India has delivered a robust rebuttal to Pakistan's provocative narrative on Kashmir and the Indus Waters Treaty during a recent United Nations Security Council debate on the Middle East.

Pakistan's delegation raised these issues, attempting to internationalise the Kashmir dispute and link it to water-sharing concerns under the treaty. India's Permanent Representative, Harish Parvathaneni, swiftly countered, asserting that Jammu and Kashmir, along with Ladakh, remain integral parts of India.

Parvathaneni dismissed Pakistan's rhetoric as a desperate ploy to deflect from its own failures. He accused Islamabad of obsessively targeting India at every international forum while actively sponsoring cross-border terrorism. This pattern, he noted, undermines any pretence of good faith in bilateral relations.

The Indian envoy emphasised India's unwavering commitment to territorial integrity. He reiterated that the people of Jammu and Kashmir have repeatedly affirmed their place within India through democratic processes, including elections and constitutional measures. External interference, particularly from Pakistan, only exacerbates regional instability.

Turning to terrorism, Parvathaneni issued a stark warning. India, he declared, possesses the capability and resolve to counter terror threats with full force. Recent incidents, including attacks traced to Pakistan-based groups, underscore the urgency of this stance.

On the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960, Parvathaneni clarified India's position. The treaty governs the sharing of six rivers between the two nations, with India allocated the eastern rivers and Pakistan the western ones. However, he stated that India would hold the IWT in abeyance until Pakistan demonstrably ceases its support for cross-border terrorism.

This suspension clause draws from India's 'water security' doctrine, invoked after repeated terror attacks. Parvathaneni highlighted Pakistan's failure to act on evidence shared by India regarding terror camps and financing networks. Credible action, he insisted, must precede any resumption of treaty obligations.

The UNSC debate, focused primarily on Middle East tensions, provided Pakistan an opportunity to hijack the agenda. Yet, India's response drew support from like-minded nations, reinforcing the global consensus against state-sponsored terrorism. Parvathaneni urged the Council to prioritise counter-terrorism over bilateral disputes.

Pakistan's narrative often frames the IWT as a lifeline, claiming Indian projects like dams threaten downstream flows. India counters that all developments comply with treaty provisions, designed with international arbitration in mind. The current impasse stems not from water scarcity but from Pakistan's terror infrastructure.

Historical context reveals Pakistan's repeated misuse of international platforms. From the 1971 war to recent Pulwama and Uri attacks, links to groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed persist. India's diplomatic push has isolated Pakistan, with FATF scrutiny adding pressure.

Parvathaneni's address aligns with India's broader strategy under the Modi government. Initiatives like 'Neighbourhood First' coexist with a firm line on security. The abeyance of IWT reflects this: water as a shared resource cannot shield terror exporters.

Internationally, the US, UK, and France have echoed concerns over Pakistan-based militancy. China's veto power in UNSC often shields Islamabad, yet India's evidence-based diplomacy gains traction. The debate underscores shifting global dynamics, with India positioning itself as a responsible power.

Domestically, the response bolsters national morale amid ongoing border vigilance. India's armed forces maintain high readiness along the Line of Control, where infiltration attempts continue. Public discourse emphasises self-reliance in defence, from indigenous missiles to river-linking projects.

The IWT's future hinges on Pakistan's choices. India's suspension is reversible, contingent on verifiable de-linkage from terror. Until then, New Delhi prioritises national security over outdated compacts.

This UNSC exchange signals no thaw in ties. As Parvathaneni concluded, India's patience has limits. Pakistan must choose between dialogue and disruption, with the world watching closely.

Agencies