speaking at Seattle University on the topic 'The Quiet Sentinel: Courts, Democracy, and the Dialogue Across Borders,' Justice Kant noted that the collegium 'significantly limits interference by the Executive and Legislature, thereby preserving the Judiciary's autonomy and insulating judges from extraneous pressures that could otherwise compromise their impartiality.' He acknowledged that the system 'has been subject to sustained criticism—particularly regarding the opacity of its deliberative processes and the lack of publicly articulated criteria—but recent efforts by the Supreme Court signal a growing commitment to enhancing transparency and public confidence in it.' Referring to proactive judicial interventions that advance constitutional compassion, he asked in his June 4 address, 'How far can courts go in shaping policy?' and 'Is judicial creativity a virtue or a vice?' 'The answer, I believe, lies in intent and integrity. When courts act to empower the powerless, grounded in constitutional text and moral clarity, they do not usurp democracy—they deepen it,' he said. Justice Kant conceded that the judiciary 'has not remained impervious to criticism that at times it breaches the fine line between judicial activism and judicial overreach' and added that 'in recent years, there has been a discernible shift toward greater institutional self-restraint in select domains. The Court has increasingly sought to nudge rather than command, and to engage with other branches of government in efforts to increase dialogic remedies. This evolving balance reflects an awareness that judicial authority is most enduring when it is exercised with a sense of humility—when the Court is seen not as an omnipotent arbiter but as a co-traveller in the democratic journey, grounded in constitutional values.' He described the judiciary as 'the sentinel of constitutional morality' and said it 'has been instrumental in shaping this very democracy's moral spine.' Recalling past challenges, Justice Kant observed that 'the Indian judiciary, too, traversed periods of profound trial and transformation. Particularly during the Emergency, the Court grappled with serious challenges to its independence and, at times, exhibited troubling deference to executive power. Yet, this phase of institutional strain gave way to a renewed judicial consciousness.' He added that 'the judiciary's evolving relationship with its own independence lies at the very heart of how India's vast, pluralistic democracy continues to function with remarkable cohesion. It is not merely the existence of judicial independence that is noteworthy, but rather the degree and contours of that independence—how it is asserted, negotiated, and exercised—that renders the Indian experience particularly distinctive within the global constitutional landscape.' On the role of courts in a democracy, he said, 'constitutional democracy is … a system where majorities are checked, where minorities are protected, and where principles cannot be sacrificed at the altar of popularity,' and 'in such a system, courts cannot function as mere referees.' He stressed, 'in a democracy as vast and diverse as India's, it is only when the judiciary wears its power lightly, and its conscience visibly, that it can remain not only the last word, but also a trusted voice among many in our collective democratic journey.' 'Judiciary may not be the most visible arm of the state, it may not command battalions or shape budgets, but it performs a task more difficult: it keeps alive the promise of justice. In India, this task has often been thankless, occasionally triumphant, and always essential. The judiciary is not a saviour; it is a sentinel. It does not march. It watches. And when necessary, it speaks—not to please, but to preserve.' Earlier, during a visit to the Washington State Supreme Court's Temple of Justice in Olympia on June 3, Justice Kant highlighted the SC's defence of free speech rights, noting that 'pre-censorship and vague notions of public order cannot trump the right to free expression,' and adding, 'these are not merely legal precedents; they are constitutional declarations—that democracy without dissent is a contradiction, and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity.' Drawing parallels between the Indian and American judiciaries, he said, 'in both countries, the Judiciary has consistently pushed back against the temptation to suppress dissent under misguided and deceptive notions that the Executive may hold … Both our systems were designed not to trust power blindly, but to restrain it.' At a fireside chat at Microsoft Corporation headquarters on June 6, Justice Kant touched on the rise of technology such as artificial intelligence in the judicial process. He said he was 'firmly convinced that any contemplation of AI must be guided by a deep moral compass. Shaping the future demands more than innovation—it calls for an unwavering adherence to foundational values. Transparency, equity, responsibility, and respect for human dignity must not be afterthoughts, but the pillars upon which all technological advancement rests.' He warned that 'technology, if left unchecked, can reflect and reinforce societal inequities. AI is not a perfect technology and it can perhaps never replace the human element that the entire Rawlsian theory of justice hinges on,' and added, 'technology must remain subordinate to our higher commitments to fairness, equity, and human dignity' and 'must adapt to the lived realities of the people it seeks to serve.' Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
Here's how FBI director Kash Patel got to know about the Donald Trump-Elon Musk ‘big' public fight
FBI Director Kash Patel learned about the public dispute between US President Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk during the taping of a Joe Rogan podcast . During the podcast, Patel was specifically informed about Musk's accusation linking Trump to the 'Epstein Files.' Patel, who has recently faced criticism from some supporters for distancing himself from conspiracy theories related to Jeffrey Epstein since becoming FBI director, appeared surprised by the tech billionaire's tweets about Trump's past association with Epstein. The interaction occurred as the relationship between Trump and Musk, who is a significant financial supporter of Trump's campaign and a figure in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), experienced a notable public breakdown earlier this week. Rogan paused his interview with Patel to inform the FBI chief of Musk's statements. What the FBI director Kash Patel said about the Trump-Musk dispute on Joe Rogan's podcast 'That's way outside my lane,' Patel noted, as Rogan asked, 'what the f**k' was going on between the president and his former 'first buddy.' About an hour into The Joe Rogan Experience recording, Musk responded to Trump's remark that he was 'disappointed' by the Tesla CEO's continued criticisms of the 'Big, Beautiful Bill' that Republicans are working to pass. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 2025: Steel Suppliers From Mexico At Lowest Prices (Take A Look) Steel Suppliers | search ads Search Now Undo After Musk's recent departure from the administration as a 'special government employee,' the tech mogul has become more vocal in opposing the president's legislation, arguing that it would 'bankrupt' the country. Shortly before Musk shared his X post, Patel had spent a large part of his Rogan interview trying to convince the conspiracy-minded podcast host that Epstein did commit suicide. Patel and his deputy director, Dan Bongino, both of whom had previously supported the idea that Epstein was murdered in jail, have faced criticism from right-wing influencers for now stating that the available evidence points to Epstein taking his own life. As Rogan began speculating whether Patel and the FBI had footage of Epstein's island residence, the show's producer interrupted to inform them that Musk had just made his allegation about Trump. What to Expect at WWDC 2025: iOS 19, AI, M4 Macs & More AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
