Hindutva Crackdown on Religion in Jammu & Kashmir

A seminary in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIoJK) is raided. A mosque in Gujarat faces demolition. A child in IIOJK is compelled to sing a song that violates his faith. A driver in Agra is forced to chant a Hindu slogan. These are not scattered incidents. Together, they tell a single, troubling story: in today’s India, religion is being weaponized and Muslims are paying the price. In IIoJK, religion is no longer protected, it is being prosecuted.

On November 27, 2025, Indian police and paramilitary forces carried out large-scale cordon-and-search operations across Islamabad, Pulwama, Budgam, Kulgam, Shopian and Kupwara districts. Dozens of houses linked to members of Jamaat-e-Islami were raided. Two major Islamic educational institutions, Jamia Sirajul Uloom in Shopian and Jamia Islamia Institute in Handwara, were stormed. Electronic devices, religious books and documents were seized. Authorities called it an investigation, but on the ground it is Islamic identity that now stands criminalized as a security threat.

On the same day, a 19-year-old boy in Jammu was arrested on the vague charge of being radicalised online. No clear evidence was presented. The arrest reflected a dangerous trend where suspicion replaces proof and faith itself becomes criminalized. This is what political analysts describe as securitization of identity, where an entire community is framed as a threat to justify repression.

This pressure is not confined to IIoJK alone. It mirrors a broader pattern unfolding across India. On October 4, 2025, the Gujarat High Court refused to stay the demolition of a part of the 400-year-old Mancha Masjid in Ahmedabad. Despite being a registered Waqf property and legally protected, the mosque was declared an obstacle to a road-widening project. The ruling sent shockwaves across the Muslim community. It reinforced a growing fear that even centuries-old religious structures are no longer safe under Hindutva-rule legality.

If courts legitimize exclusion and force raids normalize fear, then what remains of everyday safety? That question was answered brutally on November 27, 2025, when a video from Agra showed an elderly Muslim cab driver being forced to chant “Jai Shri Ram” under threat by Rohit Dharmendra Pratap Singh. The humiliation took place near the Taj Mahal parking area, a global symbol of India’s Muslim heritage. The humiliation was not random. It coincided with celebrations linked to the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, where Narendra Modi addressed devotees. For many Muslims, the timing symbolized how mob intimidation is being normalized under the banner of religious nationalism.

What happens when this climate enters classrooms? On November 5, 2025, authorities directed all schools across the territory to mandatorily recite “Vande Mataram” as part of official cultural programs. The order was called coercive and the practice was declared un-Islamic due to its conflict with Tawheed. The concern was not about patriotism, but about forced participation in a ritual that contradicted one’s religious beliefs. When the state compels children to perform faith-based expressions against their will, it ceases to be education and becomes ideological conditioning. Education, once meant to expand thought, becomes a tool to discipline identity.

The crisis deepened further on November 26, 2025, when religion was dragged into medical education. At the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Institute of Medical Excellence, 42 out of 50 MBBS seats were secured by Muslim students purely on merit. Instead of celebrating academic excellence, Hindutva groups protested, arguing that Hindus should get priority because the institute is linked to a Hindu shrine. Warnings were issued that making decisions based on religion would destroy the constitutional fabric of India. The question, ‘Where will the Constitution go?’ now echoes across the region.

The raids, demolitions, forced chants, coerced schooling and faith-based discrimination in admissions form a structured ecosystem of pressure. Inside Kashmir, political leaders openly acknowledge that what is unfolding is nothing less than an assault on identity. A sitting Member of Parliament from Srinagar recently stated that a war is being waged against the language, religion, representation and existence of Kashmiris. He referred to the Public Safety Act (PSA) being used even against elected representatives and warned that fear is being used as a tool of governance.

All these developments are rooted in the ideological project of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and its political arm, the Bharatiya Janata Party. Their vision is to reshape India and Kashmir in particular, along rigid majoritarian lines. In IIOJK, this vision finds a testing ground where demographic engineering, cultural imposition and legal repression work together. What emerges is not integration but forced assimilation.

this trajectory is not merely a domestic human rights issue. It is a regional destabilizer. Internal ideological domination fractures social cohesion and deepens conflict asymmetries. The targeting of religion fuels alienation, deepens conflict and blocks any possibility of sustainable peace. A society where one faith is privileged by the state cannot remain stable. History shows that repression may silence voices temporarily, but it never erases resistance.

Today, Kashmiris are not only struggling for political rights. They are struggling to protect their mosques, their schools, their children and their dignity. The danger is not only to Islam in Kashmir, but to the very idea of religious freedom in South Asia. If forced chants, demolished mosques, raided seminaries and faith-based discrimination become the new normal, then democracy itself becomes a hollow word. When religion can be crushed so openly in IIOJK, it forces the world to confront a hard truth, the promises of freedom, pluralism and human rights are fragile. Kashmiris already live that reality, their loss of faith and dignity a daily reminder. And yet, for the rest of the world, silence allows this erosion to continue unchecked, turning inaction into complicity. If we fail to act now, today’s assault on belief could become tomorrow’s collapse of freedom for all.

The author is the head of the research and human rights department of Kashmir Institute of International Relations (KIIR). She can be contacted at the following email address: mehr_dua@yahoo.com, X @MHHRsays

Khurram Parvez: The Human Rights Defender India Fears Most

By Mehr un Nisa

If you follow global human rights issues, you already know that some stories are too important and too uncomfortable for the world to ignore. One such story is that of Khurram Parvez, the Kashmiri human rights defender who has now spent four years in detention under India’s sweeping anti-terror laws. And as you read this, I encourage you to ask yourself a simple question: Why would a state with aspirations of global leadership feel threatened by a man armed only with documentation, truth and empathy?

Let us begin with the date that changed everything once again: 22 November 2021. On that day, India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) arrested Khurram under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), a law notorious for enabling prolonged detention without trial. For many Kashmiris, it felt like déjà vu. Khurram had already been detained before, most notably in 2016, when he was stopped at the airport while heading to Geneva to address the UN Human Rights Council and then held for 76 days under the Public Safety Act (PSA).

You might wonder: What makes him such a threat? Khurram is not a militant, not a politician and not a revolutionary calling for violent upheaval. He is, instead, the Coordinator of the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), the Chairperson of the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD) and the Deputy Secretary-General of FIDH, one of the world’s oldest human rights federations. He has documented enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, torture and mass graves, issues the international community has long raised, but rarely with such meticulous detail. And that detail is exactly what frightens states engaging in counter-narratives.

Khurram’s work challenges India’s preferred strategic communication framework on Kashmir. In international relations, states rely on soft power, the ability to shape global perceptions through diplomacy, branding and carefully curated narratives. But Khurram’s reports, including the widely-cited “Structures of Violence” (2015) and the “Torture Report” (2019), disrupt that narrative by providing verifiable evidence of systemic abuses. Instead of engaging with the findings, the Indian state chose another path: criminalising the documentation process itself.

To understand why Khurram’s arrest matters beyond Kashmir, let’s place it within the framework of international norms and global governance. In 2023, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention declared his imprisonment arbitrary and called for his “immediate release.” The annual UN Secretary-General's Report on Reprisals has repeatedly listed his case since 2018, indicating a sustained campaign of harassment for engaging with UN mechanisms.

You’d think that a country seeking a larger leadership role in the rules-based international order would welcome scrutiny or at least respond constructively. But India did not comply, did not acknowledge the findings and did not provide any meaningful response. That silence is telling. It reflects a state preference for security exceptionalism, where extraordinary measures become normalised under the pretext of counterterrorism.

But here’s the twist: the FIR invoked against Khurram in 2020 did not even name him. And yet, two years later, he was arrested under far-reaching conspiracy charges. JKCCS’s published human rights reports were cited as evidence, as though documenting violations is itself a crime. His real contribution lies in his connection to families of the disappeared, mothers, wives and children left in limbo, waiting for answers. Since the 1990s, JKCCS has documented over 8,000 enforced disappearances and thousands of torture cases. This kind of work is emotionally brutal, painstaking and dangerous.

But Khurram never stopped. Even after losing his leg in 2004 when an Indian Army vehicle targeted his car, he continued. Even after repeated travel bans, raids, interrogations and arrests, he continued. And even now, from inside Rohini Jail in Delhi, he remains a symbol of resistance grounded not in violence but in moral conviction.

In 2023, he received the Martin Ennals Award, often described as the “Nobel Prize for Human Rights.” Previous laureates include global icons who shaped international human rights advocacy. So, ask yourself: How does a man celebrated worldwide as a defender of justice become a terrorist in his own homeland? The contradiction is impossible to ignore.

The story of Khurram Parvez is not just about one man. It raises deeper questions about state accountability, democratic backsliding and the erosion of civil space in regions under prolonged military control. Since the abrogation of Article 370 on 5 August 2019, India has accelerated the centralisation of power in Kashmir, politically, territorially and narratively. Raids on journalists, book bans, travel restrictions and suspension of passports have become disturbingly common. In August 2025, authorities banned several academic and journalistic works on Kashmir for allegedly promoting “false narratives.” The chilling effect is unmistakable.

This is a classic clash between realist state behaviour, prioritising control and sovereignty and liberal international norms that emphasise transparency, human rights and multilateral accountability. Khurram stands firmly in the latter camp.

As Khurram completes four years in detention on 22 November 2025, the world faces a choice. We can look away, as geopolitical calculations often encourage, or we can assert that human rights defenders are not collateral damage in territorial disputes. Khurram’s case is a litmus test for India’s democratic aspirations and its global image. It is also a test for the international community, which cannot promote a rules-based order selectively.

If you are reading this, you are part of that community. The demand is simple, principled and urgent: Release Khurram Parvez. Drop the fabricated charges. End the criminalisation of human rights documentation. Because the struggle for justice in Kashmir and anywhere else in the world cannot survive if truth-tellers are imprisoned for simply doing their job.

Shrinking Civic Space and Media Suppression in Jammu & Kashmir

By Mehr un Nisa

There comes a moment in every conflict when the war is no longer fought on land, but on truth. Indian occupied Jammu & Kashmir (IoJK) has now entered that moment. The raid on the Kashmir Times office on November 20, 2025, an office that had been shut since 2021, fits squarely into this pattern. It is part of a wider doctrine: to control the narrative by criminalizing the narrator.

International observers, from UN Special Procedures, also agree that IoK is no longer just a militarized zone, it is now an information frontier. In this space, journalism is treated as insurgency and truth-telling is viewed as sedition. This transformation is not accidental. It is strategic, systematic and deeply political. New Delhi seeks not only territorial control over IoK but discursive control and for that, journalism must be neutralized. This shift reflects a classic pattern in international relations where states facing internal crises of legitimacy turn to information control, narrative securitization and coercive legal frameworks to manufacture the appearance of stability.

What followed since 5 August 2019 is not only the region’s political disenfranchisement but also the systematic dismantling of its entire information ecosystem. In disputed territories, where international monitoring is already limited, dismantling the local press is equivalent to severing the world’s last line of sight. IoK today resembles other historically contested regions such as East Timor before independence, Northern Ireland during the Troubles and Xinjiang under securitization, where state power is preserved not only through military means but also by erasing independent documentation of abuses. The raids on media houses are part of a doctrine of epistemic repression, the deliberate suppression of knowledge production.

This environment of structural intimidation has converted IoK into a virtual information black hole. When journalists are unable to report, humanitarian agencies are unable to verify the information. When documentation is suppressed, accountability mechanisms collapse. This is why India has simultaneously barred international humanitarian access, including the ICRC since 2016 and UN/OIC missions since 2019. Denial of access is not an administrative lapse; it is an operational strategy to prevent independent scrutiny.

The FIRs against journalists allege a threat to sovereignty. India routinely deploys UAPA (anti-terror law), counter-intelligence detentions and digital surveillance systems to criminalise reporting on human rights, extrajudicial killings, disappearances, or security abuses. This violates international norms under ICCPR Article 19 (freedom of expression), UN Basic Principles on Freedom of Expression & OHCHR guidelines on the safety of journalists, however, India remains bound by these obligations even if it chooses to ignore them.

A functioning press ecosystem requires physical space, collective protections and institutional legitimacy. But the infrastructure of journalism has been dismantled. After the Kashmir Press Club was forcibly shut on 17 January 2022, journalists lost their only collective institutional protection. Numerous independent journalists have been denied press card renewals since 2019, which has prevented them from moving through checkpoints. Internet restrictions persist as deliberate policy: between 2019 and 2021, IoK endured the world’s longest shutdown and even today, 4G access is routinely throttled during operations. International travel is also restricted. Between 2019 and 2022, at least 22 journalists were placed on India’s “Look-Out Circular” list. In July 2022, Pulitzer Prize winner Sanna Irshad Mattoo was prevented from boarding a flight to France without justification. This is more than repression, it is structural demolition of the fourth estate.

