India, the world’s largest democracy, has increasingly voiced its frustration with the United Nations (UN) over what it perceives as a hypocritical and outdated approach to issues like the Kashmir dispute, human rights, and regional security. From rejecting UN interventions in Jammu and Kashmir to criticizing selective narratives on its internal matters, India’s stance reflects a growing belief that the UN’s framework is misaligned with 21st-century realities. As the U.S. has occasionally dismissed UN authority on issues like Iraq and Syria, India too is questioning the relevance of an institution seen as slow, biased, and dominated by a few powerful nations. This blog explores India’s evolving position against the UN’s handling of Kashmir and other issues, its critique of UN hypocrisy, and the case for rejecting the UN as an outdated body.
The Kashmir Dispute: A History of UN Involvement
India’s Initial Appeal to the UN
In 1947, following the partition of British India, the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir became a flashpoint between India and Pakistan. After Pakistan-backed tribal militias invaded Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh acceded to India, prompting India to seek UN intervention on January 1, 1948. The UN Security Council passed Resolution 39, establishing the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to mediate, followed by Resolution 47 in April 1948, which called for a ceasefire, withdrawal of Pakistani forces, and a plebiscite to determine Kashmir’s future.
UN’s Early Failures
The UN’s approach quickly faltered. Pakistan rejected the withdrawal of its forces, and India refused to equate its legal accession with Pakistan’s aggression. The UN’s insistence on treating both nations as equals, despite India’s claim of rightful accession, frustrated Indian leaders. By 1949, the UNCIP’s visits to the subcontinent yielded no agreement, and the proposed plebiscite never materialized due to disagreements over demilitarization.
The Simla Agreement and UN Irrelevance
The 1972 Simla Agreement, signed after the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, marked a turning point. India and Pakistan agreed to resolve the Kashmir issue bilaterally, effectively sidelining the UN. India argued that the UN’s role, particularly the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), had become obsolete. In 2014, India asked UNMOGIP to vacate its Delhi office, signaling its rejection of external mediation.
India’s Critique of UN Hypocrisy on Kashmir
Selective Narratives and Bias
India has accused the UN of adopting a selective and biased approach to Kashmir. In March 2025, India’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, Arindam Bagchi, rejected UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk’s remarks on Jammu and Kashmir as “unfounded” and “baseless,” criticizing the UN for “cherry-picking” situations. Türk’s reference to the region as “Kashmir” rather than “Jammu and Kashmir” and his focus on alleged human rights abuses ignored India’s narrative of combating terrorism and restoring normalcy post-Article 370 revocation in 2019.
Ignoring Pakistan’s Role
External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has sharply criticized Western nations and the UN for equating India, the victim of Pakistan-backed aggression in 1947, with Pakistan, the aggressor. In March 2025, Jaishankar called Pakistan’s occupation of parts of Kashmir “the longest illegal presence in a territory post-World War II,” accusing the UN of turning an invasion into a dispute. He named the UK, Canada, Belgium, Australia, and the USA as complicit in this narrative, highlighting the UN’s failure to address Pakistan’s role in fueling militancy.
Double Standards on Human Rights
India argues that the UN’s human rights reports, such as the 2018 and 2019 OHCHR reports on Kashmir, exaggerate issues in Indian-administered Kashmir while ignoring Pakistan’s violations in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). The UN’s silence on Pakistan’s demographic changes and suppression of dissent in PoK, contrasted with its scrutiny of India’s actions, is seen as evidence of double standards. India views this as a politicized agenda driven by Western powers and their allies.
India’s Broader Frustrations with the UN
Outdated Structure and Power Imbalance
India’s critique extends beyond Kashmir to the UN’s broader structure. The UN Security Council’s permanent membership, limited to five nations (USA, Russia, China, UK, France), reflects a post-World War II order that excludes emerging powers like India. Despite being a major contributor to UN peacekeeping and a global economic force, India’s bid for a permanent seat has been stalled, reinforcing perceptions of the UN as an elitist institution.
Inaction on Global Issues
India has pointed to the UN’s inefficacy in addressing modern challenges like terrorism, climate change, and pandemics. For instance, the UN’s failure to designate Pakistan-based terror groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba as global threats until international pressure mounted highlights its slow response. India’s frustration mirrors the U.S.’s occasional dismissal of the UN, such as during the 2003 Iraq War, when the U.S. bypassed UN approval for military action.
