Imran Khan speech at UNGA was nothing but a failed attempt to rationalizing terror. If we go with the logic he gave at the UNGA for people who feel marginalized, to pick up guns, did he justify that Pashtun and other ethnic groups who are marginalized, and are subject to enforced disappearances, Killed or sold for Organ Harvesting, women raped, villages burnt by Pakistan Army should pick up guns? Why Not? Going by the rationale given by Imran Khan, Baloch, Pashtun, Mohajirs, Sindhis, Ahamadiyas, Hazaras, Shias are all Muslims and they are subjected to systematic Genocide by Punjabi dominated Pakistan Army. Can Imran Khan answer why these ethnic groups should now not pick up guns?

Nothing explains the message Imran Khan sent to the world through his United Nations General Assembly Speech than what Mohammad Taqi, an expatriate Pakistani tweeted – “There for a minute it seemed @ImranKhanPTI might blow the #UNGA up after there’s no God but Allah chant”.

Though that is the reality, that sort of a review is something no one aspiring to be a global leader would expect.

Imran Khan’s speech started on a decent note – he started with climate change, then he went to talk over money laundering, Islamic Terrorism and his pet topic of Kashmir. And surprisingly, there is no reference to Palestine, which is a topic which every Pakistani Prime Minister always speaks about at United Nations. There is a continuous slide in the quality of the language from the first minute which became more pronounced by the time he started to speak about Kashmir. The first half of his speech was all about the world doing nothing and lack of money, and the second half of his speech, which consumed 40 minutes out of the 50 minutes he took was all about Islamist Supremacy and goading the Ummah to pick up arms. One twitter user put it as “Sorry to say, he reminds one of that Gaddafi’s epithet – Mad Dog of the Middle East. The faster world and @UN does something, the better. Seriously, I haven’t seen even a single Pakistani that raving mad, threatening nuclear annihilation and a global bloodbath.”

That his speech was going to be only about Kashmir was visible from the first minute.

“I especially came to this forum despite a difficult time in my country; facing challenges… I would not have come had there not been a very urgent problem that the world must address.”

It was a standard set of complaints over Climate Change and Money Laundering – it’s a disaster in waiting, how Pakistan is suffering and no one is helping poor countries like Pakistan. In effect, he has blamed everyone but Pakistan for the ills it’s facing. In fact, he spoke about money laundered by Pakistanis in the establishment and how Pakistan is facing trouble in retrieving the money back. This echoes upon the failure of Imran Khan Government’s attempts to extradite the sons of ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who are neither Pakistani citizens nor visited Pakistan for more than thirty years.

“In my country, when I took charge of our government a year back, in the 10 years preceding that our total debt went up 4 times. As a result; the total revenue we collect in one year, half of it went into debt servicing. How will we spend on our 220 million population when our money was plundered by the ruling elite? And when we located properties of these corrupt leaders in western capitals, we find it so difficult to retrieve it. If we retrieve the plundered money, we could spend it on human development. But there are laws protecting these criminals. We don’t have the money to hire lawyers worth millions of dollars. The rich countries must show political will; they can not allow this flight of capital from poor countries through corruption. How can poor countries meet the United Nations SDG’s when money for human development can easily leave our countries?”

When he started to speak about the topic of Islamophobia, the quality of the discussion went down drastically. It was completely avoidable.

“Muslim women wearing Hijab has become a problem. It is seen as a weapon. A woman can take off her clothes in some countries but she can not put more on?”

After asserting that “There is only ONE Islam and that is the Islam of Prophet (PBUH)”, he goes on to say that “Because certain western leaders equated Islam with terrorism”, and because “Unfortunately the Muslim leaders were unable to explain. We failed as the Muslim world to explain that there is no such thing as radical Islam”, the world believes in the concept of Radical Islam.

The whole of Imran Khan’s speech suddenly degrades in quality from then on. First he justifies radicalization, blaming the European Countries.

“We have faced Islamophobia while travelling abroad; and in European countries it is marginalising Muslim communities. And marginalisation creates room for and leads to radicalisation” and then goes on to say, some such marginalized turned up in Syria and ISIS.

He ignored the fact that neither the Tamil Tigers nor the Japanese Kamikaze pilots never committed the acts in the name of religion but then asked how can one associate suicide bombing with Islam just because 9/11 bombers did suicide attacks.

