Pakistani PM condemns India’s ‘cowardly act of war’

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif addresses the special session at the National Assembly in Islamabad. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 07 May 2025
Follow

Pakistani PM condemns India’s ‘cowardly act of war’

  • Shehbaz Sharif convenes meeting of National Security Committee after Indian strikes kill 26
  • Indian authorities accused of ‘once again igniting an inferno in the region’

NEW YORK CITY: Pakistan’s prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, has condemned India for an “unprovoked, cowardly and unlawful act of war,” following overnight strikes that targeted locations across his country.

He convened the National Security Committee, Pakistan’s top security body, on Wednesday in the wake of the Indian strikes, which were part of a military action codenamed Operation Sindoor.

India launched a series of “coordinated missile, air and drone strikes on multiple locations within Pakistan’s sovereign territory,” the prime minister’s office said after the security meeting. The death toll from the strikes stood at 26, with 46 people injured.

Pakistan claimed to have shot down five Indian jets in retaliation, as Sharif on Wednesday authorized his nation’s military to take “corresponding actions” in response to the strikes.

The dramatic escalation follows weeks of mounting tensions between India and Pakistan following a terror attack in Indian-administered Kashmir on April 22. The two nuclear-armed powers each administer parts of Kashmir but claim the region in full.

The statement by the prime minister’s office condemned the overnight strikes as “unprovoked and unjustified attacks” that “deliberately targeted civilian areas.”

India attacked Pakistan “on the false pretext of presence of imaginary terrorist camps, resulting in the martyrdom of innocent men, women and children, and causing damage to the civilian infrastructure, including mosques,” it added.

Pakistan accused India of “causing grave danger” to commercial airliners as a result of the attacks, “endangering the lives of thousands of onboard passengers.” The country also accused India of “deliberately targeting” the Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Project in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, “in violation of international conventions.”

The statement repeated the government’s rejection of Indian allegations regarding the presence of terrorist camps on Pakistani territory.

In the aftermath of the terror attack in Pahalgam on April 22, “Pakistan made a sincere offer for a credible, transparent and neutral investigation, which unfortunately was not accepted,” it added.

“The Indian leadership, bereft of any morality, has now gone to the extent of attacking innocent civilians in order to satiate its delusional thoughts and short-sighted political objectives.”

Pakistan’s National Security Committee condemned the Indian strikes as “blatant violations of Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, which manifestly constituted acts of war under international law.”

The country accused its rival of acting “against all sanity and rationality” and “once again igniting an inferno in the region.” Responsibility for the soaring tensions and outbreak of violence “lies squarely with India,” it added.

Citing Article 51 of the UN Charter, which addresses the right to individual or collective self-defense, Pakistan said it reserves the right to respond to the Indian attacks “at a time, place and manner of its choosing.”

It added: “Deeply anguished by India’s naked aggression, the entire Pakistani nation greatly appreciates and admires the bravery and courage of the armed forces and their timely action in the defense of their motherland.

“The nation stands galvanized and resolute in the face of any further aggression.”

The Pakistani statement urged the international community to recognize India’s “unprovoked illegal actions” and hold the country accountable.

“Pakistan remains committed to peace, with dignity and honor, and reiterates that it shall never allow any violation of its sovereignty, territorial integrity or permit any harm to its proud people,” it added.


WHO chief says reasons US gave for withdrawing ‘untrue’

Updated 25 January 2026
Follow

WHO chief says reasons US gave for withdrawing ‘untrue’

  • US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced in a joint statement Thursday that Washington had formally withdrawn from the WHO
  • And in a post on X, Tedros added: “Unfortunately, the reasons cited for the US decision to withdraw from WHO are untrue”

GENEVA: The head of the UN’s health agency on Saturday pushed back against Washington’s stated reasons for withdrawing from the World Health Organization, dismissing US criticism of the WHO as “untrue.”
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned that US announcement this week that it had formally withdrawn from the WHO “makes both the US and the world less safe.”
And in a post on X, he added: “Unfortunately, the reasons cited for the US decision to withdraw from WHO are untrue.”
He insisted: “WHO has always engaged with the US, and all Member States, with full respect for their sovereignty.”
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced in a joint statement Thursday that Washington had formally withdrawn from the WHO.
They accused the agency, of numerous “failures during the Covid-19 pandemic” and of acting “repeatedly against the interests of the United States.”
The WHO has not yet confirmed that the US withdrawal has taken effect.

- ‘Trashed and tarnished’ -

The two US officials said the WHO had “trashed and tarnished” the United States, and had compromised its independence.
“The reverse is true,” the WHO said in a statement.
“As we do with every Member State, WHO has always sought to engage with the United States in good faith.”
The agency strenuously rejected the accusation from Rubio and Kennedy that its Covid response had “obstructed the timely and accurate sharing of critical information that could have saved American lives and then concealed those failures.”
Kennedy also suggested in a video posted to X Friday that the WHO was responsible for “the Americans who died alone in nursing homes (and) the small businesses that were destroyed by reckless mandates” to wear masks and get vaccinated.
The US withdrawal, he insisted, was about “protecting American sovereignty, and putting US public health back in the hands of the American people.”
Tedros warned on X that the statement “contains inaccurate information.”
“Throughout the pandemic, WHO acted quickly, shared all information it had rapidly and transparently with the world, and advised Member States on the basis of the best available evidence,” the agency said.
“WHO recommended the use of masks, vaccines and physical distancing, but at no stage recommended mask mandates, vaccine mandates or lockdowns,” it added.
“We supported sovereign governments to make decisions they believed were in the best interests of their people, but the decisions were theirs.”

- Withdrawal ‘raises issues’ -

The row came as Washington struggled to dislodge itself from the WHO, a year after US President Donald Trump signed an executive order to that effect.
The one-year withdrawal process reached completion on Thursday, but Kennedy and Rubio regretted in their statement that the UN health agency had “not approved our withdrawal and, in fact, claims that we owe it compensation.”
WHO has highlighted that when Washington joined the organization in 1948, it reserved the right to withdraw, as long as it gave one year’s notice and had met “its financial obligations to the organization in full for the current fiscal year.”
But Washington has not paid its 2024 or 2025 dues, and is behind around $260 million.
“The notification of withdrawal raises issues,” WHO said Saturday, adding that the topic would be examined during WHO’s Executive Board meeting next month and by the annual World Health Assembly meeting in May.
“We hope the US will return to active participation in WHO in the future,” Tedros said Saturday.
“Meanwhile, WHO remains steadfastly committed to working with all countries in pursuit of its core mission and constitutional mandate: the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right for all people.”