India criticised Pakistan over the treatment of religious minorities during a United Nations discussion on religious freedom and funeral rights. Indian diplomat Bhavika Mangalanandan also questioned a UN report for allegedly overlooking similar incidents in developed countries while discussing discrimination during the COVID-19 pandemic.
What happened at the United Nations?
India raised concerns about Pakistan’s record on religious minority rights during an interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. Bhavika Mangalanandan, First Secretary at India’s Permanent Mission to the UN, challenged the approach taken in a report examining funeral rights during exceptional circumstances. She questioned whether the report had adequately considered cases of religious discrimination and difficulties surrounding funeral practices across different parts of the world. According to the Economic Times report published on October 23, 2026, Mangalanandan argued that the document appeared to focus disproportionately on incidents in the Global South while failing to discuss comparable tragedies in developed countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. She called for a more impartial approach to examining religious freedom and said human suffering should not be used for political purposes.
Why did India question the UN report?
India’s criticism focused on what Mangalanandan described as an imbalance in the report’s treatment of religious discrimination during the pandemic. She asked why similar incidents in developed countries had not received comparable attention if the report was intended to assess such practices fairly. The Indian diplomat also challenged the report’s discussion of funeral rights for people accused of terrorism. She argued that protecting the rights of perpetrators should not overshadow the rights of victims who lose their lives in terrorist attacks. Her remarks reflected India’s position that reports on religious freedom and human rights should examine abuses consistently, without selectively highlighting particular countries or regions. However, the supplied report does not include the Special Rapporteur’s response to India’s criticism or a detailed examination of the methodology used in the UN report.
How did India invoke the 1999 Kargil conflict?
Mangalanandan referred to the Kargil conflict of 1999 to challenge Pakistan’s position on religious freedom and the treatment of the dead. She alleged that Pakistan had refused to accept the bodies of some of its soldiers killed during the conflict. She added that the Indian Army had buried several Pakistani soldiers with military honours and according to Islamic rites. India used this historical reference to question what it described as a contradiction between Pakistan’s statements on burial rights and its past conduct. The remarks formed part of the wider diplomatic exchange and were presented as an argument by the Indian representative. The supplied article does not provide additional documentation examining the historical claim.
What did India say about Pakistan’s treatment of minorities?
Mangalanandan accused Pakistan of failing to adequately protect religious minorities, claiming that their numbers were declining and their rights were regularly violated. She argued that a country unable to guarantee the safety of its minority communities should not lecture India on religious freedom. The Indian diplomat also criticised Pakistan’s comments on Jammu and Kashmir, urging Islamabad to focus on developments in the parts of the region under its control rather than commenting on the Indian-administered Union Territory. These remarks reflect India’s diplomatic position on Pakistan’s record and its statements concerning Jammu and Kashmir.
What concerns have been raised about religious minorities in Pakistan?
The Economic Times report also referred to concerns raised during an interfaith dialogue in Hyderabad, Pakistan, about the treatment of Hindu girls and other vulnerable communities. According to the report, participants highlighted allegations involving the abduction of Hindu girls, forced religious conversions, marriages and shortcomings in the implementation of laws intended to protect religious minorities in Sindh. Former Pakistani Member of the National Assembly Neelam Kumari reportedly alleged that Hindu girls continued to face abductions and forced conversions, while questioning the effectiveness of existing legal safeguards. The article also cited concerns raised by experts associated with the United Nations human rights office regarding coercion, inadequate legal protections and forced conversions through marriage, particularly affecting Hindu and Christian communities. Those experts reportedly stressed that religious conversion must be voluntary and that child marriage undermines meaningful consent under international law. They also highlighted the vulnerability of adolescent girls facing poverty and social marginalisation. These concerns provide additional context to India’s remarks, but the allegations cited in the article should not be treated as proof that every reported case has been independently established.
What remains unclear?
The supplied report does not provide the full UN document, the Special Rapporteur’s response to India’s objections or a detailed comparison of pandemic-related discrimination in developed and developing countries. It also does not independently verify all the allegations raised about Pakistan’s treatment of minorities or provide a response from the Pakistani government to Mangalanandan’s remarks. As a result, the article establishes what India said during the UN dialogue, but it does not independently settle every factual dispute raised during the exchange.
Conclusion
India’s intervention at the United Nations centred on two issues: the alleged selective treatment of religious discrimination in a report on funeral rights and Pakistan’s record concerning religious minorities. By referring to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Kargil conflict and allegations involving minority communities in Pakistan, New Delhi challenged Islamabad’s position on religious freedom and called for a more consistent approach to human rights reporting. The broader issue remains the importance of assessing religious discrimination and minority rights impartially, using verifiable evidence and applying the same standards across countries.