When the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) convenes an emergency meeting and its outcome is not vague diplomatic jargon but pointed questions—like whether Lashkar-e-Taiba was behind the Pahalgam terror attack, you know something has shifted. At long last, the UNSC appears to have called Pakistan’s bluff.
The closed-door 90-minute session, held at Pakistan’s behest, ended up being a global embarrassment for Islamabad. Instead of the sympathy it hoped to elicit, Pakistan was confronted with uncomfortable truths. Its tactic of shifting blame and escalating tensions by issuing nuclear threats and test-firing missiles was not just dismissed—it was condemned. Members reportedly questioned why Pakistan was resorting to missile posturing instead of acknowledging its role in cross-border terrorism. The days of deflection and denial might be nearing their expiry.
While the Council predictably avoided a formal resolution—paralysis being its default setting—there was unmistakable clarity from major powers like the United States and Russia. Both nations, despite their geopolitical rivalries, stood united in condemning terrorism and affirming their support for India’s right to defend itself. That rare moment of unanimity may not change the structural flaws of the UNSC, but it certainly exposed Pakistan as the arsonist crying for firefighting help.
And yet, despite this, the broader question remains: Is the UNSC still relevant, or just a relic of Cold War posturing unable to act in the face of modern jihadist threats?
The Pahalgam massacre—where 26 unarmed Hindu pilgrims were singled out and gunned down after being asked their religion—was not a terror attack in the abstract. It was a genocidal message. It was Islamist terrorism, nurtured and exported by Pakistan’s ISI. For decades, India has pleaded with the international community to recognize Pakistan as the epicenter of global jihad. And for decades, the UNSC has responded with lip service, hedging its statements with vague calls for “restraint”—as if India, the victim, must apologize for bleeding.
This moral equivalence isn’t just insulting. It is suicidal.
Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Hizbul Mujahideen—all Frankenstein monsters engineered in Pakistani laboratories—are not rogue outfits. They are arms of the Pakistani state, protected and projected to destabilize India. And what has the UNSC done? Occasionally issues statements. Reluctantly designates terrorists after years of lobbying. And worse, it allows China, a permanent member, to routinely block resolutions against known jihadists like Masood Azhar.
What moral authority does the UNSC claim when it won’t even enforce its counter-terror mandates?
Let’s not forget, this is the same body that stood mute when China unleashed a global pandemic through what was likely a Wuhan lab leak. Millions died, economies collapsed, supply chains snapped—and the UNSC couldn’t summon the courage for even a symbolic rebuke. No investigation. No sanctions. Just carefully worded communiqués to protect Beijing’s feelings.
The United States has periodically voiced its frustration with the UN’s failure to deliver. Under President Trump, there were open threats to defund bodies like the WHO and the UNSC. Even Israel, constantly at the receiving end of UNSC resolutions, has called out the council’s hypocrisy in ignoring terrorism while fixating on democratic self-defense.
India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is not the pushover of yesteryear. This is an India that hits back. Surgical strikes and Balakot air raids were not symbolic—they were a statement: There will be consequences. India no longer seeks validation from international bodies unwilling to call a spade a spade.
The UNSC, if it truly believes in peace and stability, must do more than offer condolences. It must act. It must sanction Pakistan, freeze the assets of its terror proxies, and send a fact-finding mission to evaluate the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, especially given the rising radicalization within its army and intelligence services.
If not, the world must ask: why does the UNSC exist at all?
The era of polite diplomacy with terror-exporting states is over. If the UNSC can’t even agree on who the terrorists are, it has no business preaching restraint to those fighting on the frontlines.
India doesn’t need sermons. It needs solidarity. Until the UNSC wakes up to that reality, its “emergency meetings” will remain exactly what this one was: a platform for farce, accidentally—this time—turned into Pakistan’s trial by truth.
