India Criticizes OIC’s Stance on Article 370 Verdict


India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has strongly rebuked the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a coalition of Muslim nations, for its criticism of the Indian Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Central government’s revocation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir. MEA spokesperson Arindam Bagchi, in a pointed reference to Pakistan, accused the OIC of releasing a statement influenced by an “unrepentant promoter of cross-border terrorism,” further questioning the credibility of the international grouping.

Bagchi went on to characterize the OIC’s statement as “ill-informed and ill-intended,” expressing India’s rejection of the General Secretariat’s stance on the Indian Supreme Court’s judgment. He underscored the questionable nature of the OIC’s action, particularly when influenced by a country he referred to as a “serial violator of human rights and an unrepentant promoter of cross-border terrorism.”

The OIC, in its statement released on Tuesday, expressed “concern” over the Supreme Court’s verdict, denouncing the revocation of Article 370 as “illegal and unilateral” while calling for its recall. This move by the OIC has triggered a sharp response from India, with Bagchi asserting that such statements only serve to undermine the credibility of the organization.

More About The OIC’s Position:

The ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir issue have frequently spilled over into international forums, with each side presenting its case and seeking support from various quarters. The MEA’s criticism of the OIC’s statement reflects India’s frustration with what it perceives as external interference in its internal matters, particularly the sensitive issue of Jammu and Kashmir.

India’s rejection of the OIC’s position not only highlights its commitment to defending its sovereign decisions but also signals a growing displeasure with international organizations taking stances influenced by what it deems as nations involved in promoting terrorism. Bagchi’s emphasis on the OIC’s compromised credibility in the wake of such statements suggests a desire for more objective and impartial considerations on international platforms.

As the diplomatic discourse unfolds, the repercussions of this exchange of words between India and the OIC remain to be seen. It adds another layer to the complex dynamics surrounding the Kashmir issue, reflecting the broader challenges of balancing national sovereignty with international concerns.