The contrast at the UN The Statesman 06 Oct २०२६
https://epaper.thestatesman.com/4206707/Delhi-The-Statesman/06-10-2026
The contrast at the UN The Statesman 06 Oct 2026
India and Pakistan have traditionally clashed on every stage, including the sports arena. An annual diplomatic clash takes place at the UNGA. Invariably, it is the Pakistani representative, normally their PM, who desperate to be at a global body, delivers their national statement. The Pak PM’s speech is more intended for their domestic audience than the global body. 90% of the speech is aimed towards India, indicating that Pakistan’s entire global view is through an India lens.
Who can forget Imran Khan, who as Pakistan’s PM, rambled for 50 mins against the allotted time of 15-20 mins in his maiden address in 2019. Invariably, Pakistan attempts to project itself as a nation facing terrorism avoiding the fact that it houses most of the global terrorists. Last year, Shehbaz stated that if Pakistan had not ‘encountered’ terrorists, they would have been ‘roaming on the streets of New York and London and God knows, Far East,’ admitting that the world’s terrorists are based there.
India, as a norm, chooses the right to reply, and a junior member of the Indian permanent mission at the UN responds, tearing up the Pak PM’s address to shreds. This year was no exception.
India, has in recent years, avoided mentioning Pakistan, as it has grown beyond that nation and has a global role. It does hint on Pakistan, without naming it, when it raises the subject of terrorism, which is an international concern. The world looks forward to the Indian representative’s statement, most of which is aimed at the global south, India’s contribution to the world and enhancing effectiveness of global bodies. India is known to be the nation to support those in need, while Pak only exports terrorists and terrorism.
This year Shehbaz Sharief rambled on the IWT, claiming, as many have done so in Pakistan, that stopping water is an act of war, a subject of no global interest. Not a single nation, including its allies, raised the subject. Shehbaz claimed victory in Operation Sindoor, an act which either is of no interest to most nations or those concerned are aware of the reality of destruction of Pakistan’s assets. The intent this year for Shehbaz Sharief was to praise his lord and master, Asim Munir, as also Trump, whom it credits for stopping the conflict, hoping for further US support.
Kashmir, a subject Pakistan can never do without, was as expected raised in the UN. In the past Pakistan compared Gaza with Kashmir, claiming both were jails and unfinished agendas of the UN. It was repeated this time again with an added warning that to avoid conflict in South Asia, a solution had to be found for Kashmir. Other than Pakistan and Turkey, not single nation mentioned Kashmir. It appeared Pakistan has a single script, which is repeated each year, with minor changes.
As against its official claims of India sponsoring terrorism, in the UN it accuses Afghanistan of doing so. This is the same Taliban whose arrival was celebrated in Pakistan with then PM Imran Khan termed it as ‘breaking the shackles of slavery.’ Why did Shehbaz leave out India? Was he aware of strong Indian rebuttal at the UN or was it because Afghanistan is not represented in the UN and cannot respond to Shehbaz’s fake accusation.
Another common subject in the Pak PM’s speech every year is holding a begging bowl for aid on some pretext. In 2025 Shehbaz spoke about debt relief and fair financing for nations facing conflict, impacted by climate change and economic contractions. This year, he begged for debt relief and long-term financing options. A common subject every year is climate justice and finance. The begging bowl is visible whereever Shehbaz goes.
As expected, Pakistan claimed to have been involved in attempting to stop the ongoing Iran-US conflict and sought global credit, which did not emerge. Over the years, there is nothing new which emerges in the speech of the Pak PM. The topics are the same, wordings may vary, with an odd addition or subtraction.
The Indian response too is almost similar. A junior member of the mission, in its right to reply, tears apart the Pak PM. In 2025 and this year also, it was first secretary Petal Gahlot who responded. Last year she called out Shehbaz’s claims of victory as ‘absurd theatrics’ and ‘drama and lies.’ She accused Pak of glorifying terrorism, sheltering extremists, and maintaining a double standard of claiming to uphold security by day, while supporting terror by night.
This year was no different. She described Shehbaz’s claims as ‘hypocritical homilies, deceit and absurd theatrics.’ She reminded Pakistan of their history of sheltering Osama Bin Laden and that J and K is an integral and inalienable part of India. She also raised the subject of ongoing protests in POK and warned on continued response to terrorism. Baloch and Pashtun activists also staged protests outside the UN to coincide with Shehbaz’s visit, an annual feature.
In contrast, Jaishankar, conveying the Indian statement, highlighted its contribution to the world. He mentioned that India is currently undertaking 600 developmental projects in 78 countries, in aspects pertaining to ‘infrastructure, manufacturing, agriculture, IT and capacity building,’ being the first responder by sending medical supplies and support to nations in conflict zones, facing endemics and natural disasters.
However, he had to hit back against Pak for its weird claims on justifying terrorism. He stated, ‘Yesterday, a serial practitioner of terrorism, misrepresented facts before this Assembly. Arguments were invoked to normalize terrorism, and claim immunity from its consequences. That will not stand.’ Since Pakistan was not named directly, the response to his speech came from statements by their foreign office in the media as also their UN representatives.
In summary, while Pakistan’s concerns are largely localized as it has little to offer, India’s interests go way beyond its borders as it is now an important member of the global community. India’s statement is aimed at global audiences, while Pakistan plays to its national gallery, largely because its PM must praise its army chief and army as they ensure his continuity. Pakistan begs for financial support in every address while India mentions the assistance it provides to nations. India responds to Pak accusations, while there is nothing for Pak to respond to in the Indian statement. The two nations are definitely at a contrast, with India way ahead.