Then, he tried to trace the origins of Islamophobia to the 1989 book Satanic Verses, whose name he refused to take and said that the way Islamic society addressed the insult made Islam, a religion of target.

“The west could not understand what was the problem. They don’t look at religion the way that we do. And so; in their eyes Islam was an intolerant religion. It became a watershed. And every 2-3 years someone would malign our Prophet (PBUH), Muslims would react, and the west would term them intolerant. I blame some people in the West who provoked Muslims. But this is where majority of the Muslim leaders let the Muslim community down.”

The subsequent sermon over Islam and Prophet Mohammed was educative but the note on which it ended, left a sour note. Insulting the icon of a religion is reprehensible, but one should ask himself if it is a bigger crime than the murder of millions for no other cause than their birth.

“Our Prophet (PBUH) lives in our heart, and when he is maligned, it hurts us. In western society, the holocaust is treated with sensitivity because it hurts the Jewish community. So that’s the same respect we ask for; do not hurt our sentiments by maligning our Holy Prophet (PBUH). That is all we ask.”

It is disconcerting to see that Imran Khan is imposing Article 295-C of Pakistan Penal Code upon the whole world.

295-C. Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet: Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

Even his views on minorities turned out to be idle talk and nothing else.

“When a Muslim community is unjust to a Minority, it is going against the teachings of our religion.”

In 1951, West Pakistan had 4 million Hindus against 28 million Muslims (12.5%) while today, Pakistan has 2.5 million Hindus against 190 million Muslims(1.3%) clearly a ten time fall in number of Hindus in Pakistan. Does this mean, according to Imran Khan, Pakistan is going against the teachings of Islam?

By this time, he has already overshot his stipulated time of 15 minutes by 10 minutes. The next 25 minutes is dedicated to Kashmir. It is sad to note that the speech he gave on the esteemed podium of United Nations is nothing different from what he said in the interview with Al Jazeera on completion of a year in power and his interview with CFR two days ago, the only difference being, it’s more threatening. It is interesting to observe that someone in his PR team took a stock of what he said in the previous occasions over the bombing at Balakot and the comments he got against it, and improvised it. The same is seen over his reference to the Indian Kulbhushan Jadhav, who India claims is abducted from Iran and whom Pakistan claims is an Indian spy while International Court of Justice, in effect, invalidated all the material which Pakistan submitted to declare him as a spy.

“We had actual proofs of Indian intervention in some terrorist attacks in our Balochistan province. We even caught their spy Kulbhushan Yadav who admitted to crimes.”

It went on on the usual lines as like the previous times.

How Pakistan suffered during the war on terror and lost 70,000 people and 150 Billion USD and how it is struggling hard to control the fallout of the same after 9/11

“We joined the war against the Soviets in the 1980’s. Pakistan trained the then “Mujahedeen” at the behest of the Americans. The Soviets called them terrorists, the Americans called them freedom fighters, then. Soviets left, US packed up. Come 9/11, now that we had to join the US & tell the same indoctrinated people this is now not a “freedom struggle” but “terrorism”. They suddenly saw us as collaborators; it became a nightmare & they turned against us. 70,000 Pakistanis lost their lives, due to a war Pakistan had nothing to do with. No Pakistani was involved in 9/11.”

On a surprising note, Imran Khan invited UN observers to see if Pakistan dismantled its terror apparatus.

“I know that India keeps saying we have militant organisations but I invite UN observers to come and see for themselves.”

This doesn’t make sense when Pakistan, just days ago, filed an application before UNSC in support of a globally proscribed terrorist Hafeez Saeed

How he tried to approach Modi and was stonewalled; how Pakistan thought it was due to elections.

“So my 1st move was to reach out to Modi & I said let’s work our differences, leave our past behind & our main priority should be our people as we have similar problems; poverty & climate change. Highest number of people reside in subcontinent. On zero response from India; we thought we should wait till the Indian elections since BJP is a nationalist party.”

Pulwama, Balakot and FATF

“Meanwhile, a Kashmiri boy radicalized by Indian forces blew himself up on an Indian convoy. Immediately India blamed Pakistan. I told India to give us any proof and we’d act. Instead of sharing proofs of any Pakistani’s alleged involvement in Pulwama attack, they tried to bomb us. We retaliated. We captured their pilot; but returned him the next day because we did not want the situation to escalate. In the election campaign, Mr.Modi used terms like “This was just a trailer. The movie is yet to come.” We thought post the elections we would go back to a normal relationship. But that was not the case. Post the elections, we realised Indians were trying to push us on the FATF blacklist to economically isolate us. That’s when we realised there was an agenda.”

