Editorial

External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s sharp reply at the United Nations this week — “A terrorist country is asking me that question. Come on” — was more than a momentary put-down. It was a deliberate, public rejection of a long-running narrative that seeks to invert reality.

The exchange occurred on the sidelines of the 81st UN General Assembly during a briefing on the newly launched Group of Friends on Safety and Security of Shipping and Seafarers. After Jaishankar and Liberia’s Foreign Minister concluded their remarks, a Pakistani journalist interrupted with a familiar accusation: “When will your government stop sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan?” Jaishankar’s response was instantaneous and unsparing. India’s Permanent Representative later underlined that the answer had been delivered “loud and clear.”

The moment carried particular force because it followed a similar question put to Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif the previous day, which he simply ignored. The contrast was telling. India has consistently documented Pakistan’s role as a safe haven and sponsor of terrorist groups that have targeted Indian civilians, security forces, and even international interests for decades. FATF grey-listing episodes, judicial evidence, and multiple cross-border attacks form a public record that no amount of rhetorical deflection can erase. Turning the charge back on India is not journalism; it is political theatre.

Yet the significance of Jaishankar’s words extends beyond bilateral score-settling. At the same UNGA, he has pressed two larger themes: the need for text-based negotiations on UN reform and deeper cooperation among Global South nations. He has argued that those who block reform “use” the United Nations without caring for its relevance, and that the Global South sits in the front row of crises while remaining in the back row of decision-making. His demand for a written text rather than endless procedural stalling is a practical call for democratic functioning inside the world body.

In that light, the retort to the Pakistani journalist is consistent with a broader diplomatic posture: refuse false equivalence, name realities, and keep the focus on systemic change. Diplomacy does not require silence in the face of provocation. When a country with a documented record of harbouring terrorists attempts to lecture others on the subject inside the United Nations, a clear, public rejection is not only justified — it is necessary.

Jaishankar’s one-liner will travel farther than many carefully drafted statements. It reminds audiences that hypocrisy has limits, and that India is no longer inclined to absorb it politely.

The nationwide protests led by the Congress against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar mark a serious escalation in a controversy that strikes at the heart of India’s electoral integrity. At issue is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and, more critically, reports of sustained internal dissent within the three-member Election Commission itself.

An investigative report has revealed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally objected at least 14 times over a 10-month period to decisions and orders related to the SIR. Their concerns reportedly covered changes to Form 6 for new voter registration, centralisation of access to electoral-roll databases, deletions and restorations of names, and the manner in which some decisions were taken without their knowledge. The Election Commission has responded that internal differences are part of deliberative processes and that final decisions, including those on the SIR, were unanimous. That clarification, however, has not settled the political or public unease.

The Congress has seized on these revelations, launching marches across states, demanding Kumar’s resignation and arrest, and framing the episode as “vote chori.” Police have used water cannons and made detentions in several places. Civil society groups have joined the calls for accountability. Significantly, even some NDA allies — including leaders from the Lok Janshakti Party and Telugu Desam Party — have urged the Commission to issue a clearer public explanation, not to placate the Opposition but to prevent erosion of trust among ordinary citizens.

The SIR exercise itself was intended to clean up rolls that had not undergone a comprehensive revision for decades. Yet the scale of deletions — running into crores of names — and questions over procedural safeguards have fuelled suspicion. When two of the three constitutional authorities overseeing the process record repeated objections, the problem ceases to be merely political and becomes institutional. An independent, transparent review of the contested decisions is now essential. Public confidence in the Election Commission is not a partisan asset; it is a foundational requirement of democracy. Street protests and political rhetoric alone will not restore it. Only a credible accounting of how decisions were taken, and whether the Commission functioned as a collective body, can begin to address the damage. The longer the ambiguity persists, the deeper the cost to the legitimacy of India’s electoral process.

• SAS Kirmani