The repression expanded further on 5 August 2025, when the Jammu and Kashmir Home Department banned 25 books on Kashmir’s politics and history, including critical works from A. G. Noorani, Victoria Schofield, Anuradha Bhasin and others. But the assault on journalism extends far beyond institutional raids. Since 2019, at least 20 journalists in IOK have been arrested for professional work. Freelance journalist Irfan Mehraj was detained in March 2023 on nine fabricated charges, including “terror financing.” The Kashmir Walla’s editor, Fahad Shah, arrested in 2022, spent nearly two years in detention. In May 2025, amid India-Pakistan clashes after the Pahalgam attack, independent journalist Hilal Mir was detained over a social media post. These detentions reflect the deliberate use of the UAPA, a counterterror law, to criminalize journalism. The pattern aligns with what human rights scholars refer to as legal authoritarianism, where law becomes a weapon of repression.

India’s strategy undermines its own claimed democratic legitimacy. No state confident in its governance raids shuttered newsrooms, criminalizes editors living abroad, or bans books by award-winning authors. No state committed to the rule of law cancels passports of journalists or equates reporting with terrorism. This behavior signals insecurity, not strength. It signals a state that seeks to control Iok not by consent or credibility, but by coercion and curated narratives.

The world must recognize that IoK’s information blackout is not a domestic matter; it is a crisis of international oversight, legal obligations and human rights protection. As long as journalists in IoK remain targets, the valley will remain not only a political dispute but a moral indictment of the global community’s silence.

The Collapse of Independent Media in IIOJK

By Mehr un Nisa

The crisis unfolding in Indian-illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) is not only political or territorial. It is also a war on truth. Over the past decade, the Modi regime has turned the region into a controlled information zone where journalism survives only under fear, coercion and relentless scrutiny. What was once a vibrant press ecosystem has now become a fragile space where young reporters stand on the edge of extinction. This is not accidental. It is strategic. It is part of a broader project of narrative domination, a tactic widely recognised in conflict and occupation studies. If a state can control information flows, it can control perception. And when perception is controlled, so is dissent.

Young journalists in IIOJK are entering a profession that has been gutted. Newsrooms have collapsed. Independent outlets have shut down. Traditional career paths have disappeared. Graduates step into a job market where the only options left are state-friendly platforms or no platforms at all. University faculty report a dramatic fall in student enrollment. Journalism is no longer seen as a viable career. Only a handful of students, 25 to 30 a year, choose to complete their degrees. This is not merely a labour-market issue. It is a form of structural deterrence. When young people are pushed away from journalism, the state gains narrative supremacy by default. Young reporters operate under a climate of deep surveillance. Their social media posts are monitored. Their sources are tracked. Their families are questioned. Basic reporting becomes an act of risk-taking.

Intimidating Senior Journalists to Terrify Younger Ones

If young journalists are suffocating, senior journalists are being targeted to send a warning. The recent raid on the Kashmir Times office in Jammu shows how far the state is willing to go. The State Investigation Agency filed an FIR accusing Anuradha Bhasin of “anti-India activities” because she reported on human rights violations and political injustices. Her crime was journalism.

Her advocacy for democratic rights and her criticism of the Modi government’s abrogation of Articles 370 and 35-A made her a target. The raid is not just harassment. It is an attempt to delegitimise her professional identity and rewrite the boundaries of permissible journalism. When a journalist of her stature is attacked, younger journalists receive the message instantly: if she is not safe, no one is.

The sealing of the Kashmir Times office in 2020 without due process was one of many attempts to erase institutions that preserve public memory. Authoritarian regimes often dismantle archival centres, media outlets and civil society hubs because these are repositories of inconvenient truths. By shutting down newspapers, India is not only silencing present criticism. It is erasing historical evidence. This is a classic tool of information warfare.

India’s expanding surveillance apparatus mirrors trends seen in other hard-security states. But in IIOJK, the scale is extraordinary. Journalists face combative questioning at checkpoints. Their devices are seized. Some are summoned for repeated interrogation. Others have their passports confiscated. Many are booked under draconian laws like UAPA, which weaponises counterterror frameworks against civilian dissent. This environment creates self-censorship, the most dangerous form of censorship in authoritarian settings. When the fear of reprisal becomes routine, truth becomes selective.

Women journalists face a double burden. Along with institutional repression, they encounter digital violence and AI-enabled harassment. Justice Surya Kant himself acknowledged the rise in online attacks targeting women journalists. These attacks aim to isolate, shame and silence them.

In conflict zones, gendered harassment is used as a psychological tool. It aims to push women out of public spaces and professional discourse. Yet, despite this, women reporters continue documenting local injustices, often leading community-level reforms and holding local authorities accountable. Their perseverance demonstrates that even under repression, journalism can be an act of resistance.

The Regulatory Onslaught: Press Freedom by Exception

India’s new Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Rules add another layer of pressure. Media bodies in New Delhi, including the Editors Guild of India, warn that the rules compromise journalistic work by placing reporters under heavy consent and data-processing obligations. The government claims journalists are exempt. The rules say otherwise.

Without protective legal language, journalists face compliance burdens that can stall investigations. They risk punitive action for simply handling public-interest data. This is a direct hit on India’s already shrinking transparency regime, where the Right to Information Act has been systematically weakened.

This regulatory tightening reflects a familiar technique in authoritarian governance: legal suffocation. Laws appear neutral, but their design and application target dissenting voices. Press freedom in IIOJK is not a local issue. It is a regional stability issue. When information is controlled, democratic accountability collapses. When accountability collapses, human rights violations escalate. And when violations escalate, the risk of conflict intensifies. Information blackouts and press crackdowns heighten mistrust between India and Pakistan. They obstruct human rights monitoring. They weaken diplomatic engagement. They undermine India’s global image as a democracy.

Young journalists in IIOJK need structural support, fellowships, cross-border mentorships, safety mechanisms and international visibility. Global media bodies, human rights organisations and academic institutions must recognise that journalism in Kashmir is not merely under pressure; it is under attack. India’s media repression in IIOJK contributes to democratic backsliding, norm erosion and authoritarian consolidation, trends watched closely by global institutions.

The world cannot treat this crisis as an internal affair. Press freedom is a global norm, protected under international human rights law. When a state systematically destroys journalism, it is engaging in norm-breaking behaviour that threatens the global information order. The future of journalism in IIOJK depends on whether the world decides to look away or speak up.

When Doctors Became Victims of Occupation in Kashmir

By Mehr un Nisa

The aftermath of the Red Fort blast has exposed a new and disturbing pattern in Indian governance. It is not only about counter-terror operations. It is not about law and order. It is about power, perception and the strategic dismantling of the intellectual fabric of an occupied territory. In Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), the state has now crossed a line: those who heal the bodies of others are fighting to save their own lives.

Doctors, professors, medical students and health professionals, people who serve society, sustain life and uphold humanitarian principles, are now the subjects of arrests, detentions, professional bans and public vilification. Their wounds are not physical. Their wounds exist in the mind, in the fear of uncertainty, in the trauma of being criminalized for their identity. These wounds will not heal through medicine. Only time, justice and dignity can heal them.

The chain of events after the Red Fort blast is not random. It is structured and calculated. It fits within a long-standing Indian strategy of coercive governance, identity securitization and occupation-based control.

When four doctors, including Dr Muzaffar Ahmad, Dr Adeel Ahmad Rather, Dr Muzamil Shakeel and Dr Shaheen Saeed, were removed from India's National Medical Register on 15 November 2025, it was presented as a counter-terrorism decision. Dr. Adeel and Dr. Muzaffar were arrested under UAPA on 10 November 2025, while Dr Rayees Ahmad Butt from Pathankot was taken on 15 November without local police being informed. Others, including Dr Shaheen Saeed (Lucknow), Dr Sajad Malik (Pulwama), Dr Ahmed Mohiyuddin Saiyed (Hyderabad) and Dr Umar Mohammad (Kashmir), faced suspension, defamation and licensing bans, turning those who once healed society into survivors of state harassment. But the charges remain unproven. The evidence remains opaque. The process remains secretive. This is classic securitization theory: convert a professional group into a national security threat, then justify extraordinary measures against them.

This is how occupations function. When a state wants to maintain dominance over a contested territory, it targets not only militants or activists. It targets the intellectual class. It targets those who shape the community's future. It targets professionals who possess skills, knowledge and social influence.

Every occupied region carries an intellectual property, its educated class, its thinkers, its medical professionals, its teachers. This is not just a human resource but also a form of strategic capital. If you weaken this capital, you weaken the society. You weaken its resilience. You weaken its ability to negotiate power. You weaken its ability to resist domination.

India understands this. That is why the very people who once stood as frontline saviors have now been turned into frontline victims after the blast. This is the destruction of intellectual property under the guise of national security. It is a form of structural violence. It is a tool of coercive statecraft. It is the intellectual equivalent of land dispossession.

The protest in Jammu against Muslim doctors and students admitted on merit shows how professional excellence itself is now criminalized. 42 of 50 MBBS students secured admission based purely on merit. Yet Hindutva groups labeled it “religiously imbalanced.” They demanded Hindu-only recruitment. They demanded policy changes. They demanded exclusion.

This is more than harm. It is an attempt to reshape the human resource landscape of an occupied territory. It aligns with the demographic engineering India began after August 2019. Now, instead of settling outsiders, the state is indirectly pushing locals out of skill-based sectors. If you cannot stop Kashmiris from being intelligent, you criminalize intelligence. If you cannot stop merit, you delegitimise merit. If you cannot prevent the rise of Kashmiri doctors, you arrest them, ban them and accuse them.

Doctors in IIOJK now live in the shadow of two wars. One war is professional, treating patients in a region where conflict trauma is a daily reality. The other war is existential, proving their innocence, defending their identity and hoping they are not the next names in an arrest memo.

This is not new. Engineers, journalists, scholars, academics and now doctors, the pattern is consistent. India is executing a deliberate strategy of cognitive occupation, a concept in IR that describes the suppression of intellectual agency in disputed regions. Attacking doctors weakens Kashmir's healthcare, erodes trust, signals that identity trumps merit and disrupts knowledge transfer across generations. This is the dismantling of institutional memory. Occupations fear institutional memory because memory builds resistance. Doctors carry both memory and respect in society. To crush them is to crush social leadership.

The Red Fort blast provided the political moment the state needed. Securitization thrives during crises. Crises allow governments to bypass scrutiny, expand authority and justify extraordinary actions. Doctors became ideal targets: they embody Kashmiri excellence, defy stereotypes, network nationally and bolster the region's soft power. Targeting them spreads fear, enforces silence and tightens control.

International law recognizes the duty of occupying powers to protect the cultural and intellectual resources of occupied regions. But India's actions show the opposite. The strategy resembles colonization: remove local elites, replace them with loyalists and re-engineer the socio-political structure. This is not just political control. It is epistemic control, control over knowledge, skills and professional identity.

Kashmiri doctors now stand at a painful intersection. They hold degrees, not weapons. They carry stethoscopes, not explosives. They save lives, yet they are treated as threats. Their wounds are invisible. Their trauma is silent. Their suffering is political.Kashmir is not only losing doctors. Kashmir is losing its healers, its thinkers, its future. And that is the deepest wound of all.

The world must recognize that the assault on Kashmir's doctors is not an isolated event. It is a chapter in a broader project: to dismantle the intellectual future of an occupied territory. And once the intellectual class is broken, the society follows.

How Is India Using Digital Shackles to Control Innocent Kashmiris?

By Mehr un Nisa

India has revealed the next phase of its control over the people of Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir. This is not a new policy. GPS tracking anklets were first introduced in IoJK in November 2023. But what was once an experiment has now been intensified and weaponized. What began as a pilot project has evolved into a full-scale system of digital policing to tighten control over an already suffocated population. When a Kashmiri undertrial walks out of prison and is immediately fitted with a GPS-enabled tracking anklet, it is not a bail condition. It tells the individual that physical release does not mean freedom. And it also tells the world that India's occupation is evolving into a technological form of coercion where surveillance replaces law and control replaces justice.

Mukhtar Ahmed's case is not an anomaly. A court in Udhampur granted him a lease, yet the court forced him to accept a wearable tracking device. The anklet feeds its location to authorities in real time. It restricts where he can go, who he can meet and how he can live. It places him under constant observation even though he has not been convicted of any crime. In any democratic system, this would be alarming. In IoJK, it has become routine.

Electronic monitoring is not inherently illegal. Many countries use it. But they use it in controlled, transparent and proportionate ways. In Jammu & Kashmir, the purpose is not reform. It is surveillance. It is not a substitute for imprisonment. It is imprisonment by other means. It is not an innovation in justice. It is an innovation in control.