Demonizing the ruling party of India.

Surprisingly, this time it was an exposition over RSS and how it derived it’s ideology from Nazi Germany and how it believed over racial superiority of Hindus, the 2002 Gujarat riots which incidentally, Indian courts exonerated Modi of.

“Mr. President; I have to explain what the RSS is. Mr Modi is a “life member” of RSS. An organisation inspired by Hitler and Mussolini. They believed in racial superiority the same way that the Nazi’s believed in the supremacy of the Aryan race. This Is open knowledge. RSS believes in the racial superiority of Hindus. It was hatred for the Muslims & Christians. They believe that the golden age of Hinduism halted b/c of Muslim rule. They openly stated hatred for Muslims and Christians. This is all open knowledge. You can all just google the founding fathers of the RSS like Golwalker<and ?>. This ideology of hate murdered Mahatma Gandhi. The hate ideology allowed RSS goons under Modi’s CM ship in Gujarat to butcher 2000 Muslims. The Congress party gave a statement that terrorists were being trained in RSS Camps. Modi was not allowed to travel to the US.”

Incidentally, there is enough substantial evidence that Pakistan was behind the train burning to diffuse the pressure on Indian border after a Pakistan based terrorist organization attacked Indian Parliament, which, again, was an act perpetrated to reduce the pressure on Osama bin Laden who was holed up in Tora Bora cave network and was about to be snuffed out. A brief sequence of events which led to Gujarat riots:

“Believing that a retreat into Pakistan was now imminent, Grenier, who was watching events unfold from Islamabad, consulted his charts and sent a formal request for a battalion of US Rangers to be dropped into position behind the Al Qaeda lines, just to make sure the blocking job was done right. General Tommy Franks refused. They were not going to make the same mistake as the Soviets, he said, deploying huge numbers of US forces that could be drawn into a mountaintop trap. The Pakistanis would do the job for them, acting as the catcher on the high slopes and a beater down in the valley of Parachinar. Lt. General Aurakzai had their back. Osama was surrounded.

“Everything was melting and burning or crumbling. One plaintive voice caught a signals operator’s attention: “Father is trying to break through the siege line.” Was this code, or had one of Osama’s sons radioed through sensitive information on an open line? Working to lock down the signal, the CIA believed it had pinpointed Osama’s location to within thirty feet-the closest American forces had ever come to the Al Qaeda leader.

On the night of December 10, Osama reached for his radio set. “What should we do?” he asked the airwaves plaintively. On the morning of December 12, his deputy commander Ibn Sheikh made radio contact with a US-allied Afghan warlord and offered a ceasefire so that Al Qaeda could negotiate his surrender. They agreed to talk again at 4 pm shortly before the ceasefire expired. Ibn Sheikh called through, asking for an extension until 8 am the next morning, explaining: “We need to have a meeting with our guys.” The US side was not sold on the idea but General Franks agreed, overruling the doubters, even though Delta operatives were straining to enter the Tora Bora caves. “Why take your foot off?” an incandescent Grenier fumed in Islamabad.

On the morning of December 13, the 8 am deadline passed without any further communication. Later that afternoon in Islamabad, unscheduled troop activities on the Pakistan side suddenly grabbed the CIA station chief’s attention. Without any explanation, Lieutenant General Aurakzai appeared to be moving his soldiers off the White Mountains. Grenier radioed to check. It was absolutely happening. The troops had been reassigned to Pakistan’s eastern borders, with instructions, intercepted by the CIA, to complete the manoeuvre “within three hours.” When he tried to get through to Aurakzai and to General Khan, there was no response.”

“Shortly before noon India Standard Time, militants from Jaish-e-Mohammed, the Pakistani jehad outfit run by Masood Azhar and nurtured by the ISI, attacked the main Parliament building in New Delhi, a brazen assault that left 12 men dead and both nations eyeballing each other. Almost immediately, India started deploying soldiers on its border with Pakistan, prompting Major General Musharraf to issue orders to meet them head-on, rerouting Lieutenant General Aurakzai’s forces to face them down. “Two active borders are something one would never wish,” said Major General Rashid Qureshi, Musharraf’s spokesman.

