Editorial 1: Pakistan at the UNSC, the points of its compass
Context
India should be prepared for Pakistan’s anti-India initiatives in the United Nations Security Council
Introduction
On January 1, 2025, Pakistan enters the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) as an elected non-permanent member for a two-year term — its eighth. Pakistan’s entry is significant in that, effectively, half of the 10 elected members of UNSC will be from the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Those elected for 2025-26 were Denmark, Greece, Pakistan, Panama and Somalia. They will replace Ecuador, Japan, Malta, Mozambique and Switzerland as their terms end on December 31. The new members will join Algeria, Guyana, the Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone and Slovenia, who are existing non-permanent members.
- Focus on Afghanistan: Afghanistan will be a natural focus, with Pakistan sure to use its Council stint to repair its frosty relations with the Taliban.
- Support from Russia and China: In this, Pakistan has Russia and China to readily assist in the diplomatic rehabilitation of the Taliban.
- Ceasefire in Gaza: With the OIC countries, one hopes that the Council gets all the support it needs for a ceasefire in Gaza to salvage from the rubble whatever is left of the Palestinian cause and stabilise the region.
- Peacekeeping Priorities: Peacekeeping is another of Pakistan’s stated priorities given its role as a major troop-contributing country for UN peacekeeping.
- Focus on India: However, Pakistan’s default mode will be to focus on India.
What India should expect
- India-Pakistan Relations: India-Pakistan relations are still strained. Even if one assumes that some backchannels are busy working the lines, enhanced bilateral cooperation does not necessarily result in enhanced multilateral cooperation, especially in the UN.
- UN Dynamics with OIC Countries: Some OIC countries with which India has very close bilateral relations, line up behind Pakistani drafts in the UN which have anti-India language. They argue — ingeniously — that the offensive language is not aimed at India. Fortunately, there is help from unexpected friends in such groups, enabling India to tide over these issues successfully.
- Pakistan’s Anti-India Initiatives in UNSC: India should be prepared for Pakistan’s anti-India initiatives in the UNSC. A brief period in 2012 saw some synergy between the Missions of both countries, but that was an aberration. Pakistan is back to its multilateral default mode of being anti-India.
- China-Pakistan Partnership: Pakistan now has a more assertive “iron brother” in China, offering it an “all-weather friendship”.
- Pakistan’s Priority on Terrorism: Pakistan’s first stated priority is to “combat terrorism”, which it hopes will absolve it of the tag of a “terrorist state”, while trying to slip that tag onto India.
- Terrorist Listings and Retaliation: The list of Pakistan-based terrorist organisations under UNSC Resolution 1267 includes groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM).
- In retaliation, Pakistan has presented “dossiers” to the UN Secretary General with claims of Indian terrorist attacks on Pakistan.
- India’s UNSC Proposal (2021-22): India’s proposal, co-signed by the United States, to list Abdul Rehman Makki(deputy leader of the LeT) under 1267 sanctions regime was approved, including by China, marking the first listing (with India as proposer) for terrorist acts in Jammu and Kashmir.
- Pakistan’s Religious Color on Sanctions: Pakistan attempted to list four Indian Hindus as terrorists under 1267 sanctions, but the Council rejected all requests twice, thanks to the U.S. and other western countries. Member-states have seen through Pakistan’s game.
On Kashmir
- Pakistan’s Next Priority: Jammu and Kashmir (J&K): Its next, and most obvious, stated priority will be Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).
- UNSC Discussions on Article 370: Pakistan pushed for discussions on J&K in the UNSC through its “friends” when India abrogated Article 370 of the Constitution.
- Two closed “consultations” were held in the UNSC, with China acting as the cat’s-paw, but nothing happened.
- At least four of the five permanent members (P-5) have little appetite for this issue.
- India’s Position on Article 370: When a Pakistani journalist asked this writer in 2021 about the “unfinished” business of Article 370, the reply was that the only “unfinished” business was the return of Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir (PoK) to India.
- Popular Government in J&K: With elections conducted and a popular government in place in J&K, Pakistan would find it hard to make this an issue.
- China’s Role on J&K: China, which occupies part of PoK after Pakistan ceded it to them, will be happy to keep the pot boiling.
- The Pakistani Ambassador to the UN linked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision on Palestine to J&K in the media.
- Pakistan’s Presence in the UNSC: Pakistan’s presence in the UNSC gives it the lever to call for discussions on J&K.
- India’s Awareness of UNSC Dynamics: India is aware that the P-5 usually does not prevent discussions but decides whether they should be open or closedand whether there should be an outcome.
The use of Islamophobia
- Islamophobia as a Weapon: Pakistan has used Islamophobia as a weapon to dilute the fight against terrorism and, in recent attempts, to target India.
- UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (GTS): During discussions on the GTS in 2021 and 2023, Pakistan, supported by the OIC, sought to introduce Islamophobia as a ‘justification’ for terrorism.
- India stood alone and had the reference removed.
- However, after India’s exit from the Council at the end of 2022, Islamophobia was included in the UNSC Presidential statement in February 2023.
- UN Special Envoy on Islamophobia: In March 2024, the U.S., China, and Russia voted in favor of an OIC resolution to appoint a UN Special Envoy for Combatting Islamophobia.
- Indus Waters Treaty Misuse: Pakistan raised the India-Pakistan Indus Waters Treaty in the Council, despite it being a purely bilateral agreement with its own dispute resolution mechanism.
- This is seen as a misuse of the UNSC, catering only to a domestic audience.
- India’s Role in UNSC (2021-22): India played a robust and positive role in strengthening international peace and security during its 2021-22 stintin the UNSC.
- India refrained from misusing the “Arria formula” for informal meetings and focused on its priorities in the Council.
