India has strongly objected to a United Nations report describing fugitive gangster Dawood Ibrahim’s criminal network, D-Company, as an “India-based” organisation. New Delhi argued that the description contains significant factual omissions and could create a misleading impression about the network’s location and its leader’s history.
The objection was raised by Raghoo Puri, First Secretary at India’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations, during a meeting of the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee on Wednesday. India called for greater accuracy, impartiality and accountability in reports prepared by independent UN experts.
India Questions the Report’s Description of D-Company
The controversy centres on a report by Ben Saul, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. The report described Dawood Ibrahim as the leader of an India-based criminal group with links to terrorism.
Indian officials argued that this wording failed to provide important context about Ibrahim’s departure from India and his long-standing status as a wanted criminal. According to India, the report referred to the group’s association with Al-Qaeda but did not adequately explain the circumstances surrounding the relevant international sanctions designation.
Puri said the omission of key details presented an incomplete picture. He also expressed concern that reports containing factual inaccuracies could undermine confidence in international institutions, particularly when their findings concern terrorism and national security.
India Highlights the 1993 Mumbai Blasts
During its response, India emphasised that Dawood Ibrahim has been wanted by Indian authorities in connection with terrorist attacks dating back to 1993, including the devastating Mumbai serial bombings.
Indian officials also referred to the United Nations Security Council’s sanctions framework, under which Ibrahim was listed in 2003 for his association with Al-Qaeda. New Delhi maintained that he had left India before that designation and argued that the chronology was essential to understanding the case.
India further stated that Ibrahim remains a wanted criminal and is believed by Indian authorities to be based in Pakistan. Puri compared the situation with that of Osama bin Laden, who was found and killed by US forces in Pakistan in 2011.
The remarks reiterated India’s long-standing position on Ibrahim’s whereabouts. However, the claims surrounding his current location have not been independently established through a public confirmation of his precise whereabouts.
New Delhi Calls for Greater Accountability
Beyond the specific description of D-Company, India raised broader concerns about the standards applied to reports by UN special rapporteurs. Puri argued that factual errors in sensitive reports could damage the credibility of the United Nations and called for greater responsibility among officials holding independent mandates.
India also rejected the suggestion that human rights principles should be used to justify or excuse terrorism. Its representative maintained that protecting human rights and addressing terrorism must not be treated as competing objectives, while stressing that extremist violence cannot be justified.
The exchange reflects wider debates within international institutions over how counterterrorism measures, human rights protections and political disagreements should be addressed. Countries have frequently challenged international reports when they believe the findings omit important context or apply standards inconsistently.
Kashmir Issue Also Features in the Exchange
The Indian representative also responded to remarks from Pakistan’s delegation concerning Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Puri rejected the allegations made against India, describing them as politically motivated, and reiterated New Delhi’s position that both regions are integral parts of the country.
The intervention placed the dispute over D-Company within a broader diplomatic exchange involving terrorism, human rights and longstanding tensions between India and Pakistan.
The disagreement highlights the importance of precision in international reporting, particularly when assessments involve criminal networks, terrorism-related sanctions and politically sensitive disputes. India’s objection has called attention to the need for reports to include relevant background and chronology so that descriptions of individuals and organisations are not interpreted without essential context.