International law is clear. Article 12 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to freedom of movement. Article 17 protects privacy and prohibits interference with personal life. Article 9 protects liberty and safeguards against arbitrary restrictions. A GPS tracker violates all three. It restricts mobility, extracts personal data and subjects the wearer to constant state intrusion. The UN Human Rights Committee has repeatedly warned that electronic tagging must be necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory. None of these conditions is met in Kashmir. The devices are imposed selectively, punitively and without meaningful legal justification.

The context makes it even more troubling. Since August 2019, the Indian government has built a layered surveillance regime across Kashmir. Phone confiscations have become normalized. Biometric collection is now mandatory for basic services. Social media profiles are monitored. Drone patrols watch villages and orchards. Police use facial recognition cameras at checkpoints. The GPS anklet is simply the next layer in a system where the state seeks to know everything about a population it does not trust and does not treat as equal.

This is not secure. This is social engineering through technological pressure. It aims to discipline civilians, not protect them. It creates fear-based compliance. It converts ordinary life into a monitored performance where every movement is tracked and every deviation treated as suspicious. Supporters of the policy argue that such devices reduce prison populations. They cite international examples. But these comparisons collapse instantly. In other jurisdictions, electronic monitoring substitutes incarceration for low-risk offenders who have been convicted. In IIoJK, the anklet is imposed on people who have not been found guilty and who are often victims of wrongful arrest. It turns surveillance into a standard procedure. It treats undertrials as convicts. And it deepens the already vast power imbalance between the local population and the governing apparatus.

The psychological impact is severe. A GPS device is not just a tool. It signals to employers, neighbors and the community that the wearer is under state suspicion. It limits participation in public life because the individual knows their presence at a protest, a funeral or even a marketplace could trigger a police response. This is not freedom with conditions. It is a conditional existence.

The UN Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (Tokyo Rules) emphasize that alternatives to detention must respect dignity, avoid stigmatization and ensure reintegration. GPS tagging in Kashmir achieves the opposite. It isolates the wearer. It brands them digitally. It reinforces the idea that Kashmiri bodies must remain traceable, trackable and controlled. It is a modern form of shackling, replacing iron with plastic but keeping the logic intact.

Even the supposed efficiency argument fails. If the state truly believed in due process, it would stop filing weak cases, stop using anti-terror laws against civilians and stop criminalizing dissent. Instead, it expands its surveillance toolkit and then presents surveillance as a solution to a problem it created. This is governance through technological coercion. It is not a security policy. It is not criminal justice reform. It is a strategic restructuring of domination.

In any conflict-affected region, the line between security and suppression is thin. In IoJK, it has vanished. The GPS anklet shows how the Indian state now governs through data rather than dialogue, through tracking rather than trust and through preemptive suspicion rather than legal fairness. It transforms a disputed territory into a laboratory for punitive technologies. And once normalized in Jammu & Kashmir, such tools will be easier to export to other dissenting populations across India.

The issue is not the device itself. The problem is its purpose, its target and its political context. The device is a symbol of a state that no longer trusts the law, a judiciary that cannot operate independently and a society that has been turned into a zone of suspicion. And it is a reminder that borders or checkpoints restricted freedom in Jammu and Kashmir. It is prohibited by technology that follows a person everywhere.

The digital shackles must be removed. The presumption of innocence must be restored. Surveillance cannot replace justice. And no occupation should be allowed to reinvent itself as a technological experiment in controlling human beings. Kashmiris deserve dignity, not devices. They deserve rights, not real-time tracking. They deserve freedom, not digital fetters disguised as lease conditions.

Arbitrary Confiscation of Property in Jammu & Kashmir

by Mehr un Nisa

A day after the blast near Delhi’s Red Fort, Haryana police ordered all residential societies in Gurugram to submit lists of Kashmiri residents. It was a bureaucratic act dressed as security, but its intent was clear: profiling. Yet the truth runs deeper. This was not a sudden response to an attack. The crackdown was already well underway long before the blast. What we are seeing now is not a reaction. It is an escalation of a policy years in the making.

For years, property confiscations in Indian illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) have functioned as silent punishment. Long before the Red Fort incident, homes, orchards and offices were being seized under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The law is supposed to counter terrorism. In reality, it criminalizes dissent. It allows the government to declare property “proceeds of unlawful activity” without proving anything in court.

The targets are not armed actors. They are teachers, lawyers, traders and ordinary families. By September 2025, this policy had evolved into a coordinated state project, stripping Kashmiris of property, dignity and history. The pattern is unmistakable: accusations first, evidence never.

In just two months, September and October 2025, authorities have seized over a dozen properties across Jammu and Kashmir. Every case follows the same script: police raids, UAPA references and accusations of “links” to pro-freedom sentiment. The pattern is unmistakable. Yet none have shown proof of wrongdoing. What links them all is the collective punishment of an entire people.

Let’s look at what happened before the Delhi blast. Earlier, on 11 September, authorities in Tantraypora, Baramulla, took properties belonging to Mohammad Maqbool Sheikh and Mohammad Rafiq Tantray. No court orders were shown. No witnesses were called. The homes were simply marked and taken.

On 27 September, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) seized the land and house of Tariq Ahmad Mir in Maldeera, Shopian. Within days, on 30 September, it froze his orchard and another house. The same person. Two seizures. Two different excuses. No hearing.

And then came October. on 1 October 2025, the government sealed the central office of Tehreek-e-Hurriyat Jammu and Kashmir in Hyderpora, Srinagar. It stood on valuable land, worth several crores. Officials called it a “hub of unlawful activity.” In truth, it was a political landmark, a space of dialogue, now erased from the city’s map.

After one day, on 2 October, officials seized the home of Nazir Ahmad Ganie in Palpora, Kralgund. His “crime”? Living in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. His ancestral home was attached under UAPA because of his address. On 4 October 2025, authorities confiscated a three-storey house worth Rs 2 crore in the HMT area of Srinagar, belonging to Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh. His only fault? His son was accused of spreading online “propaganda.” It was punishment by bloodline, not justice.On 8 October 2025, the administration in Budgam seized the property of Fayaz Ahmad in Dasan, Beerwah. Officials claimed he might sell it for “anti-national” purposes. No sale. No transaction. Just suspicion.

The only major seizure after the blast came on 12 November 2025, the two-storey residence of Mian Abdul Qayoom, former President of the High Court Bar Association. The order cited a 2009 case. The timing was political; the file was ancient. This is how old papers are recycled to justify new punishment. It shows that the crackdown didn’t begin after the blast, it only gained speed and narrative cover. When the government needed a distraction or justification, the “security threat” language was ready to use. So the question is not what will happen after the blast. The question is, if this was the state of affairs before, what happens now that India has a new excuse?

The logic is cruel but effective. Property is personal. It carries identity, history and belonging. To seize it is to erase more than a house, it erases roots. That is why property confiscations cut deeper than arrests. They send a message: your life, your work, your home, all of it can be declared “unlawful.” The confiscation of homes is paired with another pattern, the arrests of doctors, students and young professionals. When hospitals, schools and homes become the new battlegrounds, you are not fighting terrorism. You are manufacturing obedience. That is the central argument. If the situation was this dire before the blast, imagine what comes next. When a state already confiscating homes gains a fresh justification, repression becomes policy, not exception. Every file will move faster. Every accusation will stick longer. Every Kashmiri will live under deeper scrutiny.

The Red Fort blast, regardless of its truth, will be politicized. It will be used to frame a wider narrative, that Kashmiris are “suspect citizens.” Under that label, any act of dissent, any social link, even a family abroad, can become grounds for seizure or arrest. This is how state power expands, not through evidence, but through emotion. Fear justifies everything. The law becomes theatre. The press echoes official lines. And the real casualties, families evicted, doctors jailed, students silenced, fade from national view.

By November 2025, the administration had already issued dozens of seizure notices. Each one wrapped in legal language. Each one justified by “public safety.” But ask any lawyer and they will tell you, the right to property under Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is absolute. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of property. What is happening in Kashmir is the textbook definition of arbitrary deprivation. If this is how India acted before the blast, the coming months should alarm everyone watching. Each Kashmiri property seized without trial is a blow to international law. Each doctor arrested under flimsy charges is a message that education and professionalism offer no shield. Each administrative order signed in secrecy erodes what remains of justice.

The Red Fort blast will now be turned into a permanent reason, a justification for deeper profiling, faster confiscations and harsher detentions.

Hidden Web: How Organized Crime Thrives in Kashmir

by Mehr un Nisa

As the world marks the International Day against Transnational Organised Crime, the silence over Jammu and Kashmir reveals a darker truth.

Every November 15, governments and institutions reaffirm their commitment to fighting transnational organised crime. They speak of cartels, drug routes, and smuggling rings. Yet few mention Jammu and Kashmir, where organised crime does not hide in the shadows. It operates under official protection, cloaked as “national security.” Between 1990 and 2024, civil groups documented more than 8,000 enforced disappearances. Thousands remain uninvestigated. Each unaccounted life adds to the normalisation of lawlessness, an environment where organised crime thrives.

The 2019 revocation of Article 370 marked a turning point. India’s move to revoke Kashmir’s limited autonomy was presented as a path to “integration” and “economic reform.” What followed instead was a quiet land rush. Indian and foreign investors with deep pockets and politically connected firms entered a fragile economy battered by lockdowns and communication blackouts. Thousands of hectares were reclassified for industrial and military use, often taken from farmers and community trusts with little to no compensation and a lack of transparency.

The Environmental Policy Group in Srinagar estimates illegal riverbed mining in north Kashmir alone generates more than ₹1,200 crore annually (around $144 million) through unregulated extraction from the Jhelum and its tributaries. The profits bypass local governance entirely, feeding a network of contractors and middlemen who operate with official cover. Development has become a convenient narrative for dispossession. Kashmir’s economy increasingly mirrors that of other conflict zones. It runs on control, coercion, and extraction. When the 2020 Land Laws allowed non-residents to buy property in Jammu and Kashmir, it was framed as modernisation. In reality, it accelerated demographic and economic manipulation.

Private companies with ties to politicians and ex-military officers began acquiring large tracts. What might appear as an investment is, in essence, a structural occupation. Across the world, from the Congo to Afghanistan, resource control under armed supervision has followed the same pattern. Kashmir fits that template perfectly. Illegal trade, too, operates under the same veil of silence. Between 2020 and 2024, police in Jammu and Kashmir seized narcotics worth ₹1,000 crore ($120 million). Yet none of the major networks behind these operations have been exposed. The arrests focus on small-time couriers, never on financiers or facilitators.

How do such networks function in one of the most heavily monitored territories on earth? Locals in border districts like Kupwara and Poonch speak of “known routes” that remain mysteriously active despite checkpoints and surveillance. The arms trade also persists. Old weapons once confiscated in raids reappear in fresh cycles of violence. Each resurgence helps legitimise the argument for more troops, more funding, more control. A perpetual loop keeps both the conflict and the criminal economy alive. Meanwhile, counterfeit currency and smuggled gold circulate through networks linking Delhi, Chandigarh, and Gulf intermediaries. These flows blur the line between local corruption and international laundering. Kashmir’s war economy has quietly gone global.

Social Cost
Every black market leaves a human toll. Drug addiction has surged among Kashmiri youth, with over 70,000 registered addicts as of 2024, most under 30. The same insecurity fuels human trafficking. According to India’s National Crime Records Bureau, trafficking cases in Jammu and Kashmir rose by 35 percent between 2019 and 2024, a figure that likely underrepresents the reality. Families often avoid reporting such cases due to fear and stigma.

In villages scarred by conflict, women and children face the dual threats of violence and exploitation. Poverty, trauma, and displacement create fertile ground for criminal networks that feed off despair. This is the predictable outcome of a controlled economy that erodes accountability. The international community, for its part, rarely connects these dots. The United Nations and its agencies continue to classify Kashmir as a “dispute” or a “security issue.” Such vocabulary reduces systemic exploitation to an abstract conflict.

Under the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC), states must prevent and prosecute crimes like trafficking, corruption, and money laundering. But what happens when the state itself is part of the network? The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has conducted extensive studies on cartel economies in Latin America and the Balkans. Yet it has never examined South Asia’s conflict economies, particularly those under military rule.

The silence is political. To name Kashmir’s system as organised crime would require confronting a state, not just a syndicate. In Kashmir, legality itself has become a weapon. From land seizures to surveillance, every policy is framed as lawful. Yet the law serves as the tool of control. Journalists are jailed under counterterrorism statutes. Civil rights defenders are branded as threats. Each act of silencing protects an economy that runs on fear and opacity. This crime represents organised governance. Power and profit merge until neither can be distinguished. What was once a counterinsurgency has morphed into a business model where every checkpoint, every permit, and every mining lease feeds into a system of extraction.

If the global community is serious about combating transnational organised crime, it must widen its lens. The framework must include state-enabled corruption, occupied economies, and digital authoritarianism. Kashmir offers a case study in how organised crime evolves when the perpetrators hold legal authority. From the illicit mining on the Jhelum to the narcotics trade on the border, every chain leads back to protected circles. The victims are not only the disappeared or the detained. The entire population is caught in an economy of control, where the rule of law has become the rule of power.