Only a war could come between Aurakzai and the White Mountains, General Khan had warned Robert Grenier weeks earlier. And now Masood Azhar’s mujahideen had launched a humiliating assault that brought India and Pakistan closer to fighting-with nuclear weapons-than at any other time since 1999.

Could Jaish have attacked the Indian Parliament without their sponsors in the ISI knowing about it? Grenier fumed. Was the timing some kind of terrible coincidence? It was difficult not to see this as a deliberate ruse to allow Osama bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora into Pakistan. When Wendy Chamberlin, the US ambassador to Pakistan, finally got to speak to Musharraf about the issue, all he would say was that intelligence was a “dirty business”.”

“On February 27, 2002, when the Sabarmati Express arrived at Godhra railway station early in the morning, it carried the usual load of Hindus returning from Ayodhya, a Hindu pilgrimage centre.

These pilgrims travel in large groups. They often act rowdily and altercations with vendors is a common occurrence. In fact, most vendors are known to shut shop when such trains approach.

But February 27, 2002 was unusual.

No sooner had the train left the station, it was stopped by pulling the emergency chain, just a little distance away from the station. Here the train was surrounded by a mob of thousands that pelted stones at the passengers.

Apparently some people then entered bogie S-6, which had mainly women and children, by cutting the cloth partition between two bogies. They then poured petrol into the carriage and set it afire. 59 people, including women and children, were burnt alive.

The incident had all the hallmarks of a pre-planned attack. The movement of Hindu pilgrims by this train was a regular, routine affair, not a sudden provocation. Also, it is not easy to suddenly garner a mob of several thousand without warning. A fire engine that tried to reach the spot was denied access, indicating a certain degree of leadership and planning.

The question that remains is, why?

Gujarat then and now was ruled by a Hindu hardliner who faced a difficult election in a few months time. That he would make capital of this incident was a foregone conclusion.

In less than two days, the city of Ahmedabad erupted in an orgy of violence. The local police either played a partisan role or were woefully inadequate to deal with the rioters. The only option was to call in the army.

But where was the army? Unlike the earlier occasions when the army stationed in Ahmedabad could move in at an hour’s notice, this time it took more than two days. The troops earmarked for internal riot control duties were more than 600 km away, deployed on the border and ready for war.

To re-adjust the defences took time. The troops flown into Ahmedabad did not have transport and were unfamiliar with the geography of the city. It took them nearly three days to bring the situation under control.

Most of the killings and violence took place before the army was deployed. Sporadic arson and violence did continue, but the worst was over within a week.

In normal times, the army could have been deployed in a day.

For instance, army units in Delhi and Meerut (40 km away) were ready to move in within hours of the riots sparked off by the assassination of Indira Gandhi on December 31, 1984. But the then government deliberately delayed deploying it.

This was certainly not the case in 2002, when the delay was caused due to the logistical difficulties involved in redeploying troops from the border.

The brain behind the Godhra incident knew it would trigger riots, which in turn would force such a redeployment. In fact, an entire division (40,000 soldiers) had to be moved, while another division was kept on alert to move into other areas if necessary.”

“Almost two army divisions are withdrawn from border, creating a gaping hole in the defences, weakening the threat of armed action against Pakistan.

“It was only towards early May 2002 that the troops rejoined their comrades on the border. By then, the window of opportunity was shut, as the snows in Himalayas would melt, and a Chinese threat had to be factored into the planning.

On May 14, 2002, terrorists struck at Kaluchak in Jammu area. The gruesome attack targeted the wives and children of the soldiers. The sheer audacity of the act was to show to the world India’s ‘impotence’. The terrorists achieved their aim as thanks to the Gujarat riots, the army was not in a position to react.”

Rather, one can’t even say this is surprising because this is an elaborate version of what Imran Khan called BJP in his Al Jazeera interview.

Article 370 and the Indian Government violating Indian and International Law and the atrocity narrative.

“And then the revocation of the article 370 happened which used to give Kashmir special status. They escalated the number of troops in Kashmir and put 8 million people under curfew. What kind of a mindset locks up 8 million people? Women, children, sick people. What I know of the west, they wouldn’t stand for 8 million animals to be locked up. These are humans.” He said India ended the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, flouting 11 resolutions of the UN Security Council, the Shimla agreement and its own Constitution.

