India/Pakistan: Emergency Closed Consultations
This afternoon (5 May), Security Council members will meet in closed consultations under the agenda item “The India-Pakistan question”. Pakistan, which is currently an elected member of the Council for the 2025-2026 term, requested the meeting. Assistant Secretary-General for the Middle East, Asia and the Pacific Mohamed Khaled Khiari is expected to brief on behalf of the Departments of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs and Peace Operations (DPPA/DPO). (Only UN officials and Security Council members are permitted to participate in the closed consultations format.)
International concern about the long-standing dispute between India and Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir was heightened on 22 April when militants shot and killed 26 people (25 Indian nationals and one Nepali national) in Pahalgam, a town in Indian-administered Kashmir. An entity called the Resistance Front (TRF)—which India claims is linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Council-sanctioned terrorist group based in Pakistan—initially claimed responsibility for the attack in a Telegram message, although it subsequently denied involvement. In its initial message, the TRF reportedly stated that “violence will be directed toward those attempting to settle illegally”, an apparent allusion to India’s decision in August 2019 to revoke Article 370 of its constitution, which provided semi-autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir.
This change led to escalating tensions between India and Pakistan, including deadly exchanges of fire across the Line of Control, which separates the part of Kashmir administered by India from that administered by Pakistan. During that crisis in 2019, Pakistan argued that India’s actions violated UN Security Council resolutions calling for the status of the region to be resolved through a UN-sponsored plebiscite representing the will of the people. India, for its part, maintained that developments related to its constitution were a sovereign matter, and that disaffection among the people of Jammu and Kashmir had been used by Pakistan to justify terrorism.
In response to the 22 April attack, India again accused Pakistan of fuelling terrorism. Its Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement on 23 April alleging that the attack had “cross-border linkages” and declaring a series of punitive measures against Pakistan. Among others, these included abeyance of the 1960 Indus Water Treaty “until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism”; cancellation of certain visas for Pakistani nationals; the closure of the Attari border crossing between the two countries; and the declaration as persona non grata of military advisors in the Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi, which is Pakistan’s diplomatic mission in India. In the statement, India also expressed its resolve to bring the perpetrators of the attack to justice and hold their sponsors to account.
Pakistan has denied any involvement in the 22 April attack. In a 2 May statement to the UN Correspondents Association (UNCA), Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Iftikhar Ahmad, accused India of “continu[ing] to weaponize terrorism and unsubstantiated allegations as part of its disinformation strategy for narrow political ends”. Pakistani Foreign Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif has called for an international investigation into the attack.
Pakistan has been particularly concerned by the suspension of the 1960 Indus Water Treaty, which regulates the allocation of water between India and Pakistan. In his 2 May statement to UNCA, Ahmad argued that holding the treaty in abeyance is “bound to undermine regional peace and stability with catastrophic implications”, warning that “any attempt to stop or divert the natural flow of water that rightfully belongs to Pakistan in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty, and the usurpation of the rights of the lower riparian, will be considered as an Act of War”.
Today’s consultations will be the first time that Council members convene to discuss the current crisis, although they have been following the situation closely. On 25 April, Council members issued a press statement on the attack, which was drafted by the US in its capacity as the Council’s penholder on counterterrorism issues. The press statement condemned the terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir in the strongest terms, reaffirmed that “terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security”, and underlined the need to hold those responsible for the attack accountable.
Some disagreements had to be resolved to achieve consensus on the press statement, however. (Press statements require unanimity to be issued.) In its initial draft, the statement apparently indicated that the TRF had claimed responsibility for the attack, but this reference was removed at the request of Pakistan, supported by China. It also seems that Pakistan wanted to refer to Jammu and Kashmir as a “disputed territory”, but this was apparently unacceptable to several other Council members and not included in the text.
Tensions between India and Pakistan have continued to escalate in recent days. On 26 April, India accused Pakistan of firing on Indian troops across the Line of Control, saying that this prompted its troops to respond in kind. As part of a crackdown following the 22 April attacks, India also demolished the family homes of nine suspected militants in Kashmir. Both sides have reportedly test-fired missiles in the past week.
Pakistan has expressed concern about the possibility of an imminent military attack from India and threatened to withdraw from the 1972 Simla Agreement, which established the Line of Control separating Indian-administered Kashmir from Pakistan-administered Kashmir following the end of the third India-Pakistan war in 1971. On 4 May, Pakistan’s ambassador to Moscow, Khalid Jamali, claimed that Pakistan would “use the full spectrum of power – both conventional and nuclear” in the case of war with India.
At today’s meeting, Council members are expected to reiterate their condemnation of the 22 April attack and call for the perpetrators to be held to account. Members are expected to call for India and Pakistan to exercise calm and restraint, to de-escalate tensions, and to resolve their differences peacefully. In this regard, they may express concern about incendiary rhetoric and warn against provocative behaviour by both sides. Some may also support the idea of an independent international investigation into the attack. Some Council members, such as China and Greece, appear to have already indicated their support for such an investigation. Some members may note that the modalities of any investigation would need to be mutually acceptable to both India and Pakistan.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres has condemned the 22 April attack and offered his good offices to the parties, including during a press stakeout earlier today. In his statement, Guterres underscored the need “to avoid a military confrontation that could easily spill out of control”. He added that the UN stands ready to support “any initiative that supports de-escalation, diplomacy, and the renewed commitment to peace”. In today’s consultations, several Council members are likely to support the Secretary-General’s offer to play a mediation role.
Given the severity of the current crisis, some members may also be interested in learning more about the activities of the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), which is responsible for monitoring the ceasefire in Jammu and Kashmir, including the Line of Control.
While a long-standing topic of Council engagement, Jammu and Kashmir has rarely been discussed by the Council over the past several decades. The last time Council members met on this issue was in closed consultations held on 16 August 2019 under the same agenda item as today’s meeting. (For more information, see our 15 August 2019 What’s in Blue story.)
