“All Is Not Well” — TRF and Pahalgam : Jaishankar Slams at UN

At the United Nations’ 80th-anniversary commemoration in New York, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar did the undiplomatic thing: he named the rot. “All is not well with the United Nations,” he said—and then tied that diagnosis to a specific, bleeding wound: terrorism that thrives because powerful players shield groups and stall listings. He invoked the Pahalgam attack (April 2025) and accused a sitting UNSC member of protecting The Resistance Front (TRF)—a Lashkar-e-Taiba proxy that claimed the massacre—thereby corroding multilateral credibility. India’s call wasn’t just moral; it was structural: reform as counter-terror policy, not committee décor.

The Story

What happened?

From the General Assembly dais, Jaishankar argued that UN paralysis on terror is not accidental but engineered—citing the TRF case and Pahalgam attack to show how listings and statements get watered down when a Security Council member shields perpetrators. His line—“when a Security Council member openly protects the very organisation that claimed responsibility”—landed like a gavel.

Why now?

The intervention comes after a combustible year: the Pahalgam mass-casualty attack, the US designating TRF a Foreign Terrorist Organization in July, and open reportage that Pakistan influenced the UNSC press language to omit TRF—a move widely read as politicised obstruction.

Parallelly, India launched Operation Sindoor—punitive strikes after Pahalgam—followed by parliamentary disclosures on the diplomacy around it. The UN moment, then, is the institutional sequel to a year of kinetic and diplomatic escalation.

The unexpected angle

Jaishankar didn’t just slam Pakistan; he indicted the UN’s mechanics—arguing that terrorism thrives on multilateral gridlock and that reform itself is gamed to block accountability. That reframes “UN reform” from a lofty agenda item to a weapon against impunity.

Key players:

• S. Jaishankar, EAM — voice of India’s assertive realism, now tying counter-terror to reform.
• Pakistan — accused of shielding TRF within UN processes; its leadership has counter-accused India post-Sindoor.
• TRF / Lashkar-e-Taiba — claimed Pahalgam; designated by the US.
• UNSC members (unnamed by EAM) — implicated in stalling/omitting TRF references, triggering India’s public rebuke.

What happens next:

1. UN theatre → corridor diplomacy: Expect a Pakistan Right of Reply and quiet alignment from several Global South states who share the grievance about politicised listings.
2. Narrative consolidation: New Delhi will amplify the “reform as counter-terrorism” line across multilateral forums. Washington’s TRF designation provides ballast.
3. Bilateral eddies: After Sindoor, the discourse hardens; each terror incident will now be framed by India as a UN credibility test.

The People Angle

The man at the mic: Jaishankar’s transition—from back-channel mandarin to “ambassador-warrior”—is more than branding. He represents an India that prefers assertion over apology and diagnosis over euphemism. His line about a UNSC member protecting TRF is not rhetorical flourish; it’s a charge-sheet.

The families behind the facts: The Pahalgam victims—tourists, pilgrims, locals—are not statistics; they are the moral pressure behind India’s demand that terror be named without diplomatic laundering. That is why the TRF’s public designation matters: it converts grief into legal architecture.

The diplomats in the middle: African, ASEAN and LATAM delegations often bristle at P5 gatekeeping. Jaishankar’s speech, while India-Pakistan in flavour, mirrors their frustration with a UN that can’t act when it matters.

The BIGSTORY Reframe

This isn’t India vs Pakistan; it’s the Global South vs Gridlock.

By linking terror accountability to UN reform, India argues the system’s wiring—not just the actors—is the problem. If listings can be stalled and statements sanitised, the UN becomes a stage set where perpetrators out-procedure victims. The antidote isn’t more adjectives; it’s rule changes that make shielding costly.

What Should Change

• Automatic triggers: If a group claims an attack and meets baseline criteria, a time-bound vote must occur; holds must be publicly disclosed with reasons.
• Sunlight on shields: Name the member(s) who block terror listings; publish roll-call records; require periodic review of holds.
• Victims’ standing: Enable affected states to force-calendar debates on attacks they documented, with evidence repositories accessible to all members.
• Data-first briefings: Institutionalise independent, rapid open-source intel assessments appended to any UNSC statement draft involving terror claims.

Closer

Jaishankar’s real message wasn’t chest-thumping; it was circuit-breaking. Terror survives on delays. If the UN can be gamed to blur perpetrators and victims, then reform is not décor—it’s defence. The question to keep asking is brutally simple: Should shielding a listed outfit be easier than naming it? Until that answer flips, multilateralism remains a cathedral with broken locks.

FAQs

What exactly did Jaishankar say?

He warned “all is not well with the UN” and cited a UNSC member allegedly protecting TRF, the group that claimed Pahalgam.

What is TRF?

A Lashkar-e-Taiba proxy that claimed the April 2025 Pahalgam attack and was designated a terrorist organisation by the US.

Did Pakistan influence the UNSC statement?

Reports indicate Pakistan pushed to drop TRF from the UNSC press statement, citing “evidence” gaps—India calls this politicised shielding.

How does Operation Sindoor fit in?

India’s May 7–10 strikes after Pahalgam escalated the regional context; New Delhi now frames UN reform as part of deterrence.