India Accuses Pakistan of Military Control at UN

India sharply criticised Pakistan at the United Nations on October 25, 2026, accusing its government of serving the interests of the country's powerful military while attempting to portray New Delhi negatively on the international stage. India's representative also questioned Islamabad's record on minority rights, arguing that Pakistan should address its domestic problems before criticising its neighbour.

Raghoo Puri, First Secretary at India's Permanent Mission to the UN, made the remarks during an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues at the UN General Assembly's Third Committee. He accused Pakistan of promoting what he called a propagandist picture of India to divert attention from economic distress, lawlessness and alleged human rights violations within its own borders.

"What better way to deflect attention from a flailing economy, general lawlessness, and rampant human rights violations from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to Balochistan," Puri said.

He then turned his criticism towards the Pakistani military, which he described as the country's real centre of power.

Form 47 Controversy Revives Questions Over Civilian Rule

Puri's remarks included a pointed reference to Pakistan's "Form 47 government", a term used by critics to challenge the legitimacy of the country's ruling political establishment following the February 2024 general elections.

Form 47 is an official document recording consolidated election results for a constituency. The 2024 elections faced allegations of irregularities and manipulation, with critics questioning whether the officially declared results accurately reflected the voters' choices.

Against this backdrop, Puri argued that Pakistan's civilian leadership lacked the freedom to act independently of the military.

"We do understand, unfortunately, that the Form 47 government dare not override instructions from the Pakistani military," he said.

The comments reflect longstanding concerns about the Pakistani armed forces' influence over the country's political institutions and decision-making. The military has played a major role in Pakistan's political history, including periods of direct military rule and continued influence over national security and foreign policy.

However, allegations surrounding the 2024 election results remain politically contested. The term "Form 47 government" is a criticism used by opponents, rather than a formal constitutional designation.

India Challenges Pakistan Over Minority Rights

Puri also challenged Pakistan's criticism of India on minority issues, arguing that Islamabad should examine its own record before raising allegations against New Delhi.

He pointed to the decline in the proportion of several minority communities in Pakistan since independence in 1947. The demographic changes have long featured in debates about the country's religious composition, although population figures must be assessed against historical migration, partition and changes in territorial boundaries.

India's representative also referred to reports of human rights violations in Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan provinces. These regions have faced persistent security challenges, including militant violence, counterterrorism operations and allegations of abuses.

Puri urged the Pakistani delegation to focus on the welfare of its own citizens.

"We would urge the Pakistani delegate to heed the counsel of her own countrymen, look inwards and focus on the well-being of her own citizens first," he said.

His remarks turned a discussion on minority protections into a wider diplomatic confrontation over governance, political legitimacy and human rights.

Jammu and Kashmir Remains a Central Dispute

The Indian representative also rejected Pakistan's position on Jammu and Kashmir, a longstanding source of tension between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.

Pakistan regularly raises the disputed region at international forums, challenging India's position and calling attention to the rights and political aspirations of its residents.

India maintains that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral and inalienable part of the country. Puri reiterated that position at the UN, arguing that the outstanding issue concerned areas under what India describes as Pakistan's illegal occupation.

The two countries have maintained sharply conflicting positions on the region for decades. Their dispute has contributed to repeated military confrontations, diplomatic tensions and competing claims in international forums.

India Defends Its Constitutional Protections

Addressing the Special Rapporteur's report, Puri said India agreed that protecting and promoting minority rights was primarily the responsibility of individual states.

He also supported open discussions on complex human rights questions through multilateral institutions, while arguing that domestic matters should be addressed within the applicable legal and constitutional frameworks.

Puri described India as a multi-religious, multi-ethnic and multilingual society, pointing to constitutional safeguards for religious and linguistic minorities. He cited the contributions of minority communities across government institutions, the armed forces, law enforcement, business and the film industry.

He also noted that members of minority communities had held senior constitutional positions in India.

Puri challenged Pakistan to identify comparable examples of minority participation in its own national institutions, although the broader question of minority rights requires scrutiny of conditions and protections in both countries.

Diplomatic Accusations Leave Deeper Questions Unresolved

The exchange at the UN highlighted how India and Pakistan continue to use international platforms to challenge each other's political systems and human rights records.

India's remarks placed the Pakistani military's influence, the disputed 2024 election results and minority protections at the centre of the confrontation. Pakistan's recurring criticism of India's policies in Jammu and Kashmir remains another major point of friction.

The immediate exchange offered little prospect of a shift in either country's position. Instead, it underscored a familiar pattern: competing accusations over democratic accountability, minority rights and territorial claims, with each side demanding greater scrutiny of the other.