- Pakistan’s Compunctions: Pakistan is unlikely to have similar restraints and will leverage any opportunity for anti-India initiatives.
- Ignored Multilateral Synergies: Pakistan ignores potential multilateral synergies with India in areas like UN peacekeeping, climate change, Sustainable Development Goals 2030, the Global South’s debt burden, and reforming multilateral financial institutions.
- Even functional contacts with Indian diplomats are frowned upon by Pakistan’s Mission.
Conclusion
Pakistan’s internal political churning, economic collapse and misplaced priorities have prevented it from strengthening multilateralism and the UN in a world wrecked by conflicts. While its term will be high on rhetoric against India, it is difficult to see how UN member-states will be persuaded to play its game.
Editorial 2: The missing spotlight on urban local government elections
Context
The ongoing discourse on simultaneous elections, or ONOE, is the right opportunity for change.
Introduction
Urban local governments (ULGs) function as units of decentralised local self-governance, and are responsible for delivering civic services at the first mile, ensuring quality of life for citizens. The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA) was introduced in 1992 to codify this role of ULGs. Over 30 years later, the objectives of this landmark amendment are yet to be realised. The ongoing discourse on simultaneous elections, popularly known as One Nation One Election (ONOE), is a unique opportunity to spotlight a basic requirement of local democracy, i.e., elections to ULGs — a consideration that has generally been absent in deliberations on the ONOE.
‘State subjects’ as reasoning
- 79th Report of the Parliament Standing Committee on Law and Justice (2015): The 79th report of the Parliament Standing Committee on Law and Justice on the ‘Feasibility of Simultaneous Elections’, submitted in 2015, while advocating simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, was silent on elections to ULGs.
- NITI Aayog Discussion Paper (2017): A discussion paper (2017) by the NITI Aayog, on ‘Analysis of Simultaneous Elections’, kept ULGs out of its purview, arguing that the third-tier institutions are State subjects and that the sheer number of such institutions across the country makes it “impractical, and possibly impossible, to synchronise elections”.
- Law Commission of India Draft Report (2018): Similar reasoning is put forward in the 2018 draft report of the Law Commission of India on simultaneous elections.
- High Level Committee (HLC) Report (2024): But in a refreshing departure, the High Level Committee (HLC)constituted by the Government of India to provide a road map for implementation of simultaneous elections, deliberated on local body elections and recommended synchronising them within 100 days of simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.
- Importance of ULGs: India has over 4,800 ULGs that oversee nearly 40% of the population, a figure which is estimated to cross 50% by 2050. Cities are the backbone of the country’s economy, contributing over 60% to India’s GDP. Well-governed cities accelerate economic growth, and promote social and cultural well being.
- Policy Implications: Thus, ensuring regular elections to install democratically-elected governments in our cities every five years ought to be a matter of mainstream political discourse and policy formulation.
- Current State and Future Steps: The HLC report, which was accepted by the Union government in September 2024, touched upon the procedure of elections to local governments and is a good start in this direction. However, deeper analysis is necessary to understand and address the current state of affairs of elections to ULGs.
Uncertainty and delays in elections
- Constitutional Mandate for ULG Elections: It may come as a surprise to many that despite the constitutional mandate of holding elections to municipalities every five years, elections are routinely delayed across thousands of ULGs — sometimes by several years.
- Delay in ULG Elections: According to the Compendium of Performance Audits on the Implementation of the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992 (published by the Comptroller and Auditor General, or CAG of India in November 2024), elections were delayed in over 60% of ULGs across India.
- Violation of Decentralisation Principle: Such ULGs are directly governed by State governments, violating the principle of decentralisation as envisaged in the Constitution.
- Impact on Accountability: The delay in holding ULG elections adversely impacts accountability as citizens lack representation and have limited avenues for airing their grievances and development needs.
- Necessity of Timely Elections for Democracy: Elections held on time are the sine qua non for democracy — not just for Parliament and the State legislatures but also for every municipality in the country.
- Delays After Election Results: Holding elections to ULGs is not enough. After the results are announced, the elected councils have to be operationalised with State governments calling for their first meeting to enable elections to the offices of mayors/chairpersons and standing committees.
- Delay in Formation of Councils: A study undertaken by Janaagraha found that there was a delay of 11 months on average in the formation of councils after the declaration of election results of the municipal corporations in Karnataka.
- ULGs Functioning Under State Control: In effect, ULGs continue to function under the administrative control of State governments, defeating the electoral mandate given by the people and making elected city councillors powerless to attend to the development needs of their electorate.
Disempowered State Election Commissions
- Disempowerment of State Election Commissions (SECs): Another important issue is the disempowerment of the State Election Commissions (SECs), which are constitutional bodies responsible for supervising and conducting ULG elections.
- CAG Report on SECs: The CAG report notes that only four out of the 15 States assessed have empowered their SECs to carry out ward delimitation.
- Delays Due to Ward Delimitation and Court Cases: The report further notes that elections to ULGs were delayed due to a delay in ward delimitation by State governments or because of court cases regarding reservation.
- Need for Independent Authorities: Given the high political ramifications of ward delimitation and reservation exercises, it is necessary that these functions are carried out by independent authorities such as the SECs.
- Holistic Analysis of Challenges: A holistic analysis of the challenges in conducting elections to ULGs promptly is important in the ongoing national discourse on the synchronisation of elections.
- Urgency for Reform: There is an urgent need to build on the beginning made by the HLC to effect the reforms necessary in ULG elections.
Conclusion
The Government of India has proposed setting up an implementation group to prepare a plan of action that would execute the HLC’s recommendations. The government has also expressed its intent to have consultations across the country on this topic. It is hoped and expected that the agenda for reforms to ensure regular and scheduled elections to ULGs will feature in these dialogues and that the Union and State governments will come together to make local democracy in our cities operational and vibrant.