The Ministry of External Affairs said on Saturday that Zardari’s comments on alleged threats to Muslim religious sites were “unwarranted” and “absurd”, especially in view of Pakistan’s own record on human rights and treatment of minorities. Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said the remarks amounted to interference in internal affairs and reflected a familiar pattern of political attacks from Islamabad.
“India categorically rejects the unwarranted comments made by the President of Pakistan. He has, in any case, no locus standi to comment on matters that are internal to India,” Jaiswal said. He added that Pakistan’s “abysmal record on human rights” remained a matter of global concern and that its “long history of systematically targeting and victimising minorities across various faiths is notorious”.
The response followed Zardari’s statement expressing concern over what he described as demolitions and threats to historic Muslim religious places, including Masjid Ganj Shaheeda in Varanasi. The mosque, located near Kashi railway station, has drawn attention after a notice was reported to have sought removal of the structure by June 20 on the grounds that it stood on railway land.
The issue has acquired diplomatic overtones after Islamabad linked the dispute to broader claims about minority rights and religious heritage. New Delhi’s rejection sought to frame the matter as an internal administrative and legal issue, while casting Pakistan’s intervention as lacking credibility because of its own minority rights record.
Jaiswal said Zardari’s comments could “only be read as a deliberate political attack” driven by Pakistan’s “national policies of bigotry and hatred”. The phrasing marked one of the sharper public responses from the ministry to Islamabad on a religious-site controversy, combining a sovereignty argument with a countercharge on human rights.
The Varanasi dispute centres on a notice said to have been issued in connection with railway land near the Kashi station area, where redevelopment and expansion work has been under way. Reports around the notice have produced competing claims. Railway-linked accounts have described the move as part of an anti-encroachment process linked to station development, while representatives of the mosque have questioned the validity of the notice and argued that the structure’s status and history require legal scrutiny.
The mosque committee has disputed claims that the structure is an unauthorised encroachment and has indicated that it would pursue legal remedies. Questions have also been raised over the form of the notice, including whether it carried proper official authentication. These details are likely to remain central if the matter moves through administrative or judicial channels.
Zardari’s intervention broadened the dispute beyond the immediate land and redevelopment issue. His statement referred to “historic Muslim religious sites” and urged a halt to actions that he said could deepen unrest. New Delhi, however, responded by rejecting the premise of external commentary, stressing that matters involving domestic institutions, land use and legal processes cannot be adjudicated through political remarks from another country.
The exchange comes against the backdrop of long-running strains between New Delhi and Islamabad, where questions of minority rights, religious sites and cross-border political rhetoric frequently become points of contention. India has often accused Pakistan of using rights-related issues to deflect attention from its own domestic challenges, while Pakistan has attempted to internationalise disputes involving minorities and religious identity.
Pakistan’s minority communities, including Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Ahmadis and Shias, have for years faced concerns over forced conversions, blasphemy accusations, mob violence, attacks on places of worship and restrictions on religious freedoms. New Delhi’s response drew on that record to argue that Islamabad lacks the moral standing to comment on similar issues elsewhere.
The timing also placed the Varanasi dispute under wider scrutiny, as religious-site claims in several parts of the country have generated political, legal and communal debate. Courts and local authorities have been dealing with disputes involving mosque and temple claims, land titles, encroachment allegations and heritage assertions. Many such cases have become politically charged because they intersect with questions of faith, history and urban development.
