India on Wednesday sharply rebuked a United Nations special rapporteur for describing wanted terrorist Dawood Ibrahim as the leader of an 'India-based' criminal network, calling the error 'regrettable' and warning that such inaccuracies cause the UN 'tremendous harm.' The rebuke came at the UN in New York, where Raghoo Puri, First Secretary at India's Permanent Mission to the UN, directly accused the rapporteur of incompetence.

What the UN Report Got Wrong

Ben Saul, the Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights and a professor of international law at the University of Sydney, had described Dawood Ibrahim in his July report as the leader of the 'India-based' D-Company criminal gang with terrorist ties. The report also noted that the UN Security Council sanctioned Ibrahim for his association with al-Qaeda.

Puri called this description a 'particularly glaring inaccuracy,' stressing that the characterisation, 'read in isolation, paints a very different picture from the actual reality.' He pointed out that Dawood Ibrahim and D-Company 'have been wanted in India for terror attacks since 1993' — a fact, he argued, that Saul conspicuously failed to mention.

India's Core Argument: Dawood Fled India Decades Ago

Puri was unequivocal in setting the record straight. 'For the record, this individual fled India much before the 2003 listing' as an international terrorist by the Security Council, he said. It was from outside India that Ibrahim was listed for association with al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, Puri clarified.

In a pointed reference, Puri added that Dawood Ibrahim 'resides in the same country where Osama bin Laden was found and neutralised' — an unmistakable allusion to Pakistan, where bin Laden was discovered hiding in Abbottabad and killed by US Navy SEALs in 2011. India had previously secured an Interpol Red Corner Notice against Ibrahim, requiring law enforcement worldwide to locate and arrest him for extradition.

Funding Concerns and Independence of the Rapporteur

Puri flagged media allegations about potential conflicts of interest surrounding Saul's office. According to data compiled by the watchdog group UN Watch, Saul has reportedly received $150,000 from China, with his total disclosed funding reaching $1.7 million from sources including his university, three US universities, and institutions in Switzerland and Spain. Special rapporteurs are not directly paid by the UN and are meant to operate independently of it.

Puri urged that 'the highest standards of probity and impartiality be maintained,' signalling India's concern that the office of special mandate holders risks being compromised. 'Not mentioning this fact is regrettable and such incompetence on the part of special mandate holders does this organisation tremendous harm,' he said.

US Secretary of State Echoes Criticism

Notably, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was in Mumbai — the city struck by the deadly 26/11 terror attack by Pakistani terrorists in 2008 — on the same day questioned the competence of UN special rapporteurs. 'The UN experts are the oxymoron,' Rubio reportedly said, in a remark that aligned with India's critique, though delivered independently.

India Rejects Pakistan's Kashmir Claims

Turning to Pakistan, which had raised the issue of Kashmir during the proceedings, Puri was dismissive. 'Everyone in this room knows that what has been mentioned against my country, including about the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, is pure propaganda made for very narrow political gains,' he said. He attributed the allegations to 'the actual rulers of Pakistan, which is its military,' and reiterated that 'Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh are an inalienable part of India and have been so and will always remain.'

Puri also pushed back on attempts to shield terrorism behind human rights arguments, stating: 'Human rights framework cannot be the refuge of the perpetrators of terror and those who propagate radicalisation and extremism. Terrorism can never be justified.' The episode is likely to intensify India's scrutiny of UN human rights mechanisms and their accountability frameworks going forward.