UNSC Holds Closed-Door Consultations on Pahalgam Attack; Shashi Tharoor Highlights Limitations of Security Council Response

 Congress MP and former diplomat Dr. Shashi Tharoor has drawn attention to the limitations of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in addressing the escalating tensions between India and Pakistan, following a recent terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir.

The closed-door consultations, held at Pakistan’s request, were convened to deliberate on the April 22 attack that claimed 26 lives, including 25 tourists and one local. While the meeting did not yield any formal resolution, diplomatic sources indicated that several member states raised pointed questions with the Pakistani delegation. These reportedly focused on Islamabad’s alleged links to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the initial claim of responsibility by the group, and the broader implications of religiously targeted violence and nuclear rhetoric.

Dr. Tharoor, who previously served as Under-Secretary-General at the United Nations, stated that the outcome of such UNSC consultations is often shaped by geopolitical realities rather than decisive action.

“I am quite confident that the Council will not pass a resolution criticising Pakistan because China will veto it. Equally, they will not pass a resolution criticising India, as many countries would object or exercise their veto,” Tharoor was quoted as saying by news agency ANI. “It is likely to result in a general appeal for peace and concern about terrorism, couched in diplomatic language.”

He further noted that given the dynamics of the Security Council, no specific or binding decision was expected. “That is the sad reality of the way these things function,” he remarked.

Pakistan, currently serving as a non-permanent member of the 15-member body, had sought the UNSC's attention amid growing scrutiny over the Pahalgam incident. However, the response from other Council members reportedly fell short of Islamabad’s expectations.

“Pakistan may have believed the request for consultations would strengthen its position, but early indications suggest that a number of delegations posed difficult questions—particularly regarding LeT’s involvement and the motivations behind the attack,” Tharoor said, referencing briefings he had received.

According to sources familiar with the discussions, several Council members appeared to acknowledge that India’s concerns over cross-border terrorism and the involvement of designated terrorist groups were valid and merited serious consideration.

The Pahalgam attack, which targeted civilians in a popular tourist destination, has drawn widespread condemnation. Indian authorities have cited credible intelligence linking the assailants to LeT operatives based across the border.

As the international community weighs its response, Tharoor’s remarks underscore the diplomatic gridlock that frequently hampers substantive Security Council action, particularly in cases involving powerful member states or their close allies.