On December 16, 2025, the United Nations Security Council in New York became the stage for a blistering diplomatic exchange as India mounted a sweeping critique of Pakistan’s domestic and foreign policies. The open debate, themed “Leadership for Peace,” saw India’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Harish Parvathaneni, deliver one of the most pointed rebukes in recent memory, accusing Islamabad of democratic backsliding, military overreach, and continued sponsorship of terrorism across the border.
In his address, Parvathaneni did not mince words. Referring to the recent passage of Pakistan’s 27th Constitutional Amendment, he charged that Islamabad had “a unique way of respecting the will of its people—by jailing a Prime Minister, by banning the ruling political party, and by letting its armed forces engineer a constitutional coup through the 27th amendment and giving lifetime immunity to its Chief of Defence Forces.” The quote, reported by ANI and echoed across major outlets, encapsulated the tone of India’s intervention.
At the heart of India’s criticism was the imprisonment of former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan. Khan, who has been incarcerated since August 2023 on charges stemming from a €190 million corruption case, faces a litany of additional proceedings under Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Act. His arrest on May 9, 2023, triggered widespread protests, and the subsequent crackdown included banning his party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). According to NDTV, Khan’s legal woes have now ballooned to more than 100 cases, including a 14-year sentence in the so-called Toshakhana case, which involved allegations of selling government gifts and undervalued land to the Al-Qadir Trust.
The conditions of Khan’s incarceration have also drawn international concern. PTI has highlighted a report by United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Alice Jill Edwards, which alleges that Khan is being subjected to “degrading and inhuman treatment” at Adiala Jail. Edwards urged the Pakistani government to address what she described as “inhumane and undignified” detention conditions, warning that they may amount to torture or other ill-treatment. These allegations, reported by Geo News and other outlets, have only intensified the scrutiny on Islamabad’s handling of political dissent.
However, the controversy extends beyond the fate of a single political figure. India’s ambassador drew a direct line between Pakistan’s internal political turmoil and its external conduct, particularly regarding terrorism. Parvathaneni asserted that “India has lost tens of thousands of lives to Pakistan-sponsored terror attacks over the last four decades,” a statement reflecting a deep and longstanding grievance. He specifically cited the April 2025 terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which left 26 civilians dead—including a foreign national—highlighting the ongoing human cost of cross-border violence.
In response to these persistent attacks, India announced a dramatic policy shift: the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, an agreement that has governed water sharing between the two countries for 65 years. “India had signed the treaty in a spirit of goodwill, but Pakistan violated it by waging three wars and carrying out thousands of terrorist attacks,” Parvathaneni said. He continued, “It is in this backdrop that India has finally announced that the Treaty will be held in abeyance until Pakistan, which is a global epicentre of terror, credibly and irrevocably ends its support for cross-border and all other forms of terrorism.”
The 27th Constitutional Amendment, passed by the Pakistani parliament in November 2025 under Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, was another focal point of India’s criticism. The amendment, which introduced 59 clauses, fundamentally reshaped the country’s military and judicial architecture. Most notably, it granted lifetime immunity to Pakistan’s Chief of Defence Forces, General Asim Munir—who now also serves as Chief of Army Staff and holds command over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. According to reports from Geo News and Hindustan Times, Munir’s appointment was approved by President Arif Ali Zardari, making him the most powerful figure in Pakistan’s political and military landscape.
The amendment also established a Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), designed to share jurisdiction with the Supreme Court on constitutional matters. The FCC is composed of judges from across Pakistan’s provinces and is empowered to take suo motu notice on constitutional petitions. The new law redefines military titles, limits presidential immunity in certain cases, and restructures the judicial commission responsible for appointing and transferring judges. Critics, including India’s envoy, argue that these sweeping changes further entrench military dominance over civilian institutions and threaten the country’s democratic future.
India’s remarks at the Security Council also touched on the perennial flashpoint of Jammu and Kashmir. Ambassador Parvathaneni firmly rejected Pakistan’s claims over the region, reiterating that “Jammu and Kashmir, along with Ladakh, are an integral and inseparable part of India, always have been, and always will be.” He dismissed Pakistan’s references to Kashmir as “unwarranted” and accused Islamabad of pursuing a “dangerous mindset aimed at harming India.” The ambassador went further, charging that Pakistan was using platforms like the United Nations to promote a “divisive agenda,” which he argued undermines its responsibilities as a temporary member of the Security Council.
The Indian government’s strong stance comes at a time of heightened tension and uncertainty in South Asia. Pakistan’s internal political crisis—marked by the jailing of a former prime minister, the banning of a major political party, and the military’s consolidation of power—has drawn criticism not only from India but also from international human rights observers. Meanwhile, India’s decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty signals a willingness to leverage longstanding agreements in pursuit of security and diplomatic objectives.
For its part, Pakistan has rejected India’s accusations, maintaining that its domestic reforms are a matter of sovereignty and that its actions in Kashmir are in line with international law and the will of the Kashmiri people. Islamabad has also denied sponsoring terrorism, instead accusing India of human rights abuses in Kashmir. The diplomatic impasse shows little sign of resolution, with both sides digging in on their respective positions.
As the dust settles from the Security Council debate, the region faces an uncertain future. The escalating war of words between two nuclear-armed neighbors underscores the fragility of peace in South Asia—and the high stakes involved when domestic politics and international relations collide so dramatically.
