This Article is From Sep 28, 2019

Imran Khan's Nuke Remark "Brinkmanship, Not Statesmanship": India At UN

In his speech at United Nations General Assembly, Pakistan PM said that when two nuclear armed countries fight it will have "consequences" for the entire world, making multiple references to Jammu and Kashmir.

Vidisha Maitra responds to Pak PM at United Nations.


  • Imran Khan's address "hate speech": Indian diplomat
  • Mr Khan claimed that "there are no militant organisations in Pak"
  • PM Modi had said there needs to be more anger globally on Terrorism
United Nations:

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan's threat of unleashing nuclear devastation "qualifies as brinkmanship not statesmanship", India said today, in a sharp rebuttal to Mr Khan's speech at the United Nations General Assembly. In his speech, the Pakistan PM had said that when two nuclear armed countries fight it will have "consequences" for the entire world, making multiple references to Jammu and Kashmir. "Prime Minister Khan's threat of unleashing nuclear devastation qualifies as brinkmanship, not statesmanship," Vidisha Maitra, First Secretary of the Foreign Ministry said at the United Nations, exercising India's right to reply.

India said Mr Khan's speech 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'," the top Indian diplomat said.

In his first address at the UN General Assembly, Imran Khan had said: "If a conventional war starts, anything could happen. But supposing, a country seven times smaller than its neighbour is faced with the choice - either you surrender or you fight for your freedom till death. What will we do? I asked myself this question. And my belief is there is no God but one. And we will fight. And when a nuclear armed country fights to the end, it will have consequences far beyond the borders."

Hitting out at the Pakistan Prime Minister over his choice of words, Ms Maitra said: "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."

Mr Khan also made a bizzare claim during his address that "there are no militant organisations in Pakistan." In a sharp rebuttal, Ms Maitra said: "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."

She then raised a few questions for Mr Khan. "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?" she asked.

Referring to terrorist Osama Bin Laden, she asked:"And would Prime Minister Khan deny to the city of New York that he was an open defender of Osama bin Laden?"

Ms Maitra concluded her speech with a reply to Mr Khan's repeated attack against New Delhi after the special status for Jammu and Kashmir was scrapped last month. "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," she said.

The Pakistan PM's war rhetoric was in sharp contrast to PM Modi's peace message from the same podium few minutes earlier in which he said India is a country, that has "given the world, not war, but Buddha's message of peace."

Without naming Pakistan, PM Modi had said there needed to be more anger globally about what terrorism was doing to humanity. "When we raise our voice against terror, it is with seriousness and anger," he said.