'OIC being misused by Pak': India flags agency's credibility, rejects remarks on J&K

At its Baghdad meeting on October 17-18, 2026, the OIC Council of foreign ministers adopted resolutions containing references to India and Jammu and Kashmir. India rejected those references entirely. The Ministry of External Affairs described them as malicious, biased and false.

The core dispute is about who may comment on Jammu and Kashmir. India considers the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh integral and inalienable parts of the country. It therefore treats outside commentary on their status as interference in an internal matter. The MEA also rejected other hostile references, including insinuations concerning Islamophobia.

India said the remarks were orchestrated by Pakistan and accused the OIC of allowing itself to be misused. New Delhi said the remaining Kashmir-related issues were Pakistan vacating areas under its alleged illegal occupation and ending support for cross-border terrorism. It also defended development in Jammu and Kashmir since Article 370 was abrogated.

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, is an intergovernmental body made up of 57 member states. It presents itself as a collective voice for countries with Muslim-majority populations or significant Muslim communities. Its work covers political, economic, cultural, humanitarian and social cooperation.

The organisation's purpose is to coordinate positions among its members and protect what it describes as the interests of the Muslim world. Its Council of foreign ministers is a major forum for adopting resolutions and issuing political statements. Those statements can draw international attention, even when they are not legally binding.

The OIC's role becomes controversial when it comments on disputes involving non-member states. In this case, India said the organisation had no locus standi over Jammu and Kashmir. India also accused the OIC of being used by Pakistan, while the OIC's resolutions show that member states can shape the organisation's public positions through collective diplomacy.

The OIC has 57 member countries. Together, they contain a large majority of the world's Muslim population. Common demographic estimates place that share at roughly 85%, though the figure changes with population data, definitions and the year measured. The organisation therefore has considerable reach beyond the governments formally issuing a statement.

This scale matters because an OIC resolution can present an issue as a concern shared across many Muslim-majority countries. It can amplify a member's diplomatic message in international forums and media. However, the organisation speaks through a collective political process, not through every Muslim person or every government worldwide.

The article focuses on India's dispute with the OIC over Kashmir-related resolutions. India says the body's size does not give it standing to comment on matters strictly internal to India. Pakistan, according to New Delhi, has used that collective platform to promote anti-India narratives. The resulting tension affects the OIC's credibility and diplomatic influence.

India's argument is based on sovereignty. New Delhi says Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh are integral and inalienable parts of India, so their governance and political status are internal matters. On that basis, it rejects an external organisation's authority to issue judgments or resolutions about them.

“Locus standi” is a legal phrase meaning the right or standing to bring an issue before a court or formally participate in a case. In diplomatic use, India applies the idea more broadly. It is saying that the OIC is not an entitled party in this dispute and has no legitimate role in commenting on India's internal administration.

The OIC's resolutions still carry political weight, even if India rejects their authority. The MEA called the references politically motivated propaganda and said they could not alter India's position. India said the issues left to address were Pakistan's alleged occupation of territory and its support for cross-border terrorism.

Pakistan is presented by India as the driving force behind the OIC's Kashmir-related language. The MEA said the references in the Baghdad resolutions had been orchestrated by Pakistan. It also accused Pakistan of repeatedly misusing the OIC for what it called a bigoted and anti-India agenda.

The alleged mechanism is diplomatic influence. Pakistan raises Kashmir and related themes within a forum whose members can adopt collective resolutions. The OIC then gives those themes a wider international platform. India says this process turns the organisation into a vehicle for politically motivated propaganda rather than balanced diplomacy.

India also says Pakistan uses other references, including insinuations about Islamophobia, to divert attention from its own record. The MEA cited alleged minority persecution, sectarian violence, governance failure and political instability in Pakistan. It warned that repeated endorsement of what it called malicious narratives raises serious questions about the OIC's credibility and integrity.

Article 370 was a provision of India's Constitution that gave Jammu and Kashmir special autonomous arrangements and limited how some constitutional provisions applied there. It created a distinct constitutional relationship between the region and the Union. The provision was politically and legally significant for the territory's governance.

India abrogated Article 370 in 2019. The change removed the region's special constitutional status and extended India's constitutional and legal framework more fully there. Jammu and Kashmir was reorganised into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. This altered the structure of administration and the balance between regional and Union authority.

The article says that, since the abrogation, Jammu and Kashmir has seen significant economic growth. It specifically cites infrastructure development, tourism and connectivity, with benefits reaching residents. India uses this account to defend its policy, while the OIC's resolutions and Pakistan's criticism reflect a continuing international dispute over the region.

International organisations can influence disputes by giving one side a collective platform. A resolution may attract media attention, encourage diplomatic pressure and shape how other governments discuss an issue. But when the targeted country rejects the organisation's authority, the statement can deepen confrontation rather than produce dialogue.

The mechanism is trust. If members appear to endorse one country's claims without balanced engagement, the organisation may be seen as partisan. In this case, India called the OIC's references malicious and politically motivated. It said Pakistan had orchestrated them and had used the organisation to promote an anti-India agenda.

The article shows the immediate consequence: India rejected the resolutions and questioned the OIC's credibility and integrity. New Delhi urged OIC members to do better and reform the organisation. If such disputes continue, the OIC may face greater resistance from India and reduced influence as a forum for credible diplomacy, while the Kashmir issue remains politically charged.