Wouldn’t it make sense if one would try to look at what the UN Resolution over Referendum and Simla Agreement talk about this?

UN Resolution 47

“1. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours:
(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State;
(b) To make known to all concerned that the measures indicated in this and the following paragraphs provide full freedom to all subjects of the State, regardless of creed, caste, or party, to express their views and to vote on the question of the accession of the State, and that therefore they should co-operate in the maintenance of peace and order.
2. The Government of India should:
(a) When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the Council’s Resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the Commission a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in the maintenance of law and order;”

Simla Agreement

“That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations;”

A reference to Karachi Agreement of 1949 between the government of Kashmir under Pakistani control and Pakistan is educative.

Karachi Agreement 1949

A. Matters within the purview of the Government of Pakistan.

2. Foreign policy of Azad Kashmir.

3. Negotiations with the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan.

8. All affairs of Gilgit – Ladakh under the control of Political Agent.

A combined reading of all three clearly establishes that while India is in it’s rights to do whatever it want with regard to internal governance of the territory of Jammu and Kashmir in it’s control, it’s Pakistan which has flouted the UN resolution by not vacating the territory as a facilitation for plebiscite. On the other hand, by internationalizing Kashmir Issue, it’s Pakistan which flouted the Simla Agreement.

On the other hand, it’s impossible to run Imran Khan’s narrative without any bloopers. The blooper this time was the presence in person of Ali Amin Gandapur, Federal Minister for Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan, who incidentally, is not a person from Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan and didn’t contest in elections from either of the disputed territories, shifting the focus of attention towards Pakistani management of Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan through this flamboyant persona.

Open threats of bloodbath and exhorting the Muslims of the world to rise up against India.

This was avoidable – one wouldn’t expect anyone to call upon any section of the world population to pick up arms and threaten a nuclear holocaust. This rather, makes it a case basis for proofing the world from Pakistani nukes by deploying UNPKF and other organizations and to ensure that the Pakistani government from doing anything foolish.

“This racial superiority; what does he think is going to happen when he lifts the curfew? What will happen when the curfew is lifted? Modi says this is done for the prosperity of Kashmir. But what will happen when 8 million Kashmiris come out of a lockdown and face 900,000 troops? I fear there will be a bloodbath. The way Kashmiris are caged like animals in homes. Their political leadership arrested, even pro India ones. 13,000 boys picked up & taken to unknown locations. Youngsters blinded with pellets. This will only lead to further radicalisation. We fear another Pulwama incident. And for that, India will again blame Pakistan.”

“There will be another Pulwama incident because of their own cruelty in Kashmir, they will blame us and try to bomb us again. Don’t you think that 180 Million Muslims will be radicalised in India as they see 8 million Kashmiris locked up? And what about 1.3 billion Muslims who are watching this knowing that this is only happening to Kashmiri Muslims.”

“We’ve been brought up watching films; a good guy doesn’t get justice…. he picks up a weapon, and a whole cinema cheers him on. What has been the response of the world community on any atrocities in the Muslim world? I picture myself in Kashmir, locked up for 50 days. Hearing about rapes, the Indian army going around. Would I live with this humiliation? You are forcing people towards radicalisation. When people lose the will to live, they pick up guns. A movie “Death Wish” depicts how a boy picks up guns and starts killing all muggers. If you are doing this to human beings, pushing them, you are leading to radicalisation.”

“Two nuclear armed nations almost went head to head in February. And this is why the UN has a responsibility. This is why you came into being in 1945! I feel we are back in 1939; Munich. Czechslovakia has been taken. Will the word community appease a market of 1.2bn or will it stand up for justice and humanity? If a conventional war starts between 2 countries, nuclear countries anything could happen. Supposing a country 7 times smaller than its neighbour; faced with a question. Either you surrender, or you fight till the end. I ask myself this question. And my belief is ‘La ilaha illAllah’, there is no God but one. We will FIGHT! I am not threatening here about a nuclear war; it is a worry. It is a test for the United Nations. You are the one who said Kashmir right to self determination. This is not the time for appeasement like that in 1939 in Munich. This is the time when you, the United Nations, must urge India to lift the curfew; to free the 13,000 Kashmiris who have disappeared meanwhile and this is the time when the UN must insist on Kashmir’s right to self determination!”