Organised crime in Kashmir no longer hides behind masks or under the table deals. It sits in offices, signs contracts, and issues press releases. The difference between the criminal and the official has blurred beyond recognition. As the world observes another International Day against Transnational Organized Crime, it must confront this reality: when crime becomes policy, silence becomes complicity. Until the world acknowledges the criminal economy operating under the guise of governance in Kashmir and elsewhere, the web will continue to grow, invisible, protected, and profitable.

Kashmir’s Pre-Blast Crackdown:

When Doctors and Women Became Suspects Before the Smoke

By Mehr un Nisa

Before the smoke rose over Delhi’s Red Fort, Indian Administered Jammu & Kashmir was already under siege. Long before investigators linked the blast to the Valley, the arrests had begun. Doctors, women and young professionals were rounded up in a wave of suspicion that felt less like law enforcement and more like collective punishment. In November, over 1,500 people had been detained across Anantnag, Pulwama, Shopian and Srinagar. The so-called “post-blast crackdown” was, in reality, the continuation of a pre-blast purge, one that targeted Kashmir’s educated class, silenced its women and criminalized its youth.

The case of two Kashmiri doctors, Dr. Adil Majeed Rather and Dr. Muzammil Ganaie, shows how even noble professions are not safe. Dr. Adil left his hospital post months ago, yet faced baseless accusations. No proof. No evidence. Just suspicion. Soon after, Dr. Muzammil, serving patients in Faridabad, was caught in a similar storm. Their families were shocked. Their careers are questioned. These are doctors, not criminals. They heal. They care. Yet in Kashmir, propaganda spares no one. Even the medical community is under scrutiny. Compassion and professionalism are twisted into stories of doubt. Their dedication deserves respect, not suspicion.

On 21 October 2025, two Kashmiri women, Rubeena Akhtar from Srinagar and Nargis Jan from Pulwama, were arrested in Zainapora, Shopian. The official version? “Narcotic possession.” The local version? Another stage-managed operation. Such cases follow a predictable pattern: vague allegations, selective leaks to the media and the complete absence of due process. The women were taken during routine checking. Phones, documents and household items were seized. Their families were not informed of their whereabouts for days. In occupied Kashmir, women’s arrests are designed to shock and silence. They carry a social cost that men’s arrests do not. It is a tactic to humiliate, not investigate. To terrify, not secure. To destroy the will to resist.

The youth have become the primary collateral of India’s security theatre. Alongside doctors and women, five young Kashmiris, Arif Nisar Dar, Yasir-ul-Ashraf, Maqsood Ahmad Dar, Molvi Irfan Ahmad and Zameer Ahmad Ahangar, were arrested across Srinagar, Shopian, Pulwama and Kulgam. Most were detained under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), a draconian law that allows arrest on suspicion alone. It requires no proof, only narrative. In Kashmir, that narrative is ready-made: every young man is a “potential militant,” every outspoken voice a “threat to sovereignty.”

In Shopian, police even moved to cancel the bail of 13 detainees under UAPA, claiming they had “violated conditions.” No evidence was presented. Their release orders were ignored. Courts are bypassed. Rights are irrelevant. For the youth, Kashmir has become a place where even silence is criminal.

The Red Fort blast provided the perfect excuse, but not the cause, for this crackdown. The detentions began weeks before the explosion. They were part of a long-running pattern: detain first, justify later. Once the blast occurred, Delhi’s propaganda machine simply retrofitted the narrative. Suddenly, every Kashmiri detainee was a “suspect.” Every arrest became “intelligence-based.” It was a textbook example of post-event justification, using a national security scare to legitimize repression already in motion.

Doctors, teachers and engineers are the faces of a self-reliant Kashmir. But by targeting them, the Indian state attacks the Valley’s intellectual backbone. Educated professionals challenge the imposed image of Kashmiris as radicals or dependents. Their success exposes the lie that the occupation is about “development.” Arresting doctors like Adil and Muzammil sends a chilling message: your education, your integrity, even your silence, none of it will save you. This is the logic of occupation: punish knowledge, reward obedience.

The UAPA, Public Safety Act (PSA) and NDPS Act have become tools of social control. They are not used to prosecute crimes, but to manufacture them. The same people who are detained under one law are rebooked under another once courts intervene. It is legal ping-pong designed to keep Kashmiris perpetually trapped in custody. This legal warfare has erased the distinction between citizen and suspect. Every Kashmiri youth with a phone, every doctor with a degree, every woman with an opinion, is now fair game.

Behind each arrest is a family in free fall. A wedding postponed. A parent waiting outside a police station that won’t open its doors. A child asking where her mother has gone. The crackdown has stripped Kashmir not only of freedom but of normalcy. Hospitals are losing doctors. Universities are losing students. Families are losing faith in justice. And the world, as always, is losing its conscience.

The Red Fort blast might fade from headlines. But the narrative it unleashed will linger, one that paints Kashmiris as perpetual suspects. Delhi needed a scapegoat and Kashmir, as always, was ready at hand. These arrests were not about stopping violence. They were about controlling the story. They were about reminding an occupied population that it lives under suspicion, not citizenship.

If doctors can be branded terrorists before a crime even occurs, what does that say about the rule of law? If women can be detained for “narcotics” without evidence, what does that say about the rule of justice? And if youth can be jailed for thought crimes, what does that say about democracy itself? Kashmir doesn’t need another investigation. It needs introspection, from a world too comfortable with India’s excuses and too indifferent to Kashmir’s pain. And the truth is simple: the arrests began before the blast, because the real target was never terrorism. It was Kashmir’s voice.

The Forgotten Genocide: The Jammu Massacre of 1947

, By Mehr un Nisa

The story of Jammu in 1947 is not a story of spontaneous chaos. It was a story of a sinister plan. A plan drawn up months before Partition. A plan to wipe out Muslims from Jammu and create conditions for the Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, to accede Jammu & Kashmir to India without the will of Kashmiri people. The Jammu Massacre did not begin in October 1947, as many history books suggest. It started in September 1947, when the Maharaja’s forces and Hindu nationalist groups began organizing attacks on Muslim villages. By the time the violence ended in December, over 200,000 Muslims had been killed and half a million forced to flee to Pakistan. It was the first genocide after the Second World War. And it changed Jammu’s demography forever.

Jammu was not a random battleground. It was a Muslim-majority province. Out of a total population of around 4 million, more than 3.2 million were Muslims. The region was ruled by a Hindu Dogra dynasty, loyal to the British and later to India. When the British left in August 1947, most Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir wished to join Pakistan. But the Maharaja and his close Hindu advisors had other plans.

They knew a Muslim-majority state would naturally opt for Pakistan. So, they began plotting. The Dogra rulers, the RSS, and Hindu Mahasabha started a coordinated campaign to change Jammu’s demography before the state’s political fate was sealed. Arms were distributed to Hindu and Sikh civilians. Local Kashmiris were disarmed. Non-Muslim refugees from Punjab were brought into Jammu and settled in Muslim localities.

Then came the violence.In September 1947, the first signs of systematic violence appeared in Poonch and Reasi. Dogra troops, aided by RSS volunteers, began attacking Muslim villages. They burned homes. They looted property. They killed without mercy. By October, the carnage spread to the entire province, from Kathua to Akhnoor, from Samba to Jammu city. The worst massacres took place between October 20 and November 9, 1947.70,000 Muslims were slaughtered in Kathua, Akhnoor Bridge, Samba, Maogaon, and Suchetgarh.In Jammu city, around 40,000 Muslims were killed in just a few days.Entire families were wiped out.Women were raped and abducted.

Thousands were told they would be transported safely to Pakistan , but the “convoys” turned into death traps.Dogra soldiers loaded Muslims onto trucks and buses, telling them they were being sent to Sialkot for safety. But as the vehicles reached Chattha and Makwal, they were ambushed by armed mobs. Men, women, and children were butchered. The Dogra army stood by, sometimes even joining in.

British journalist Ian Stephens, then editor of The Statesman, described the killings as “systematic savageries.” He estimated that half a million Muslims either vanished or were killed. The Times of London on August 10, 1948, reported 237,000 Muslims killed. Pakistan’s official figures later placed the toll even higher, around 600,000. Even Indian journalist Ved Bhasin, who later became known for his integrity, confirmed that over 100,000 Muslims were massacred in Jammu.The killings were so extensive that hundreds of villages vanished.In Jammu district, 155 villages that existed in 1947 were empty by 1961.In Kathua, 43 villages stood deserted.The census figures tell the rest of the story.Before the massacre, Muslims made up two-thirds of Jammu’s population. Today, they make up one-third. This demographic shift was not an accident, it was the goal.

The Dogra rulers could not have executed such a large-scale operation alone. They had help. The RSS, newly empowered after Partition, wanted Jammu to be a “Hindu homeland.” The Hindu Mahasabha saw the massacre as a way to avenge Muslim-majority areas joining Pakistan. Together, they turned Jammu into a killing field.

The Dogra army supplied weapons. Hindu and Sikh mobs carried out the killings. The Maharaja’s administration destroyed Muslim records, seized their lands, and resettled non-Muslims in their place.Even after the killings, the terror continued. Muslim survivors were harassed, their lands confiscated, and their villages renamed. Those who fled to Pakistan were declared “evacuees”, their property automatically taken by the state.

By the end of 1947, over 500,000 Muslims had fled to Pakistan. They arrived in Sialkot, Gujranwala, and Lahore with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Many had lost entire families. They brought stories of betrayal, of how the same soldiers who promised to protect them became their executioners. In the refugee camps, survivors spoke of women being abducted, children being thrown into fires, and villages being erased overnight. These were not isolated incidents.

This was a systematic, state-backed campaign of ethnic cleansing.The massacre achieved what the Maharaja wanted. The Muslim majority was turned into a minority. Within months, the political map had changed. When Maharaja Hari Singh finally acceded to India in October 1947, Jammu had already been “cleansed.” The “problem” of Muslim numbers had been solved.

Despite the scale of the killings, the world said little. No international commission ever investigated the killings. No Dogra officer was tried. No Indian authority ever acknowledged it as a genocide. The victims were erased from memory, reduced to statistics in dusty archives. The Jammu Massacre was not just an episode of violence. It was the foundation stone of India’s control over Jammu and Kashmir. The massacre made the accession possible. It silenced Muslim political voice in Jammu. It turned a majority into a minority. And it set a pattern of demographic manipulation that continues in different forms even today.

Remembering Jammu is not about reopening old wounds. It is about restoring truth. It is about acknowledging that what happened in September 1947 was a planned genocide, not a riot, not a clash, but a calculated extermination. The survivors called themselves “Gunsiyeh”, “the killed ones.” They carried that identity across generations. Their stories still echo in the refugee settlements of Pakistan.

The Jammu Massacre reminds us that the victors do not just write history,they also bury it. And it is our responsibility to unearth it. Because justice begins with remembrance.

Why the United Nations Still Matters?

By Mehr un Nisa

As the world marks UN Day on Friday, there is a case to look at the relevance of the world’s only imperfect but indispensable bridge between power and principle.

On the eve of the UN Day on Friday, October 24, nearly eight decades later, the question lingers: Does the World body still matter? The answer is yes—perhaps now more than ever. It was established on 24 October 1945, from the ashes of two devastating world wars, to give humanity another chance at peace. The UN was never designed to be flawless. It was created to prevent the world from collapsing into chaos. In a time defined by wars, disinformation, and political opportunism, the UN remains the only bridge between power and principle, and the only platform where the voiceless can still be heard.

The UN’s founding Charter did something revolutionary. It defined the boundaries of state behaviour and made international law the moral architecture of global politics. Once the Charter was adopted, states were no longer entirely sovereign—they accepted obligations towards peace, human rights, and cooperation. That legal and moral framework matters profoundly in today’s fractured world, where the powerful often act with impunity. Even when states flout these principles, their existence gives the weak a claim and the oppressed a vocabulary for justice.

As former Secretary-General Kofi Annan once said, “We may have different religions, different languages, different coloured skin, but we all belong to one human race.” That shared belonging, enshrined in the Charter, remains the UN’s enduring legacy.

The UN’s universality is its second great strength. With 193 member states, it remains the only truly global institution. No regional alliance, no economic bloc, and no coalition of the willing can match its reach. When conflicts erupt in small, forgotten corners of the world—whether a valley in Kashmir or a village in Africa—the UN provides visibility and legitimacy.

Its debates, reports, and resolutions may seem symbolic, but symbolism matters in international politics. It gives people under occupation or repression a measure of recognition that their suffering is not invisible. That visibility also creates accountability. A documented violation, a public debate, or a Special Rapporteur’s report transforms local pain into a global issue. For many communities, that alone can make the difference between total silence and a chance at justice.

