PM Modi Urges UN to Reform

We have to think whether the UN has risen to the occasion when it comes to conflict resolution. I had raised this issue when the UN turned 70 but much discussion couldn’t happen. I hope this topic is discussed more actively when the UN turns 75.

Narendra Modi (Prime Minister, India)

Crux of the Matter
  • During his keynote appearance at Future Investment Initiative in Saudi Arabia, Modi underscored the need for the UN to adapt to the globalist multipolar direction of world politics in the 21st century.
  • He mentioned that some countries have used the UN as a ‘tool’, a subtle dig at Pakistan. UN, as per Modi, hasn’t done enough as an ‘institution for conflict resolution’ and so he urged countries to come together to ponder what reforms need to be made to achieve this.
  • He further stated that the days of expansionist policies determining a nation’s strength are behind us and going forward development orientation and innovation will be the barometer of strength in a rapidly progressing world.
  • Notably, India as part of the G4 group along with Brazil, Germany and Japan, support each other’s bids for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council.

Reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) encompasses five key issues: categories of membership, the question of the veto held by the five permanent members, regional representation, the size of an enlarged Council and its working methods, and the Security Council-General Assembly relationship. The Member States, regional groups and other Member State interest groupings developed different positions and proposals on how to move forward on this contested issue. Any reform of the Security Council would require the agreement of at least two-thirds of UN member states in a vote in the General Assembly and must be ratified by two-thirds of Member States. All of the permanent members of the UNSC (which have veto rights) must also agree. One proposed change is to admit more permanent members. The candidates usually mentioned are Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan, the G4 nations that mutually support one another’s bids for permanent seats. The United Kingdom, France and Russia support G4 membership in the U.N. Security Council. This sort of reform has traditionally been opposed by the Uniting for Consensus group, which is composed primarily of nations who are regional rivals and economic competitors of the G4. The group is led by Pakistan (opposing India), Italy and Spain (opposing Germany), Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina (opposing Brazil), and South Korea (opposing Japan), in addition to Turkey, Indonesia and others. More Info


Pak Hypocrisy on Terror Exposed by India’s Reply at UNGA

Prime Minister Imran Khan’s threat of unleashing nuclear devastation, qualifies as brinksmanship, not statesmanship. Even coming from the leader of a country that has monopolized the entire value chain of the industry of terrorism, Prime Minister Khan’s justification of terrorism was brazen and incendiary.

Vidisha Maitra (First Secretary, MEA)

(India exercised ‘right of reply’ to Pak PM’s speech)

Crux of the Matter
  • At the UN General Assembly, Pakistan PM Imran Khan made vitriolic attacks at India and warned of violence in Kashmir. In stark contrast, Indian PM Narendra Modi made no mention of Pakistan in his address, choosing to talk about global progress instead.
  • India exercised its Right to Reply and was represented by First Secretary of MEA, Vidisha Maitra. She verbally dissected Pakistan’s hypocrisy, its ‘callous portrayal of the world in binary terms’ and its ‘incendiary’ and ‘medieval mindset’.
  • India called out Pakistan for harbouring 130 UN designated terrorists and 25 terror organisations, for giving pension to terrorists listed in Al Qaeda and ISIS sanctions list and for financing terror outfits through the now banned Habib bank.
  • Pakistan was blacklisted by the Financial Action Task Force for violating 20 of 27 key parameters and current Pak PM Imran Khan has previously defended Osama bin Laden.
  • The Bangladesh PM‘s reminder of the barbaric slaughter and rape carried out by Pak army during 1971 war was reiterated by the Indian delegation.
  • Dismissing Pakistan’s faux concerns on Kashmir, the Indian representative maintained Article 370 as an internal Indian issue, reminded the world of Pakistan’s agenda of fueling terror in the valley and concluded on an emphatic note: “The citizens of India do not need anyone else to speak on their behalf, least of all those who have built an industry of terrorism from the ideology of hate.”

1971 Bangladesh Genocide – The genocide in Bangladesh began on 26 March 1971 with the launch of Operation Searchlight, as West Pakistan began a military crackdown on the Eastern wing of the nation to suppress Bengali calls for self-determination rights. During the nine-month-long Bangladesh War for Liberation, members of the Pakistani military and supporting Islamist militias from Jamaat-e-Islami killed between 300,000 and 3,000,000 people and raped between 200,000 and 400,000 Bangladeshi women, according to Bangladeshi and Indian sources, in a systematic campaign of genocidal rape. The ensuing war between India (backing Bangladeshi liberation) and Pakistan led to bifurcation of Pakistan and the creation of the new nation of Bangladesh. More Info


Amit Shah Blames Nehru for PoK Issue

PoK wouldn’t have come into existence had Nehru not declared untimely ceasefire with Pakistan. Sardar Patel should have handled Kashmir, instead of Nehru.

Amit Shah (Home Minister, India)

Crux of the Matter
  • During an election rally in Maharashtra, Home Minister Amit Shah brought up the abrogation of Article 370, a constitutional article that gave special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir.
  • He took a dig at first Indian PM Nehru for abetting the Pakistan occupied Kashmir situation by unilaterally declaring ceasefire with Pakistan in 1947.
  • While congratulating PM Modi for recent steps taken to revoke Article 370, he also slammed BJP’s opposition parties Congress and NCP for taking a stance against the abrogation of the article.

Article 370 of the Indian constitution gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir — a state in India, located in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent, and a part of the larger region of Kashmir, which has been the subject of dispute between India, Pakistan, and China since 1947 — conferring it with the power to have a separate constitution, a state flag and autonomy over the internal administration of the state. The government of India revoked this special status in August 2019 through a Presidential Order and the passage of a resolution in Parliament. The article was drafted in Part XXI of the Constitution: Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions. More Info