New Delhi, April 30 -- The UNSC's condemnation of the horrific terror attack in Pahalgam last week was necessary-but fell far short of what the moment demanded. A group of heavily armed terrorists targeted a group of unsuspecting tourists and civilians in the scenic Kashmir valley. While the Security Council "strongly condemned" the act and expressed condolences, the statement's glaring omissions signal how geopolitics often overwhelms moral clarity. It is troubling that the UNSC, even in the face of a massacre that shocked the conscience of the region, failed to name the group that claimed responsibility-the Resistance Front (TRF). The TRF is not some unknown entity operating in the shadows. Its known affiliations with Lashkar-e-Taiba, a UN-designated terror outfit, are well documented. Yet, the statement avoided this link entirely. Equally striking was the absence of any explicit reference to cooperation with the Indian government. In contrast, previous UNSC statements following incidents like the Pulwama attack or even civilian casualties in other regions have shown greater specificity and solidarity with the victim nation. The omission is not accidental-it reflects the political calculus within the Council, especially given Pakistan's current non-permanent membership and China's predictable role in shielding its ally.
What's more, the statement completely sidestepped the communal nature of the attack. Preliminary investigations and the attackers' modus operandi make it clear that the victims were selected to provoke a communal backlash-targeting non-Muslim civilians in a region that has long battled the twin dangers of terrorism and sectarianism. To ignore this aspect is to erase a critical part of the attack's motive, and thereby blunt any global understanding of its full impact. The diplomatic manoeuvring behind the scenes also raises questions. France, which currently holds the presidency of the UNSC, led the drafting of the statement, but the final text showed little assertiveness from other powerful members like the U.S., U.K., and Russia. India, which has long advocated for a more robust global stance against terrorism, must now contend with yet another example of how the consensus-based nature of UN diplomacy often dilutes truth in the name of harmony. In light of this tepid response, India may need to recalibrate its strategy. One possible direction is to seek a stronger and more specific resolution at the UN General Assembly. Though non-binding, such resolutions have carried significant moral and diplomatic weight in recent cases involving Ukraine and Gaza. Additionally, India could press for the formal designation of the TRF and the identified attackers as global terrorists under the UNSC's sanctions regime-a move that would require navigating the same geopolitical hurdles it faced in the past while trying to blacklist Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar. That battle, though slow and arduous, eventually succeeded. The precedent is there.
India must also consider raising the issue with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), where Pakistan's record on terror financing has been repeatedly scrutinised. The global watchdog had greylisted Islamabad twice in the past decade, and any new evidence tying Pakistani soil or actors to this latest attack could be crucial in reviving that discussion. Moreover, New Delhi might revisit its push for a long-stalled Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism at the UN-a proposal that, if realised, would finally give international law more teeth in naming and prosecuting terrorism comprehensively. On the bilateral front, there's little to expect. Past promises of cooperation from Islamabad-be it after Mumbai in 2008, Pathankot in 2016, or Pulwama in 2019-have remained unfulfilled. With formal diplomatic ties at a near standstill, the route through Pakistan appears closed. This makes India's reliance on international pressure and persistent legal follow-through all the more critical. The extradition case of Tahawwur Rana from the United States is one example of how sustained diplomatic and legal efforts can bear fruit. Ultimately, India's challenge is not just to catch the perpetrators of a single act of terror, but to hold a global system accountable to its own stated principles. That will require diplomatic endurance, legal precision, and international coalitions built on more than just convenience. The lives lost in Pahalgam deserve more than condolences-they deserve justice backed by a collective international will.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.