Moral and Normative Pressure

Beyond diplomacy, the UN creates moral and normative pressure. Peacekeeping operations, human rights mechanisms, and international legal bodies are far from perfect. They are often slow, underfunded, and constrained by political will. Yet they still matter because they set expectations and establish norms of conduct. They ensure that violations of human rights do not pass entirely unnoticed and that victims have channels, however limited, for redress. Eleanor Roosevelt, who helped draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, once reminded the world: “Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home.” The UN’s human rights system—however bureaucratic—keeps that truth alive.

The UN remains the only international body that upholds the principle of self-determination.

On April 5, 2024, even India recorded support for the principle of the right to self-determination at a UN vote. It voted in favor of a draft resolution in the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) reaffirming the "inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination."

Many argue that the UN has failed, but that is only partly true. In a world where visibility itself is a form of resistance, the UN’s acknowledgement matters. Without it, there would be no legitimate international framework to challenge occupations across the world. There will be no moral foundation for self-determination, and no avenue—however limited—for raising a collective voice.

For those living under military control, the UN represents more than paperwork or resolutions. It symbolises hope, dignity, and the belief that the world still recognises their right to decide their future.

The UN’s critics are also not wrong. The organisation is often paralysed by the politics of its most powerful members. The veto system in the Security Council has too often silenced action, allowing humanitarian disasters to unfold unchecked. Bureaucracy slows decision-making, and funding shortages undermine missions in the field. These are serious flaws that must be confronted. But to dismiss the UN as irrelevant is to ignore what would happen without it. Without the UN, there would be no international laws against genocide, no coordinated response to refugees, no World Health Organization to guide global health crises, and no climate framework to hold states accountable. Its imperfections are frustrating, but its absence would be catastrophic. As former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, “The UN is imperfect, but it is indispensable.”

Urgent Need for Reform

If the UN is to matter more in the 21st century, reform is not optional—it is essential. The Security Council reflects the power dynamics of 1945, not 2025. Its composition must expand to include voices from Africa, Latin America, and the Islamic world. The veto system must be re-examined to ensure it does not become a shield for impunity. The General Assembly and human rights bodies must be strengthened to balance the scales of power. Secretary-General António Guterres recently observed, “The world has changed, but our institutions have not. We need a UN fit for the 21st century.” Reform should not only mean structural adjustments but also a renewed moral commitment—from states and citizens alike—to uphold the Charter’s spirit.

Institutions alone cannot guarantee justice. The UN needs allies outside its glass walls—civil society, academics, journalists, and activists—who refuse to let injustice stand unchallenged. People in conflict zones must use the UN as a tool, not merely as a symbol of hope. We must engage with its processes, demand implementation of its resolutions, and insist that its words translate into real rights. The UN’s future depends on this partnership between institutions and people. If governments weaken it, citizens must strengthen it. If power tries to silence it, principles must amplify its voice. The UN was born from human determination, and only human will can sustain it.

As the world marks another UN Day on Friday, the choice before us is clear. We can allow cynicism and political fatigue to hollow out the organisation, or we can reinvest in its potential to prevent the next great catastrophe. The challenges we face—climate change, pandemics, forced displacement, and protracted conflicts—do not respect borders or alliances. No state, however powerful, can confront them alone.

The UN’s relevance, therefore, lies not in its perfection but in its persistence. It remains humanity’s best attempt to place moral boundaries around power. It gives the weak a voice, the oppressed a claim, and the powerful a mirror. The idea of the UN is not finished. It is still unfolding. In the world’s most fragile places—whether Gaza, Sudan, or Kashmir—that unfolding matters most. The question is not whether the UN survives, but what we allow it to become. On this United Nations Day, let us recommit not only to the institution’s vision, but to the change it still promises.

(The writer heads the research and human rights department at the Islamabad-based Kashmir Institute of International Relations (KIIR). She can be reached at mehr_dua@yahoo.com.)

Seventy-Eight Years of Indian Occupation and Kashmiri Resistance

By Mehr un Nisa

The suffering of Kashmiris began on 27 October 1947, when Indian occupation forces entered Srinagar. That day turned a land of peace into a battlefield and began a tragedy that still continues. Only a few months earlier, on 19 July 1947, Kashmiri leaders had chosen their future through a historic resolution at Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan’s residence in Srinagar and declared their will to join Pakistan. Their reasoning was clear and logical, Kashmir’s religious, cultural, geographical and economic ties were naturally aligned with Pakistan, not India. But the will of the people was ignored. Maharaja Hari Singh, the Dogra ruler, turned his back on the aspirations of millions and instead unleashed terror to crush their demand. What followed was one of the bloodiest massacres in Kashmir’s history, aimed at eliminating Muslims from the region.

Ironically, on 12 August 1947, the Maharaja had offered Standstill Agreements to both Pakistan and India. Pakistan accepted, but India refused. Despite this, India soon began plotting a military intervention, even before a formal accession had been established. India claims that its army entered Jammu and Kashmir legally after Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession on 26 October 1947. But history tells a different story. British historian Alastair Lamb, in “Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy (1991)”, proved that Indian troops had already entered Kashmir before any document was signed. She showed that Patiala State forces, already part of the Indian Army, reached Srinagar, Jammu, and Uri by 17 October 1947, ten days before India claimed to have received the Maharaja’s consent. Lamb also revealed that the Maharaja did not sign the document freely.

Indian officials forced him to sign a blank paper under pressure. The so-called Instrument of Accession was not a legal agreement. It was a cover-up for India’s military invasion. Panic gripped the Dogra regime as resistance swept the Valley. Fearing the collapse of his rule, Maharaja Hari Singh fled Srinagar in haste. India seized the moment. On 27 October 1947, Indian aircraft began landing troops in Srinagar, an invasion disguised as defense. That day marked the military occupation of Kashmir and the erasure of its political will. The move violated the principles of partition and the right of self-determination.

As Indian troops advanced, a darker chapter began, the Jammu Massacre of 1947. Between October and November 1947, Dogra forces, backed by RSS, Hindu extremists, and Sikh mobs, carried out a campaign of mass killing. They targeted Muslim villages across Jammu. Over 200,000 to 237,000 Muslims were killed, according to The Times (10 August 1948). Thousands of families tried to flee toward Pakistan. Many never made it. Armed groups stopped their convoys, looted them, and murdered the travelers. Women were assaulted and kidnapped. Children were left without families. Journalist Ved Bhasin recalled that Sikhs “paraded through Jammu’s streets with naked swords.”

The massacre was not an accident. It was a calculated plan to wipe out Muslims from Jammu and change the region’s demography. The Maharaja’s forces wanted to silence any support for Pakistan and fill the area with Hindu and Sikh settlers. India’s invasion and the Jammu Massacre happened side by side. Both aimed to crush Kashmir’s Muslim identity and pave the way for India’s illegal occupation. It was a story of deception, blood, and betrayal, not of democracy or consent.

It was Nehru himself who took the Kashmir issue to the United Nations in December 1947, seeking international recognition for India’s actions and hoping to frame the conflict on his own terms. The UNSC soon called for a ceasefire and a plebiscite to let the people of Kashmir decide their future. The promise was made, but never kept. Decades have passed, and Kashmir still waits, generation after generation.

Today, with over one million Indian troops, Kashmir is the most militarized zone on earth. Under this suffocating presence, crimes against humanity continue while the world largely looks away. This betrayal and repression pushed the Kashmiri youth to rise again in 1989, not under foreign influence but out of desperation and dignity. Since then, thousands have been killed, imprisoned, or disappeared, yet resistance has not died. If 27 October 1947 was the day Kashmir was occupied, 5 August 2019 was the day it was completely colonized. The RSS-led Modi regime revoked Articles 370 and 35A, erased Kashmir’s autonomy and began a settler-colonial project, confiscating land, granting voting rights to non-locals and replacing Muslim officials with Hindutva loyalists. What started with invasion now continues through demographic engineering, but the Kashmiri spirit remains unbroken.

The 2024 Legislative Assembly elections were not a democratic exercise but an engineered attempt to legitimize India’s occupation. Many Kashmiris viewed the polls as a referendum against New Delhi’s control. India’s National Security Advisor, Ajit Doval, insists the 1947 “accession” was final and that Kashmir’s autonomy was an aberration. Yet, he cannot explain why one million troops are needed to “control” a people India claims chose it voluntarily.

Kashmir remains the unfinished agenda of the 1947 Partition. It has triggered every major Indo-Pak war, 1947–48, 1965, 1971, Kargil 1999 and the Indo-Pak standoff of 2025. Each confrontation pushes South Asia closer to a nuclear flashpoint. The recent Pahalgam false flag operation again exposed India’s hegemonic ambitions, countered by Pakistan’s swift and resolute defense.

Seventy-eight years on, Kashmir’s tale is unchanged, one of broken promises and unyielding resistance. Pakistan stands firm in political, moral and diplomatic support until the issue is resolved in line with UN resolutions and Kashmiris’ aspirations. As long as the chinars of Kashmir bleed and the Jhelum carries the whispers of freedom, 27 October will remain a living scar on the conscience of the world and a promise that truth will triumph over tyranny.

Kashmir’s Climate Crisis: A Man-Made Tragedy

By Mehr un Nisa

Reckless development and policy paralysis are fuelling the Himalayan meltdown, calls for urgent changes, otherwise next monsoon will bring even greater devastation.

A file photo of flashfloods in Jammu and Kashmir as at least three major cloudbursts battered parts of the region in 2025.A File Photo Imagine losing your home to floods, watching your fields wash away, and seeing loved ones trapped in flooded areas and landslides. This is not a distant nightmare. It is the lived reality for thousands of people in Jammu and Kashmir. In just a few weeks, relentless rains, flash floods and cloudbursts have claimed more than 110 lives, displaced families and caused economic losses worth hundreds of crores. While ordinary people mourn, New Delhi continues to boast of “development” and “normalcy.” What we are witnessing is not simply nature’s fury. It is a man-made, policy-driven disaster.

The past two months have brought an unbroken cycle of calamities across the region. In Jammu, the iconic Tawi Bridge collapsed on 26 August, taking with it three vehicles and underscoring the vulnerability of public infrastructure. In Doda, flash floods tore through homes and water pipelines, leaving families without drinking water. Reasi and Ramban were among the hardest hit districts. A landslide in Bhadder village buried an entire family alive, seven lives lost within seconds. In Ramban’s Rajgarh tehsil, cloudburst-triggered floods killed four people and flattened houses.

In Kishtwar, twin cloudbursts in the Warwan Valley destroyed entire farmlands, leaving dozens missing. On the Vaishno Devi pilgrimage route in Reasi, a landslide near Ardhkunwari killed 34 devotees and injured 20 others. These tragedies were not inevitable. Many of these locations had already been marked by experts as high-risk zones. Yet, officialdom allowed unregulated construction, deforestation and destabilisation of slopes of fragile mountains.

Since the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, the Indian government has relentlessly promoted an image of Kashmir as “peaceful, stable and thriving.” New roads, hydropower projects, “smart city” plans, and glossy tourism campaigns are presented as evidence of progress. But reality on the ground tells a different story. Rather than making the region climate-resilient, these projects have undermined natural safeguards. Forests are being cleared at alarming rates. Riverbanks have been encroached upon, weakening natural flood buffers. Glaciers—already retreating under global warming—are further destabilised by unregulated blasting and tunnelling. New hydropower projects such as Pakal Dul, Kiru, Kwar and Dangduru are being constructed without credible and sustainable environmental assessments, placing entire valleys at risk of Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOF).

A recent survey revealed 197 glacial lakes in Kishtwar alone, many dangerously are unstable. Scientists have warned of an “ecological time bomb,” yet the government persists with its agenda, selling the illusion of “sustainable growth” to the world. This obsession with cosmetic development—designed for political optics—has come at the expense of both people’s safety and the environment.

Farmers and Traders in Despair

The climate crisis is not just an environmental story; it is an economic catastrophe. Horticulture, the backbone of Kashmir’s economy, has been paralysed. The closure of the Srinagar-Jammu Highway for more than two weeks due to repeated damage and massive landslides left hundreds of trucks loaded with apples and pears stranded. Crops worth crores rotted on the roadside.

The Sopore Fruit Mandi, Asia’s second-largest fruit market, shut its operations on 9 September after losses crossed $25 million. Traders warned that if road closures persisted, losses could reach $50 million. Apple prices collapsed from about $7.20 per box to $4.80, dragging growers, traders and transporters into financial ruin. For farmers, the blow is not only financial but emotional. After months of labour, they are forced to watch their produce decay in trucks or warehouses. Yet officials continue to boast about “record agricultural growth” in Kashmir. The gap between official claims and ground realities has never been wider.

The highway closures triggered a wider humanitarian crisis. Shortages of food, baby formula, medicines and fuel spread across the valley. Fresh landslides near Bali Nallah in Udhampur worsened the situation, isolating thousands. Northern Railways cancelled 58 trains on 27 August, leaving over 2,000 passengers stranded until special trains were arranged. Meanwhile, the government issued press releases praising “uninterrupted connectivity” and “efficient crisis management.” Such hollow claims only deepen public frustration.

