Pakistan: India Tells UN Sought Ceasefire as Operation Sindoor Ended

Pakistan: India has told the United Nations Security Council that Pakistan’s military directly approached New Delhi to stop hostilities during Operation Sindoor, rejecting assertions that the fighting ended due to outside diplomatic pressure. Addressing the Council, India said its actions were driven by the need to protect civilians and counter terrorism, while maintaining that the operation remained limited, deliberate, and aligned with international expectations.

India’s Position at the Security Council

Speaking at the UN, India’s Permanent Representative, P Harish, underlined that India would take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of its citizens. He stressed that terrorism cannot be treated as routine or justified under any circumstances, a point he said India has consistently raised in multilateral forums. According to him, New Delhi’s conduct remained consistent with the Council’s long-standing stance against terrorism.

Timeline Leading to the Ceasefire

Harish outlined a detailed sequence of events surrounding Operation Sindoor. He said that until May 9, Pakistan continued to issue threats of further strikes. However, the following day marked a turning point when Pakistan’s military leadership contacted Indian counterparts and requested an end to the fighting. India maintains that this appeal came after significant damage had been inflicted on Pakistani military infrastructure.

Impact on Pakistani Military Facilities

India told the Council that Operation Sindoor caused substantial harm to Pakistan’s air force capabilities. Harish pointed to widely circulated imagery showing damaged runways and destroyed hangars at multiple air bases. These visuals, he said, were already in the public domain and demonstrated the scale of the operation, which he described as precise and focused rather than expansive or retaliatory in nature.

Trigger for Operation Sindoor

The Indian envoy linked the operation directly to a terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22 last year, where tourists were targeted and 26 people lost their lives. The attack was claimed by The Resistance Front, which India identified as an affiliate of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a group designated as a terrorist organization by both India and the United States. Harish said India’s response was measured and intended to uphold accountability for those responsible.

India’s Rationale and International Law

According to Harish, Operation Sindoor was launched in line with the Security Council’s call to bring perpetrators, financiers, and sponsors of terrorism to justice. He emphasized that India’s actions were carefully calibrated to avoid escalation while targeting terrorist infrastructure. The aim, he said, was to weaken networks that enable cross-border attacks rather than to pursue broader military objectives.

Pakistan’s Counterclaims at the UN

During the same open debate on reaffirming international rule of law, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative, Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, described Operation Sindoor as an unprovoked act of aggression. He also raised concerns about India’s decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty and reiterated Pakistan’s position on Kashmir, topics India said were repeatedly introduced regardless of the agenda under discussion.

India’s Response on Kashmir and Water Treaty

Harish firmly rejected Pakistan’s statements on Kashmir, reiterating that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral and inalienable part of India. On the Indus Waters Treaty, he explained that the agreement had been placed in abeyance following the Pahalgam attack. He said the decision reflected India’s view that normal cooperation could not continue while cross-border terrorism persisted, adding that restoration would require credible and irreversible steps by Pakistan.

Criticism of Pakistan’s Domestic Governance

India also pushed back against Pakistan’s references to the rule of law, suggesting that Islamabad should examine its own constitutional developments. Harish pointed to Pakistan’s 27th Constitutional Amendment, adopted in November, which he said entrenched military dominance by granting sweeping powers and lifetime immunity to the country’s top defence leadership.

Rejection of External Mediation Claims

Without naming individuals, India dismissed suggestions that foreign leaders had brokered an end to the conflict. Harish maintained that the cessation of hostilities resulted from direct military communication between the two countries, not from external pressure or inducements.