India’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Harish Parvathaneni, has called for a comprehensive review of outdated mediation frameworks under Chapter VI of the UN Charter.

He made these remarks during an Arria‑formula meeting of the UN Security Council, which is an informal and flexible gathering of Council members. His intervention came while also firmly rejecting Pakistan’s remarks on Jammu and Kashmir, which he described as an attempt to politicise the forum.

In a post on X following the meeting, Parvathaneni confirmed that he had delivered India’s statement at the session on “Bridging the Implementation Gap: UNSC Resolutions and Maintenance of International Peace and Security.” He emphasised the distinct nature of Chapter VI and Chapter VII of the UN Charter, underlining their different applicability in international peace and security contexts.

He explained that Chapter VII is designed to undertake concrete actions when firm pathways exist to re‑establish peace in situations involving threats to peace, breaches of peace, or acts of aggression. He warned that non‑implementation of such measures could have immediate consequences, leading to further deterioration of peace and serious repercussions, which run contrary to the principles of multilateralism and international law.

Turning to Chapter VI, Parvathaneni noted that it offers wide‑ranging options to address situations that may endanger peace and security. These include negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, and arbitration, while also taking into account any bilateral procedures already adopted by the parties concerned.

He stressed that such interventions are not perpetual in validity and must be reviewed in line with changing circumstances and contexts.

He cited the Palestine issue as an example, pointing out that mediation frameworks have constantly evolved to reflect the shifting realities of the conflict. He argued that there is an undeniable case for reviewing outdated mediation frameworks, and that assuming perpetual applicability of Chapter VI interventions is fundamentally flawed.

Parvathaneni further highlighted that member states are already undertaking mandate implementation reviews under the UN80 framework for General Assembly mandates to achieve efficiencies. He questioned why Security Council mandates should remain outside the scope of such reviews, insisting that they too must be subject to scrutiny under the UN80 framework.

Responding to Pakistan’s representative, Parvathaneni criticised the conduct of a co‑Chair expected to be balanced and unbiased, saying it was incredible that such a role had been used to politicise the forum.

He reiterated India’s consistent position that Jammu and Kashmir is strictly an internal matter of India, stating unequivocally that the Union Territory always has been, is, and will remain an integral part of the country.

The Indian envoy’s remarks underscored New Delhi’s broader push for reform within the UN system, particularly in ensuring that mediation frameworks and mandates remain relevant to contemporary realities.

His intervention also reinforced India’s rejection of Pakistan’s attempts to internationalise the Jammu and Kashmir issue, aligning with India’s longstanding position that the matter is not subject to external mediation.

ANI