Since mid-August, more than 12,000 people have been evacuated due to floods, embankment breaches and landslides. In Budgam, the collapse of a Jhelum embankment on 4 September forced 10,000 people to abandon their homes. Many are now in temporary shelters without access to clean water, sanitation, or healthcare.

In Reasi district, residents of Arnas tehsil staged road blockades on 9 September, accusing the government of ignoring their plight. Families demanded tents, blankets, free rations, crop compensation, loan waivers and power restoration. Electricity has been cut off in several villages for more than two weeks, crippling daily life. Protesters warned they would escalate demonstrations if relief did not arrive. This anger is not an isolated outburst. It reflects a larger truth: people in Jammu and Kashmir feel abandoned. They see a government more concerned with promoting a narrative of “normalcy” than addressing an unfolding humanitarian disaster.

Fragile Ecosystem Under Siege

Kashmir is one of South Asia’s most fragile ecological zones. Global climate change has undoubtedly worsened weather extremes, but the scale of devastation here is amplified by reckless human action. Authorities have encouraged unregulated urbanisation, deforestation and river exploitation without assessing environmental impacts. Instead of investing in climate-resilient infrastructure, the government pours funds into highways and hydropower projects that look good in official brochures but weaken the land’s natural defences. Even moderate rainfall now threatens to unleash catastrophe. This is not merely mismanagement. It is a betrayal of governance responsibilities.

The government’s obsession with optics has blinded it to human suffering. When people are dying in landslides or watching their livelihoods rot, promises of “smart cities” sound not just hollow but cruel. When families plead for tents and rations, photo opportunities at project inaugurations are an insult. Every disaster in Kashmir is now framed as nature’s wrath, absolving authorities of responsibility. But as locals know, these are not acts of God. They are the predictable outcomes of bad policy, poor planning and wilful neglect. The lessons are clear. Kashmir needs urgent relief for those displaced by floods and landslides: safe shelters, food supplies, medical care and debt relief. Farmers need compensation for their losses, and markets require urgent logistical solutions to prevent produce from rotting.

Beyond immediate relief, systemic reform is essential. Environmental impact assessments must become rigorous, not perfunctory. Fragile zones must be declared off-limits to construction. Forests and wetlands should be restored as natural buffers. Investments must shift from cosmetic projects to climate-resilient infrastructure, such as flood-resistant housing, embankment strengthening and improved drainage systems. Above all, policymakers must acknowledge the reality of Kashmir’s ecological fragility. Propaganda cannot stop floods. False claims cannot hold back landslides. The people of Kashmir deserve honesty, accountability and a survival plan—not more slogans about “development.”

Kashmir is drowning, not only in floodwaters but also in deliberate neglect. Until the authorities replace image-building with accountability, the Himalayan meltdown will only intensify. Climate justice for Kashmir means sustainable planning, respect for fragile ecosystems and policies rooted in people’s safety rather than propaganda. Cosmetic development can win headlines. It cannot protect lives. Without urgent change, the next monsoon will bring even greater devastation—and with it, the question of how many more lives must be lost before lessons are learned.

Empowerment or Exploitation? Women’s Day & J&K’s Reality

By Mehr un Nisa

“Invest in Women: Accelerate Progress”, the theme of International Women’s Day 2025, calls for the unequivocal dismantling of systemic inequities. These inequities imperil women's safety, autonomy and dignity. Yet, in Jammu and Kashmir, this vision remains a distant ideal. Sex trafficking and gender-based violence continue unabated under the shadow of conflict and militarisation. The abrogation of Article 370 on 5 August 2019 ushered in an era of intensified surveillance and state impunity. Women have been subjected to abduction, coercion and trafficking. These are not incidental consequences of conflict. They are calibrated mechanisms of subjugation and demographic engineering.

When state hegemony is absolute and legal recourse remains illusory, the trafficking of women ceases to be an anomaly. Instead, it becomes a deliberate instrument of control. The erosion of institutional accountability has fostered an environment where gendered violence is weaponised. Women are reduced to mere pawns in a broader geopolitical calculus. Investing in women necessitates safeguarding their fundamental rights. Their bodies must not become battlegrounds for political dominion. Justice is not a privilege. It is a precondition for genuine progress.

The figures provided by India’s National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), are eye-opening. 8,617 women and 1,148 girls disappeared from Jammu and Kashmir between 2019 and 2020. This period saw an unprecedented military siege, a total communication blackout and a surge in troop deployment. With external access blocked, media censored and civilians confined to their homes, the scale of these disappearances raises urgent questions. How did thousands of women vanish under such an extensive security apparatus? Who had the means to orchestrate mass abductions in a region under total surveillance? The answer is evident: state complicity, either through direct involvement, facilitation of trafficking networks, or the exploitation of victims for intelligence, espionage and sex trafficking.

This pattern is not new. The enforced disappearances of Kashmiri men by Indian forces have been widely documented. The Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) has recorded over 8,000 cases of Kashmiri men vanishing in state custody. Most never returned. The forced disappearances of women and girls in the post-370 era signify an escalation, shifting the state’s strategy from targeting men to weaponising gender-based violence. Women in conflict zones are frequently subjected to trafficking, sexual slavery and forced recruitment as informants. With Kashmir under complete military control, such crimes have been conducted in secrecy, shielded by state-imposed silence.

The nexus between the state and sex trafficking in Jammu & Kashmir is not new. The 2006 Jammu and Kashmir sex scandal exposed the involvement of high-ranking officials in trafficking Kashmiri women. Two video CDs surfaced, revealing minors being sexually exploited. These children were coerced into prostitution and supplied to senior police officers, bureaucrats and politicians. The Jammu and Kashmir Police identified 56 suspects, yet most evaded prosecution. Victims, some as young as 15, were blackmailed and forced into prostitution for as little as Rs 250 to Rs 500.

This case exposed a system of institutionalised exploitation, revealing how trafficking networks operate under state protection. The past failure to take legal action has led to ongoing injustice and allowed perpetrators to act with impunity.

The post-370 siege provided the perfect conditions for a militarised trafficking industry. The lockdown saw occupation forces seal off the region, impose indefinite curfews and block all communication channels. International observers, human rights organisations and journalists were denied entry. The Indian state had unchecked power over Kashmir, controlling every aspect of civilian life. The question remains unanswered that if the Indian state is not responsible, why has there been no investigation? Why has the government remained silent despite official data confirming thousands of missing women? The refusal to act suggests a deliberate cover-up.

International law is clear, the UN Palermo Protocol (2000), Article 3, criminalises human trafficking and mandates states to prevent and prosecute such crimes. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW, 1979), Article 6, obliges governments to take all necessary measures to suppress trafficking. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), Article 7(1)(c) and (g), classifies enforced disappearances, trafficking and sexual slavery as crimes against humanity. India’s refusal to investigate these disappearances constitutes a direct breach of its legal obligations.

The implications extend beyond physical violence. The abduction of Kashmiri women represents a deliberate campaign of psychological and demographic warfare. Women are central to family structures, cultural preservation and social resistance, they are foundational pillars of families and communities. The Indian state targets them to weaken Kashmiri society and stifle resistance. The figures documented by the NCRB serve as incontrovertible evidence of a humanitarian catastrophe, one that extends beyond mere militarisation to a calculated campaign of demographic and psychological warfare. The absence of independent investigations and the government's silence strengthen its involvement in the issue.

As long as the whereabouts of all missing women remain unknown, the Indian state is liable for enforced disappearances, human trafficking and serious international law violations. The international community cannot afford to ignore these atrocities. The absence of justice for the victims of 2006 emboldened perpetrators. The ongoing disappearances of Kashmiri women post 5 Aug must not meet the same fate.

Pahalgam and Politics of Convenient Tragedy

By Mehr un Nisa

Deeper questions—those of responsibility, accountability, and pattern—remain smothered in media noise and nationalistic rhetoric.

The recent massacre in Kashmir’s Baisaran Valley has reopened a troubling chapter in the region’s long and bloody history. Twenty-six civilians were killed and at least seventeen wounded in what appeared to be a chillingly calculated attack—religiously targeted, brutal, and suspiciously well-timed. The official narrative was predictably swift: blame was assigned across the border, security forces sprang into delayed action, and political leaders offered standard condemnations.

But the deeper questions—those of responsibility, accountability, and pattern—remain smothered in media noise and nationalistic rhetoric. Why does this keep happening? Who continues to benefit? And how have we normalised such deadly spectacles? This is not the first time a high-profile attack in Kashmir has occurred at a politically sensitive moment. In 2019, Pulwama became the stage for a nationalistic crescendo just before the general elections. Now, with dissatisfaction mounting over governance failures and economic strain, the killings in Pahalgam offer a convenient distraction and renewed emotional capital.

Intelligence Warnings

According to Indian media reports from outlets such as The Hindu, Indian Express and Times of India, intelligence warnings preceded the attack. Locals testified that victims were singled out based on religious identity—asked to recite verses to prove their faith. Yet, despite heightened security post-Article 370, a group of militants reportedly moved unhindered through a tourist-heavy, militarised zone. The disquieting absence of police or army personnel during the onslaught only amplifies suspicions.

Survivor accounts paint a harrowing picture of institutional abandonment. Wounded civilians were transported on mules by locals. Lieutenant Vinay Narwal reportedly bled to death over 90 minutes, awaiting help that never came. His widow’s public grief was not just personal—it was political. It exposed the grotesque mismatch between India’s military posture and its operational readiness on the ground. And therein lies the crux of the matter. These attacks, while tragic in human terms, serve important political functions. They reignite cross-border narratives, stifle domestic dissent, and galvanise the ruling party’s nationalist base.

After Pulwama, Balakot Airstrikes?

After Pulwama, India launched the much-hyped Balakot airstrikes, whose strategic impact remains debated. Leaked WhatsApp chats from a media executive gloating over the attacks in advance of the airstrikes only reinforce the troubling marriage of politics, media and militarism. This isn’t unique to India. Governments around the world have long manipulated crises to consolidate power. What’s troubling in India’s case is the regularity and impunity with which it happens in Kashmir.

As the Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung described, structural violence is built into political systems—violence not just in action, but in the silence, negligence and distortion that follows it. Today’s Kashmir reflects that structure. A place where citizens bleed unattended while political elites enjoy fortress-like security. A place where each cycle of violence triggers a wave of televised rage, rather than introspection. Government data shows India’s military is facing a critical manpower shortage—over 100,000 soldiers, including 8,400 officers. Recruitment slowed during the pandemic, and budget cuts have made matters worse. Yet, this is not presented to the public as a failure of state capacity—it’s papered over by appeals to nationalism.

The killings in Pahalgam expose a deeper rot.

Democratic Downslide in India

Post-2014 India has witnessed a steady erosion of democratic safeguards. After the 2008 Mumbai attacks, senior officials resigned over security lapses. No such accountability followed Pulwama. None has followed Pahalgam. Instead, we see media blackouts, journalists cut off mid-broadcast, survivors sidelined by patriotic music and war-mongering panels. This is not just poor governance—it is a deliberate suppression of scrutiny. When children ask why such an attack could occur near an army base and receive no honest answer, it signals something broken in the democratic fabric.

There is also an international dimension. Framing Kashmir as a battleground of cross-border terrorism helps India posture globally as a victim rather than an occupying power. It rallies diplomatic support, justifies military escalations, and delegitimises Kashmiri resistance. It shifts the global conversation away from constitutional violations, human rights concerns and democratic decay. But the ethical cost is profound. When states manipulate tragedy for tactical gain, they desecrate the very notion of public security. They weaponise victimhood and discard citizens as collateral damage. In such a landscape, even the most basic norms—like the Geneva Conventions’ prohibition against targeting civilians—are rendered meaningless.

Enforcing Internal Legitimacy

There is a strategic logic behind this, of course. Political theorists from Chalmers Johnson to Barry Buzan have noted how regimes under pressure often resort to external enemies and hyper-securitisation to shore up internal legitimacy. In today’s India, where inflation bites, unemployment soars, and rural despair grows, every “incident” becomes an opportunity to deflect. Look at the pattern: Amarnath (2017), Sunjuwan (2018), Pulwama (2019), Poonch-Rajouri (2023), Reasi (2024), and now Pahalgam.

The script rarely changes. The perpetrators may differ in identity and location, but the outcomes remain eerily consistent—public grief, state impunity and political profit. We are left with a critical question—not just who committed these acts, but who consistently gains from them?

Until India confronts that question with honesty, Kashmir will remain trapped in a cycle of bloodshed and blame, its people pawn in a larger political theatre. And as Hannah Arendt warned, the real danger lies not in dramatic tyranny, but in the normalisation of cruelty—the quiet consent to evil wrapped in flags, anthems and prime-time spectacles.