Interference in Internal Matters
India rejects UN commentary on its internal policies, such as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and Manipur’s ethnic clashes. Bagchi’s 2025 statement criticized the UN for “oversimplification of complex issues” and “sweeping remarks,” urging a focus on India’s democratic ethos. This echoes India’s 2019 rejection of UN concerns over Article 370’s revocation, asserting that Jammu and Kashmir is an internal matter.
The Case for Rejecting the UN as an Outdated Institution
A Relic of the Past
The UN, established in 1945, is increasingly seen as a relic misaligned with today’s multipolar world. Its Security Council structure prioritizes veto-wielding powers, sidelining nations like India, Brazil, and South Africa. The UN’s inability to reform its framework, despite decades of advocacy, has led India to question its relevance. Like the U.S., which has ignored UN resolutions on issues like Israel-Palestine, India could adopt a similar stance, prioritizing national sovereignty over international oversight.
Ineffectiveness in Conflict Resolution
The UN’s track record in resolving conflicts, including Kashmir, is lackluster. The Kashmir dispute remains unresolved after 70 years, with UN resolutions like 47 ignored by both parties. The UNMOGIP, meant to monitor the ceasefire, is viewed by India as redundant post-Simla Agreement. This mirrors the UN’s failure in conflicts like Syria, where vetoes by Russia and China stalled action, prompting the U.S. to act unilaterally.
Bias Toward Powerful Nations
India perceives the UN as a tool of Western powers, particularly the U.S. and its allies, who use it to advance their agendas while ignoring violations by allies like Pakistan. The UN’s silence on China’s territorial claims in Arunachal Pradesh, contrasted with its focus on Kashmir, reinforces India’s view of selective enforcement. This hypocrisy fuels arguments for India to bypass the UN, as the U.S. has done in cases like Iraq.
India’s Alternative Approach: Bilateral and Regional Solutions
Embracing Bilateral Diplomacy
Post-Simla Agreement, India has prioritized bilateral talks with Pakistan, rejecting third-party mediation. The 2003 ceasefire along the Line of Control and intermittent peace talks, despite setbacks like the 2019 Pulwama attack, reflect this approach. India’s success in resolving the Bangladesh liberation issue bilaterally in 1971 strengthens its belief in direct negotiations over UN involvement.
Strengthening Regional Alliances
India is increasingly turning to regional forums like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and BRICS to counterbalance Western-dominated institutions. These platforms allow India to collaborate with China, Russia, and others without the UN’s bureaucratic constraints. Jaishankar’s 2025 critique of Western nations underscores India’s push for a multipolar world order where regional powers have greater say.
Leveraging Global Influence
As a G20 member and a leader in the Global South, India is building coalitions outside the UN framework. Its advocacy for climate finance and digital inclusion, as seen in the UN’s 2025 Plastic Pollution Literacy Kit launch, shows India engaging selectively with the UN while asserting its global clout.
Could India Follow the U.S. in Rejecting the UN?
Parallels with U.S. Actions
The U.S. has a history of bypassing the UN when it suits its interests, such as the 2003 Iraq invasion, which lacked UN Security Council approval. India, facing similar frustrations with UN bias and inefficacy, could adopt a selective approach, engaging with the UN on issues like peacekeeping while rejecting its authority on internal matters like Kashmir. This would align with India’s growing global influence and its push for a reformed international order.
Risks of Rejection
Rejecting the UN outright carries risks. The UN remains a platform for global legitimacy, and India’s peacekeeping contributions enhance its soft power. A complete dismissal could alienate allies in the Global South who rely on UN programs. Instead, India is likely to pursue a hybrid approach, criticizing the UN’s flaws while leveraging its forums strategically.
A Call for Reform
India’s critique is not a rejection of multilateralism but a demand for a reformed UN that reflects current geopolitical realities. By advocating for Security Council expansion and greater representation for developing nations, India aims to make the UN more equitable. Until such reforms occur, India may continue to sideline UN interventions, as seen in its 2014 expulsion of UNMOGIP from Delhi.
Conclusion: India’s Path Forward
India’s stance against UN hypocrisy on Kashmir and other issues reflects a broader disillusionment with an institution seen as outdated and biased. From rejecting UNMOGIP’s relevance to criticizing selective human rights narratives, India is asserting its sovereignty and prioritizing bilateral and regional solutions. Like the U.S., India could further distance itself from the UN on contentious issues, especially if the organization fails to address its structural flaws. As India rises as a global power, its push for a fairer international order will likely redefine its relationship with the UN, balancing selective engagement with a firm rejection of outdated interventions.