Gahlot, First Secretary at India’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations, addressed the General Assembly after Pakistan raised allegations concerning India during the 81st session of the UN General Assembly in New York.
In her response, Gahlot said Pakistan’s statements reflected what India considers a longstanding pattern of hostility and cross-border terrorism.
She accused Pakistan of presenting itself as a supporter of regional security while, in India’s characterization, allowing militant activity to operate across the border.
Gahlot's remarks focused heavily on terrorism, one of the most contentious issues in India-Pakistan relations.
India has repeatedly accused Pakistan of supporting or sheltering militant organizations that have carried out attacks against Indian targets. Pakistan rejects the allegations and has itself accused India of supporting militant activity inside Pakistan.
LATEST VIDEO
Watch on Opinion Newsroom
Subscribe Channel →
For full video analysis and daily breaking updates, subscribe to Opinion Newsroom on YouTube.
The two countries have continued to trade these accusations at international forums, particularly following the April 2025 Pahalgam attack and the subsequent military confrontation between India and Pakistan.
Gahlot's intervention continued India's established diplomatic approach of highlighting terrorism as a central issue in its dealings with Pakistan.
Earlier Indian statements at the UN have also accused Islamabad of protecting militant organizations and criticized what New Delhi describes as Pakistan's use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy.
Gahlot also challenged Pakistan's criticism of religious intolerance in India, pointing to Pakistan's controversial blasphemy laws and the treatment of religious minorities.
She argued that criticism from Pakistan should be considered alongside what India describes as Pakistan's own record concerning minorities.
The issue has become particularly contentious following a dispute over a historic Hindu temple in Pakistan's Punjab province.
A temple in Siraj village in Narowal district became the subject of competing accounts in August and September. Pakistani minority-rights activists alleged that the more than century-old structure was deliberately demolished to facilitate expansion of an adjoining religious seminary.
Pakistan's Evacuee Trust Property Board, however, rejected the allegation. Officials who inspected the site said part of the 125-year-old temple had collapsed following torrential and stormy rainfall and denied that it had been deliberately demolished.
Pakistan's Foreign Ministry likewise said the temple had been damaged by heavy rains on July 21 and that restoration measures had been initiated.
The competing accounts mean the circumstances surrounding the temple damage remain disputed.
Gahlot's response also reflected India's longstanding position that Pakistan should vacate territories that India refers to as Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir.
New Delhi regards the entire territory of Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of India, while Pakistan disputes India's position and administers areas west of the Line of Control.
The Kashmir dispute has remained one of the principal sources of tension between the two nuclear-armed neighbors since their independence in 1947.
Pakistan regularly raises Kashmir at the United Nations, while India maintains that issues concerning Jammu and Kashmir are matters between the two countries and objects to what it regards as internationalization of the dispute.
The exchange followed Shehbaz Sharif's address to the General Assembly, in which the Pakistani prime minister discussed regional security, Kashmir, Palestine and relations with India.
Sharif also warned that any attempt to stop, impede or divert Pakistan's share of water would be treated by Islamabad as an “act of war,” referring to tensions surrounding the Indus river system.
Pakistan has separately maintained that dialogue and diplomacy should remain the preferred means of resolving regional disputes. During a meeting with UN Secretary-General António Guterres on the sidelines of the General Assembly, Sharif reiterated Pakistan's commitment to multilateralism and peaceful resolution of conflicts.
India's Right of Reply therefore came against an already tense diplomatic backdrop, with both sides using the UN platform to present sharply different accounts of regional security and bilateral relations.
Gahlot has previously represented India in similar exchanges at the United Nations. In 2025, she used India's Right of Reply following Sharif's UNGA address to criticize Pakistan over terrorism and its handling of militant organizations.
The latest intervention once again placed terrorism, minority rights and Kashmir at the center of the India-Pakistan diplomatic confrontation.
LATEST VIDEO
Watch on Opinion Newsroom
Subscribe Channel →
For full video analysis and daily breaking updates, subscribe to Opinion Newsroom on YouTube.
While the two governments continue to present fundamentally different narratives over terrorism, Kashmir and minority rights, the UN General Assembly remains one of the principal international platforms where those competing positions are publicly articulated.
For India, Gahlot's response reinforced New Delhi's position that Pakistan should address terrorism-related concerns and resolve outstanding territorial issues through the framework advocated by India.
Pakistan, meanwhile, continues to reject India's allegations and maintains its own concerns regarding Kashmir, water security and the treatment of Muslims and other minorities in India.
The exchange underscored how deeply divided the two countries remain on some of the most sensitive issues on the UN agenda.