Kashmir in Crosshairs of Digital State

By Mehr un Nisa

From facial recognition to internet blackouts, Kashmir has become a laboratory for surveillance and digital arrests—one where innovation serves control, not empowerment.

In the age of global connectivity, technology is often celebrated as a vehicle for progress, democratisation, and empowerment. But in Jammu and Kashmir, it has of late become a sophisticated weapon of control. The digital governance in the region—cloaked in the language of security and modernisation—is, in practice, a systematic erosion of fundamental freedoms. Through mass surveillance, algorithmic censorship, Artificial Intelligence (AI) policing, and targeted digital restrictions, it is like living in a digital siege.The transformation of technology into a tool of repression is not accidental—it is structural, strategic, and deeply political. While the world debates data privacy, ethical AI, and digital rights, Kashmiris face the hard edge of these conversations. Here, technology does not liberate; it incarcerates. The right to privacy, enshrined in Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), lies in tatters. Warrantless surveillance, phone tapping, social media monitoring, and the deployment of AI-powered facial recognition systems are daily realities.

This surveillance architecture, built without transparency or accountability, is not merely about collecting data—it is about enforcing silence.

Digital Evidence Weaponised

The state’s obligations under the UN General Assembly’s resolution on the Right to Privacy in the Digital Age are openly violated. Every click, post, and call becomes a potential act of defiance, and the punishment for dissent often arrives in the form of digital evidence weaponised under draconian laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Public Safety Act (PSA). Journalists, activists, and political workers are arrested not for violence, but for tweets, Facebook updates, and WhatsApp forwards. The state’s digital dragnet captures the most fragile expressions of political life and criminalises them with ruthless efficiency.

Perhaps the most sinister symbol of this digital repression is the GPS tracker anklet—a device more commonly associated with hardened criminals—now placed on political detainees. This degrading surveillance measure violates not only the right to privacy (Article 17) but also freedom of movement (Article 12 of the ICCPR). The case of Hafiz Sikander, a political candidate made to wear a GPS anklet during his campaign, is a chilling testament to how such technologies are used not for security, but for delegitimisation. While Indian politicians campaign freely across the country, Kashmiri political figures are electronically shackled. Predictive policing and biometric profiling, sold to the public as crime-fighting tools, are disproportionately deployed in Kashmir against young men. These technologies, devoid of judicial oversight, deepen structural discrimination and enable arbitrary detentions—violating the ICCPR’s guarantees against unlawful imprisonment.

Digital Noose: Shutdowns, Censorship and Disinformation

Kashmir holds the dubious distinction of enduring the longest internet shutdown in the history of any democracy—213 days following the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019.This blackout severed access to education, healthcare, commerce, and communication for over eight million people. During the COVID-19 pandemic, slow internet speeds turned online schooling into a cruel joke, denying Kashmiri students their right to education (Article 26, UDHR). The UN Human Rights Council and its Special Rapporteurs have repeatedly condemned such shutdowns as unlawful and disproportionate. Yet, telecom companies in Kashmir complied with state orders without resistance—highlighting the complicity of corporations in human rights violations. he UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights call on these firms to resist government overreach. Their silence is a stain on global corporate ethics. Social media, once a tool of liberation, has also been conscripted into the state’s machinery of control.

The authorities deploy cyber armies to flag, distort, and suppress pro-freedom content while pressuring platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to suspend the accounts of journalists and activists. These take downs are not isolated—they are systemic, and they violate Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to receive and share information.

Digital Repression is Economic Punishment

In Kashmir, censorship is algorithmic. AI is not only tracking users but predicting, policing, and preemptively silencing them. The digital crackdown has consequences beyond political life—it is choking the economy. The IT and e-commerce sectors, once seen as beacons of possibility, have been decimated by internet blackouts and throttled bandwidth. Many Kashmiri professionals, unable to work remotely or sustain businesses, have migrated in search of opportunity.

Digital repression is not just surveillance—it is economic punishment.

India is a signatory to the ICCPR, UDHR, and numerous UN resolutions on digital rights, but the gulf between commitment and conduct is staggering. Despite detailed reports from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in 2018 and 2019 outlining violations in Kashmir, there has been little international accountability. The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of assembly and association has condemned India's digital governance, but condemnations alone are no longer enough. Telecom and social media giants must be held accountable under the Global Network Initiative (GNI) and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. So far, corporate complicity has thrived under the guise of ‘compliance’. But when compliance enables repression, it becomes collusion.

Digital Siege of Kashmir

The digital siege of Kashmir is not an anomaly—it is a warning. If left unchecked, it will become the template for digital authoritarianism in other parts of the world. Surveillance, predictive policing, algorithmic censorship, and economic throttling are not technologies—they are ideologies made visible. The international community must act. There is a need for independent investigations, and holding officials and corporations complicit in digital repression accountable. Civil society and human rights defenders must be given the resources and protections they need to monitor, report, and resist these violations.

Tech companies must be legally bound to uphold human rights—especially in conflict zones. Transparency in censorship requests, human rights impact assessments, and robust mechanisms for redress must become standard. Kashmiris should not be the price paid for technological advancement. If the future is digital, then defending digital freedoms must be our most urgent political project.

Because when innovation becomes a tool for domination, silence is not neutrality—it is complicity.

International Law: Justice for Powerful, Silence for Oppressed

By Mehr un Nisa

Selective application of international law undermines its credibility, especially in unresolved crises like Kashmir and Palestine.

Throughout history, international law has been seen as a cornerstone of justice and a deterrent against global anarchy. Its primary aims—to uphold human rights, prevent war crimes, and provide mechanisms for peaceful dispute resolution—are noble. However, the system falters when its enforcement is inconsistent. How can international law remain a beacon of justice when it fails to protect the most vulnerable and instead bends to the will of political power? Legal frameworks exist, and on paper, they are robust. Article 1(2) of the UN Charter and Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) both guarantee the right to self-determination. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids collective punishment and mistreatment of civilians, while the Convention Against Torture (CAT) outlaws torture under all circumstances. The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the UN Human Rights Council is supposed to hold states accountable for violations. These structures are intended to uphold dignity and foster peace.

There have been moments where international law has proven effective. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda brought to justice those responsible for the 1994 genocide. The tribunal for the former Yugoslavia held perpetrators of war crimes in Bosnia accountable. South Africa's peaceful transition from apartheid to democracy was made possible in part by international legal and economic pressure. These examples show that with political will and global unity, international law can serve as a powerful instrument for justice. But such cases are the exception rather than the norm. More often, international law is wielded selectively—applied rigorously in some instances, and ignored or distorted in others. The International Criminal Court (ICC), for example, has focused disproportionately on African leaders, while turning a blind eye to transgressions by major powers or their allies.

Global Response to Russia's Invasion of Ukraine

The swift global response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, including immediate war crimes investigations, was in stark contrast to the silence surrounding Kashmir or Palestine, where decades of occupation, repression, and human rights abuses have been extensively documented but largely unaddressed. The case of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) is emblematic of this selective application. Reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UNHRC highlight grave abuses in the region—extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, and widespread torture. The use of pellet guns, mass surveillance, and impunity granted by the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) directly contravenes the Geneva Conventions and the ICCPR, which guarantee protection to civilians and the right to life. India has also failed to ratify the Convention Against Torture, thereby shielding itself from accountability for well-documented abuses.

AFSPA, in particular, has created a legal vacuum where rights cease to exist. It grants security forces sweeping powers, including the authority to shoot to kill, detain without trial, and suppress dissent without judicial scrutiny. Although the UPR mechanism recommends repealing such draconian laws, India has routinely dismissed these calls and barred UN human rights monitors from visiting Kashmir.

Pattern of Impunity

Palestine mirrors this pattern of impunity. UN General Assembly Resolution 194 guarantees Palestinian refugees the right to return. Resolutions 242 and 338 demand Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled Israel’s separation wall illegal. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the transfer of the occupying power’s population into the occupied area—yet Israeli settlements continue to expand. Despite the ICC’s opening of war crimes investigations, Israeli airstrikes in Gaza have resulted in civilian casualties without meaningful consequences.

Other cases further illustrate these double standards. In Syria, the use of chemical weapons violated international law, yet political gridlock at the Security Council hindered action. The Rohingya genocide in Myanmar prompted ICJ proceedings, but enforcement has been feeble. The UN also failed to act decisively in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur despite clear warnings and mounting evidence of atrocities.Still, there are glimmers of hope. In Sierra Leone, the Special Court succeeded in prosecuting those responsible for civil war crimes. In Cambodia, the Extraordinary Chambers held Khmer Rouge leaders accountable. These cases show that international law can be effective—if the global community prioritises justice over geopolitical interests.

Human Rights in Palestine & Kashmir

For international law to regain credibility, it must be enforced universally, not selectively. Justice should not be a privilege of the powerful, but a right for all. To that end, the United Nations should appoint a special envoy to monitor human rights in Kashmir and Palestine. The ICJ must assess the legal status of the ongoing violations in these regions. Regional bodies such as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) must shed their passivity and press for justice. If the world continues to treat international law as a political tool rather than a shield for the oppressed, its legitimacy will wither. The rule of law must be more than symbolic. To restore global faith in justice, legal frameworks must be upheld in all circumstances, regardless of political alliances.

Justice must not be selective. It must be universal. Anything less is not justice at all.

Erasing Resistance: India’s Legal and Demographic War on Kashmir’s Identity

Mehr un Nisa Rehman

Kashmir stands at a defining moment in its history, as its resistance movement faces an increasing onslaught from a state determined to undermine it through force, legal manipulation and demographic changes. Beneath the surface of constitutional promises and national unity, the Indian government has set in motion a carefully planned campaign aimed at dismantling the very foundations of Kashmir’s struggle for self-determination. This effort is far from coincidental, it is a deliberate, well-thought-out action executed with disturbing legal and political precision.

The abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019 marked a decisive rupture in India’s relationship with Kashmir. It stripped the region of its limited autonomy and opened the floodgates for laws and policies that would profoundly alter its demography, identity and political fabric. Post-2019 developments must be read not as isolated actions but as components of a larger settler-colonial design aimed at dissolving Kashmiri identity and assimilating the region into the ideological and administrative framework of the Indian state

Now the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 is presented as a reform in the management of religious charitable endowments. However, beneath this legal façade, the Act functions as a tool of state control and dispossession. It transfers the authority over waqf properties from community-led bodies to government-appointed revenue officials, effectively dismantling a system that allowed local Muslim communities to manage their own religious and social institutions. This shift is not merely administrative, it carries profound political and cultural implications. The Waqf board in Kashmir administers property worth billions, which has long supported education, religious activities and welfare initiatives. This law is a deliberate move to disempower the community by cutting off both its spiritual and socio-economic roots.

The new legislation effectively disempowers local religious bodies, denying Kashmiris the autonomy to manage their own sacred trusts. It also paves the way for large-scale land acquisition by the state. According to official estimates, more than 1.5 lakh kanals of Waqf land have already come under the scanner for “unauthorised use,” a pretext used to reclaim and redistribute it. This is not governance, it is legalised dispossession. Such policies mirror colonial tactics where religious endowments were seized to control both land and faith, silencing resistance by severing its spiritual and material lifelines.

India’s demographic reconfiguration of Kashmir is no less strategic. Since the introduction of the Domicile Law in May 2020, over 7 million domicile certificates have been issued, many to non-residents. These include employees from other Indian states, migrant workers and even Indian forces’ personnel who have served in Kashmir. The law lowers the residency threshold to a mere 15 years, with provisions that allow the Indian government employees and their children to obtain domicile status even faster.

The implications are clear, this is not mere administrative restructuring; it is the groundwork for settler colonialism. India is marginalising the indigenous Kashmiri Muslim population through incentives that encourage migration and land acquisition by outsiders. The purchase of land by non-Kashmiris, once prohibited under Article 35A, is now fully legal. Reports reveal that vast tracts of land have already been transferred to industries and government agencies under the guise of development. These developments betray an intent to permanently alter the region’s demography and dilute its Muslim-majority character. This is an echo of Zionist settlement strategies in occupied Palestine.

A key feature of the post-2019 strategy has been the forced realignment of political loyalties. Kashmiri political figures and activists are being pressured, often under threat of detention or property seizure, to distance themselves from pro-resistance positions. Once known for their firm commitment to the Kashmiri cause, many Hurriyat leaders are now being forced to sign affidavits that declare their loyalty to the Indian Constitution.

These affidavits are not the result of free will but of sustained pressure, threats and coercion. This tactic aims to delegitimize the resistance from within by presenting its leaders as having abandoned the struggle. Such forced loyalty shifts undermine the moral authority of the resistance camp. They create confusion and distrust among the people of Kashmir, who have long looked up to these leaders. This strategy helps India promote a false image of peace and normalcy in the region. In reality, dissent is being silenced and political space is shrinking.