This harangue is avoidable. The world can live without this terror of a nuclear armed Pakistan threatening to destroy the world every other day for every trivial reason. This is something the world should look seriously into.

India’s Right of Reply

India’s Right of Reply to this makes perfect sense after one would go through what Imran Khan said.

Threat of unleashing nuclear devastation qualifies as brinksmanship, not statesmanship

Mr. President,

I take the floor to exercise India’s right of reply to the statement made by the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

2. Every word spoken from the podium of this august Assembly, it is believed, carries the weight of history. Unfortunately, what we heard today from Prime Minister Imran Khan of Pakistan was a callous portrayal of the world in binary terms. Us vs Them; Rich vs Poor; North vs South; Developed Vs Developing; Muslims vs Others. A script that fosters divisiveness at the United Nations. Attempts to sharpen differences and stir up hatred, are simply put – “hate speech”.

3. Rarely has the General Assembly witnessed such misuse, rather abuse, of an opportunity to reflect. Words matter in diplomacy. Invocation of phrases such as “pogrom”, “bloodbath”, “racial superiority”, “pick up the gun” and “fight to the end” reflect a medieval mindset and not a 21st century vision.

4. Prime Minister Khan’s threat of unleashing nuclear devastation qualifies as brinksmanship, not statesmanship.

5. 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.

6. For someone who was once a cricketer and believed in the gentleman’s game, today’s speech bordered on crudeness of the variety that is reminiscent of the guns of Darra Adam Khel.

7. Now that Prime Minister Imran Khan has invited UN Observers to Pakistan to verify that there are no militant organisations in Pakistan, the world will hold him to that promise.

8. Here are a few questions that Pakistan can respond to as a precursor to the proposed verification.

● Can Pakistan confirm the fact that it is home to 130 UN designated terrorists and 25 terrorist entities listed by the UN, as of today?

● Will Pakistan acknowledge that it is the only Government in the world that provides pension to an individual listed by the UN in the Al Qaeda and Da’esh Sanctions list!

● Can Pakistan explain why here in New York, its premier bank, the Habib Bank had to shut shop after it was fined millions of dollars over terror financing?

● Will Pakistan deny that the Financial Action Task Force has put the country on notice for its violations of more than 20 of the 27 key parameters?

● And would Prime Minister Khan deny to the city of New York that he was an open defender of Osama bin Laden?

Mr. President,

9. Having mainstreamed terrorism and hate speech, Pakistan is trying to play its wild card as the newfound champion of human rights.

10. This a country that has shrunk the size of its minority community from 23% in 1947 to 3% today and has subjected Christians, Sikhs, Ahmadiyas, Hindus, Shias, Pashtuns, Sindhis and Balochis to draconian blasphemy laws, systemic persecution, blatant abuse and forced conversions.

11. Their newfound fascination for preaching human rights is akin to trophy hunting of the endangered mountain goat – markhor.

12. Pogroms, Prime Minister Imran Khan Niazi, are not a phenomenon of today’s vibrant democracies. We would request you to refresh your rather sketchy understanding of history. Do not forget the gruesome genocide perpetrated by Pakistan against its own people in 1971 and the role played by Lt. Gen A A K Niazi. A sordid fact that the Hon’ble Prime Minister of Bangladesh reminded this Assembly about earlier this afternoon.

Mr. President,

13. Pakistan’s virulent reaction to the removal of an outdated and temporary provision that was hindering development and integration of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir stems from the fact that those who thrive on conflict never welcome the ray of peace.

14. While Pakistan has ventured to upstream terrorism and downstream hate speech there, India is going ahead with mainstreaming development in Jammu and Kashmir.

15. The mainstreaming of Jammu & Kashmir, as well as Ladakh, in India’s thriving and vibrant democracy with a millennia-old heritage of diversity, pluralism and tolerance is well and truly underway. Irreversibly so.

16. 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.

I thank you, Mr. President.

Follow us at:-
Twitter Handle: @communique_news
Parler Handle: @newscommuniquecom
Subscribe our : YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnKJQ3gFsRVWpvdjnntQoAA
Like our Facebook Page https://m.facebook.com/News-Communiquecom-103788531007438/