Bushra Ansari clarifies viral remarks about Saira …

  ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has strongly rejected India’s remarks at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) concerning the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) and allegations of terrorism, describing them as an attempt to misrepresent facts and divert attention from issues raised by Pakistan. The response came after India’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Harish Parvathaneni, accused Pakistan of supporting cross-border terrorism and suggested that the issue had affected bilateral cooperation under the Indus Waters Treaty. Pakistan dismissed these allegations during the UNSC’s High-Level Open Debate on “Natural Resource Governance: The Foundation of Peace, Security and Prosperity.” Speaking in a right of reply, Pakistan’s First Secretary to the UN, Ansar Shah, said India’s statement was misleading and represented a futile effort to distort the facts surrounding the treaty and regional security issues. He maintained that the Indus Waters Treaty remains legally valid and binding, rejecting India’s claim that the agreement could be placed in abeyance through unilateral action. Shah stated that the treaty contains no provision allowing either party to suspend or set it aside on its own. He referred to the Court of Arbitration’s August 2025 award, which, according to Pakistan, reaffirmed that the treaty continues to remain fully in force along with its dispute resolution mechanisms. He argued that India’s unilateral approach violated the terms of the agreement as well as established principles of international law. Pakistan also accused India of using shared water resources as a political tool. Shah said any attempt to weaponise water for political pressure or to restrict water access would amount to a serious breach of international legal obligations and norms. He added that such actions could undermine regional stability and pose risks to international peace and security, making the issue relevant to discussions at the Security Council. Responding to India’s allegations regarding terrorism, Shah rejected the accusations and instead claimed that India was attempting to conceal its own involvement in activities that Pakistan says have contributed to terrorism within its borders. He alleged that militant groups such as the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), and the Majeed Brigade had been responsible for attacks that claimed the lives of thousands of Pakistani civilians and security personnel, including women and children. Pakistan reiterated its long-standing allegation that India supports and finances these groups, a claim India has consistently denied. Shah also referred to reports of alleged extraterritorial operations involving India, saying such incidents had raised international concerns. He further argued that India could not portray itself solely as a victim of terrorism while ignoring accusations directed against it. Addressing the situation in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir, Shah said the people of the region continue to be denied their right to self-determination. He maintained that the territory remains internationally recognised as disputed and asserted that no unilateral measures could alter its legal or historical status. He also urged India to fulfil its obligations under the UN Charter and implement relevant UN Security Council resolutions. Earlier in the debate, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Asim Iftikhar, reaffirmed that the Indus Waters Treaty remains effective and legally binding. He called on the UN Security Council to remain vigilant against the misuse or weaponisation of natural resources and encouraged greater use of preventive diplomacy, peaceful dispute resolution, monitoring mechanisms, and other international measures to prevent disputes over shared resources from escalating into broader conflicts.

ISLAMABAD: More than two years after Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s coalition government took office, repeated predictions about its imminent collapse have yet to materialize, even as fresh deadlines continue to dominate Pakistan’s political debate. Since the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N)-led coalition assumed power following the February 2024 general elections, political commentators, television analysts, and social media personalities have frequently forecast the government’s downfall. The expected timelines have varied—from 90 days to six months and beyond—but each prediction has ultimately passed without bringing the anticipated political change. Over time, different events have been presented as potential turning points, including IMF reviews, the federal budget, economic challenges, coalition disagreements, opposition campaigns, and speculation surrounding Pakistan’s political establishment. As one deadline expired, another quickly emerged, keeping the narrative alive despite the government’s continued survival. The latest claim suggests the government has been given six months to create new provinces. However, constitutional experts argue that such a proposal is highly unlikely within that timeframe. Under Pakistan’s Constitution, altering provincial boundaries requires a constitutional amendment approved by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament as well as the consent of the relevant provincial assembly. Given the current political landscape and the absence of broad political consensus, analysts believe such a move faces significant constitutional and political hurdles. Political observers note that earlier forecasts were largely driven by concerns that the coalition lacked the strength to withstand inflation, IMF-linked reforms, and mounting economic pressures. Yet the government has managed to navigate successive economic and political challenges, prompting critics to repeatedly revise their predictions rather than abandon them. Speculation has also been fueled by statements from several political figures and commentators who have periodically hinted at major political developments or institutional changes. Although such claims have often generated widespread public discussion, none of the predicted political upheavals have occurred. In recent weeks, the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) has intensified its criticism of the federal government, particularly amid growing tensions with its coalition partner during the Azad Jammu and Kashmir election campaign. While the PPP has adopted a tougher political tone, analysts caution that electoral rhetoric and coalition disagreements do not necessarily signal the immediate collapse of the federal government. Rumors about possible alternatives to the current leadership have also surfaced repeatedly. Claims that a new political figure was being prepared to replace Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, along with speculation about the removal of senior cabinet members, have circulated over the past year. However, none of those predictions have been borne out by subsequent developments. Analysts say the recurring cycle of political forecasts reflects a broader trend in Pakistan’s political discourse, where speculation often outpaces reality. While acknowledging that every government faces political and economic challenges, they note that repeated predictions of the coalition’s imminent fall have consistently failed to match events on the ground, leaving each passing deadline followed by yet another countdown.