Highlights:
India has challenged a United Nations report describing Dawood Ibrahim’s D-Company as an “India-based” criminal group, arguing that the wording fails to distinguish the gangster’s Indian origins from his reported base overseas and the international nature of his criminal network.
The objection was raised by Raghoo Puri, First Secretary at India’s Permanent Mission to the UN, on Wednesday during a meeting of the General Assembly’s Third Committee. Responding to a report by UN Special Rapporteur Ben Saul, Puri said the description contained “glaring inaccuracies” and omitted important context about Ibrahim’s whereabouts and the circumstances surrounding his designation.
The issue is not whether Ibrahim has roots in India. He was born in Maharashtra, built his criminal network in Mumbai and is wanted by Indian authorities in connection with the 1993 Mumbai serial bombings. Rather, India argues that describing D-Company simply as “India-based” can give readers the impression that its leader remains in the country, despite having fled decades ago.
From Mumbai underworld to an international criminal network
Ibrahim rose to prominence in Mumbai’s underworld before leaving India in the 1980s. Following the 1993 Mumbai bombings, he was widely reported to have moved his operations to Pakistan, with Karachi frequently identified as his likely base. Pakistan has denied that he is present on its territory, while India has repeatedly said it has credible information about his presence there.
Ibrahim has not been publicly confirmed to have returned to India. His absence from the country for roughly three decades is central to New Delhi’s objection to the report’s wording.
India says his historical connection to Mumbai should not be confused with his current location. A criminal organisation may originate in one country while its leadership, financial networks and operations extend across international borders.
That distinction is particularly relevant to D-Company, which has been linked in reports to organised crime, smuggling and international criminal activity. Its roots in India do not, by themselves, establish that the organisation is currently based there.
Why the 2003 UN listing matters
Saul’s report referred to the UN Security Council listing in 2003 of the leader of “the India-based D-Company” for association with Al-Qaeda.
Puri argued that this description omitted a crucial detail: Ibrahim had already fled India before the listing.
“Read in isolation, this line paints a very different picture from the actual reality,” Puri said.
He pointed to the narrative summary accompanying the UN sanctions listing, arguing that the report should have included the relevant information about Ibrahim’s departure and his association with Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
Al-Qaeda became internationally notorious after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, which killed nearly 3,000 people and transformed global counterterrorism efforts. The UN Security Council’s sanctions framework subsequently served as an important international mechanism for targeting Al-Qaeda and people or entities associated with it.
The connection is relevant to the context of Ibrahim’s 2003 listing. However, the report cited by India does not establish that Ibrahim or D-Company participated in the September 11 attacks.
Why India says the report needs updating
India’s objection is that international reports should distinguish between a criminal group’s origins, its leader’s location and the territory from which its activities are directed. Describing D-Company as “India-based” without explaining Ibrahim’s departure could leave readers with an incomplete picture of the case.
Puri said the omission was regrettable and warned that factual errors in reports by independent UN experts could undermine the organisation’s credibility.
For New Delhi, the correction is also significant because Ibrahim remains wanted in India in connection with terrorism-related cases. India has repeatedly sought action to locate him and bring him to justice.
The central point of India’s rebuttal is therefore straightforward: Ibrahim’s Indian roots and D-Company’s origins in Mumbai are part of the organisation’s history, but they should not automatically determine how its present-day base is described.
India wants the report to include that distinction and the circumstances of the 2003 listing, so that readers can understand the case in its full international context.
