India blasts Pak's doublespeak at UN for calling terrorism a 'freedom struggle'

India has sharply rebuked Pakistan at the United Nations for attempting to legitimise cross-border terrorism under the guise of a “freedom struggle”, calling it a display of “doublespeak and hypocrisy” by the “epicentre of global terrorism”.

During an interactive dialogue with Ben Saul, the UN Special Rapporteur on Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, held by the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee, Pakistan’s Counsellor Muhammad Jawad Ajmal claimed that those engaging in attacks against India were “freedom fighters” exercising a legitimate right to resist “foreign occupation”.

Ajmal asserted that this distinction was recognised under international law, humanitarian law, and UN General Assembly Resolution 46/51. However, India strongly rejected the claim, pointing out that no UN resolution or international legal instrument justifies terrorism in any form.

In response, Raghoo Puri, First Secretary at India’s Permanent Mission to the UN, said, “Terrorism is among the gravest of offences that fundamentally violates the core of humanity. It represents the worst of bigotry, violence, intolerance, and fear and terrorists are the worst of the worst in humankind.”

He added that Pakistan’s “doublespeak and hypocrisy stand exposed”, describing the country as “a well-known epicentre of terrorism with established links to multiple terror attacks across the world targeting innocent civilians”.

India also cited multiple international instruments that explicitly denounce all acts of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of political, ideological, or religious motivations.

Explainer: Pakistan as UN Security Council President in July 2025

The 1994 UN General Assembly declaration, the 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, and a 2004 Security Council resolution all affirm that terrorism can never be legitimised under any pretext.

While Ajmal attempted to invoke Resolution 46/51 of 1991, the text of that resolution, far from endorsing terrorism, “unequivocally condemns as criminal and unjustifiable all acts, methods, and practices of terrorism wherever and by whomever committed” and calls on states to refrain from participating in such acts.

Ajmal further alleged that India’s counterterrorism measures violated human rights and claimed that the UN’s counterterrorism framework had “singled out one religion” in its approach. India dismissed this as another diversionary tactic.

Puri said Pakistan was trying to use accusations of Islamophobia “to hide its atrocities”, stressing that “terrorism is the gravest threat to humanity, and its abettor and aider like Pakistan remains the worst violator of human rights.”

For nearly two decades, negotiations on the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, proposed by India, have stalled due to objections from Pakistan and a small group of countries seeking to categorise certain terrorist groups as “freedom fighters”.

India reiterated that there can be no justification, under any law or ideology, for the use of terror as a political tool.

With agency inputs