The use of legal tools, media narratives and targeted intimidation ensures that alternative voices are discredited or removed. The coerced betrayal of resistance values not only damages the credibility of pro-freedom leadership but also weakens the collective will of the Kashmiri people. This deliberate collapse of resistance leadership is part of a broader plan to erase the political identity of Kashmir.

Despite the state’s relentless attempts to erase resistance, the spirit of defiance persists. From the quiet dignity of mothers holding photographs of disappeared sons to students organising anonymous reading circles, resistance in Kashmir has taken new, resilient forms. This is precisely why India is intensifying its campaign, it fears a revival of collective memory and political agency. India’s strategic designs in Kashmir reveal a comprehensive architecture of control, legal, demographic and ideological. But the identity that has been shaped over generations by history cannot be destroyed, no matter the force used to suppress it. It cannot extinguish the collective will of a people who, for generations, have resisted militarisation, dispossession and denial. The struggle for self-determination in Kashmir is not a minor chapter in South Asian history, it is a powerful reminder of the ongoing fight for justice.

The author is head of the research and human rights department of the Islamabad-based think tank, the Kashmir Institute of International Relations (KIIR). She can be contacted at the following email address: mehr_dua@yahoo.com on Twitter at @MHHRsays

Missing Voices at Geneva’s Congress on Enforced Disappearances

By Mehr un Nisa

Absence of voices at such a landmark event not only reveals a troubling paradox but also diminishes the authenticity of the discourse and underscores the failure of international mechanisms

Geneva is set to become the focus of global attention as it hosts the world’s first Congress on Enforced Disappearances in the coming days. This landmark event, organized by the Convention Against Enforced Disappearances Initiative (CEDI), the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED), the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID), and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), aims to galvanize international efforts to combat one of the most harrowing violations of human rights. However, the glaring absence of voices like the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS) and the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) raises critical questions.

The JKCCS, led by Pervez Imroz, a distinguished lawyer and human rights activist, and APDP by Parveena Ahangar, a tireless campaigner, have been at the forefront of documenting and advocating against enforced disappearances. Their meticulous work has chronicled the region’s grim realities, from unmarked mass graves to the systemic impunity enjoyed by state actors. Despite their pivotal contributions to international human rights discourse, Imroz and Ahangar, like many other advocates, face severe restrictions on their mobility. Their passports have been confiscated, effectively silencing their voices on global platforms. The JKCCS, co-led by Khurram Parvez, has produced robust documentation of atrocities, including investigative reports on mass graves that have garnered international attention. Parvez’s incarceration since November 2021 underscores the extent to which dissent is criminalized.

Similarly, under Ahangar’s leadership, the APDP has represented countless families of the disappeared, organizing monthly protests and ensuring that the issue remains in the public consciousness. Yet, these organizations, once vital conduits of information to the international community, are now effectively barred from participating in forums like the Geneva Congress. absence of these voices at such a landmark event reveals a troubling paradox. This exclusion not only diminishes the authenticity of the discourse but also underscores the failure of international mechanisms to ensure access and representation for marginalized communities. Their work has received global recognition, with Parvez winning the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders and Ahangar being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet, their ability to advocate internationally is systematically curtailed.

Disappeared souls

Since the 1990s, enforced disappearances have been a defining feature of the conflict in Jammu and Kashmir. Over 8,000 individuals, predominantly men aged between 18 and 35, have been forcibly disappeared. These disappearances often involve state or state-sponsored actors detaining individuals without due process, frequently followed by torture, extrajudicial killings, and the disposal of bodies in unmarked graves.

The International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Jammu Kashmir (IPTK) uncovered 2,700 graves containing over 2,943 bodies in just three districts—Bandipora, Baramulla, and Kupwara. Many graves held multiple bodies, with 154 containing two bodies and 23 containing more than two.Testimonies from survivors and witnesses highlight the brutality underlying these disappearances. Corpses were often delivered under the cover of night, bearing signs of torture and burns. Local gravediggers, coerced into burying the bodies, described the dehumanizing conditions under which these acts were carried out.

While the Indian state claims that these bodies belong to "foreign militants," local accounts and identification through clothing, distinguishing marks, and exhumation efforts suggest that many of the deceased were Kashmiri civilians. Laws such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), 1958, and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, grant sweeping powers to security forces, including the authority to detain individuals without trial. The AFSPA, in particular, provides immunity to military personnel from prosecution, effectively shielding perpetrators of enforced disappearances from accountability.

International law unequivocally condemns enforced disappearances. Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court classifies enforced disappearances as a crime against humanity. The Geneva Conventions, to which India is a party, mandate the humane treatment of all individuals, including those detained in conflict zones. Article 17 of the First Geneva Convention requires the proper burial of the deceased, while Article 121 of the Third Geneva Convention mandates official inquiries into deaths in custody. Despite these legal obligations, India has failed to adhere to international norms, as evidenced by the lack of transparent investigations or prosecutions related to mass graves and disappearances.

The consequences of enforced disappearances extend beyond the immediate victims. Families of the disappeared endure immense psychological, social, and economic hardships. Women, in particular, bear the brunt of this tragedy, often assuming the dual roles of caregiver and breadwinner while facing societal stigma as "half-widows." An estimated 200,000 relatives of disappeared persons are actively seeking information about their missing loved ones, reflecting the profound human cost of this crisis. Enforced disappearances erode trust in state institutions, perpetuate cycles of violence, and deepen grievances among affected populations. This creates fertile ground for further radicalization and instability, undermining efforts to achieve peace and reconciliation in the region.

Global Precedents

The global community has addressed mass graves and enforced disappearances in other conflict zones through robust investigations and justice mechanisms. The Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team (EAAF), for example, has played a pivotal role in uncovering the truth about disappearances during Argentina’s military dictatorship. Similarly, the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) has investigated mass graves in Rwanda, Iraq, and the Balkans, supporting legal proceedings and truth commissions. These precedents highlight the importance of forensic evidence, independent investigations, and international cooperation in addressing enforced disappearances. In the case of Jammu and Kashmir, similar measures could be adopted to ensure accountability and provide closure to victims’ families.

However, India’s refusal to allow international observers and forensic experts into the region poses a significant barrier to justice. This inaugural Congress in Geneva, while a significant step forward, must not fall short of its purpose. The absence of Kashmiri voices serves as a stark reminder of the challenges inherent in pursuing justice for the disappeared. For Congress to succeed, it must call for an independent commission to investigate mass graves and disappearances, urge the repeal of oppressive laws such as AFSPA and uphold the rights of those who speak for the disappeared. True justice demands such decisive and inclusive action.

Elections in Jammu and Kashmir: A Case Study of Democratic Legitimacy

By Mehr un Nisa

Elections are often regarded as the cornerstone of democracy, offering a mechanism for expressing the collective will. Yet, in regions like J&K, elections alone cannot resolve deeper structural and political grievances. While the recently concluded elections were described as free and fair, with significant participation, they must be analyzed within the broader historical and political context.

The abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019 marked a watershed moment in J&K’s history, fundamentally altering its constitutional status. For some, the elections symbolize a return to normalcy and an endorsement of the central government's decision to revoke the region's special autonomy. For others, they are a manifestation of dissent and resilience against perceived impositions. This dichotomy reflects the broader paradox of elections in conflict zones: they provide a semblance of legitimacy while often failing to address the underlying causes of alienation.

From an international relations perspective, the unilateral abrogation of Article 370 raises critical questions about constitutionalism and the principle of consent. Autonomy arrangements, like those J&K previously enjoyed, are a hallmark of managing multi-ethnic or multi-national states. In J&K’s case, the central government’s actions represent a departure from the principles of federalism and constitutional consent. By downgrading the region from statehood to Union Territories and bypassing the state legislature, the Indian Parliament disrupted a long-standing constitutional arrangement. This creates a “constitutional anomaly.” Such actions undermine the legitimacy of democratic institutions, both domestically and internationally, inviting criticism about India’s adherence to democratic norms in its most sensitive region.

Development is often invoked as a panacea for political grievances, particularly in conflict-affected regions. However, economic progress cannot substitute for political rights and dignity. The international community has witnessed similar dynamics in other contested regions, such as Palestine and Tibet, where economic initiatives have been employed to pacify political dissent. In J&K, development discourse must be critically examined. On several socio-economic indicators, including literacy and social development, J&K was historically ahead of many Indian states even before the abrogation of Article 370. This raises the question: can economic development alone resolve a conflict rooted in identity, autonomy and historical grievances? The answer lies in acknowledging that while governance and economic progress are essential, they cannot overshadow the primacy of political rights and self-determination.

J&K occupies a unique position in international relations as a region with unresolved questions of self-determination. The principle of self-determination, enshrined in the United Nations Charter and reaffirmed in several international treaties, remains a contentious issue in Kashmir. While India views the region as an integral part of its sovereign territory, Pakistan and sections of the Kashmiri population contest this narrative. The international community’s response to the Kashmir issue has been largely muted, constrained by geopolitical considerations and the prioritization of bilateralism in India-Pakistan relations. However, the abrogation of Article 370 and the subsequent elections demand a re-examination of these dynamics. From a normative perspective, the dismantling of J&K’s autonomy challenges the principles of federalism, minority rights and regional self-governance, principles that are integral to modern democratic states.

The absence of dialogue in J&K reflects a broader pattern seen in conflict zones where electoral processes are prioritized over substantive engagement. Comparative experiences from Northern Ireland and South Africa offer valuable lessons. The Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, for instance, succeeded because it recognized the importance of inclusive dialogue, power-sharing and addressing historical injustices. Similarly, South Africa’s transition from apartheid was marked by a commitment to reconciliation through mechanisms like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

In J&K, a similar approach is imperative. This involves not only engaging with mainstream political actors but also reaching out to disenfranchised groups, including separatist factions and civil society. Without such engagement, electoral victories will remain hollow, failing to translate into long-term stability and peace. The elections in J&K also have significant implications for South Asia’s geopolitics. The region remains a flashpoint in India-Pakistan relations, with the potential to escalate into broader conflicts. The abrogation of Article 370 and subsequent developments have further strained bilateral ties, complicating any prospects for dialogue.

The elections in J&K, while an important democratic exercise, cannot be viewed in isolation. They are part of a larger, broader narrative involving constitutionalism, autonomy, human rights and geopolitical stability. For India, the path forward must involve a commitment to constitutional integrity, inclusive dialogue and reconciliation. For the international community, it demands a more nuanced engagement that balances respect for sovereignty with advocacy for human rights and democratic principles. Only through such a comprehensive approach can the aspirations of the people of J&K be genuinely addressed, paving the way for sustainable peace and stability in the region.

Revisiting the Jammu Massacre:

Echoes of Ethnic Cleansing in 1947

By Mehr un Nisa

The dead cannot cry out for justice; it is the duty of the living to do so for them. The Jammu Massacre of November 1947 remains one of the most tragic yet under-acknowledged episodes in the history of South Asia. As British colonial rule dissolved and India and Pakistan emerged as separate nation-states, large-scale violence erupted, often targeting religious minorities in both states. The Jammu Massacre, however, stands out for its severity, scale, and implications, which extend beyond regional politics into the fabric of international relations. This article unpacks the massacre as an event that highlights the convergence of state-sponsored violence, demographic engineering, and communal discord, and it assesses the massacre’s enduring impact on India-Pakistan relations and the international discourse on self-determination and human rights. This form of geopolitical engineering, while specific to post-partition India, parallels other historical instances of state-driven demographic reordering, such as the Balkan Wars and the Armenian genocide.

In 1947, the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was in a perilous position. The Hindu Maharaja, Hari Singh, hesitated to join either India or Pakistan, a stance that intensified tensions across the religiously diverse state. The Muslim-majority regions, including Jammu, had growing political movements advocating for alignment with Pakistan, owing to both demographic alignment and political sympathies. This division within the state mirrored broader patterns across the subcontinent, where communal identities were politicized amidst the ideological clash between secular nationalism and religious separatism. In the Jammu region, where Muslims comprised over 60 percent of the population, tensions mounted as the Dogra administration implemented repressive measures.

These included heavy taxation on Muslim-majority districts like Poonch and the exclusion of Muslims from the local militia, exacerbating fears among the local Muslim population. Historians like Alastair Lamb and Victoria Schofield suggest that the Maharaja's refusal to accommodate Muslim grievances or accept their demands for basic representation played a critical role in triggering the revolt in Poonch, which was met with brutal suppression.

As communal violence swept across the subcontinent, the Dogra-led state forces, allied with right-wing Hindu and Sikh groups, orchestrated systematic attacks on Jammu’s Muslims. This strategy bore the hallmarks of what international relations scholars identify as state-sponsored ethnic cleansing: a deliberate attempt by a state actor to alter demographic realities to consolidate political control. In Jammu, state forces leveraged the situation to forcibly expel or annihilate the Muslim population, ensuring demographic and political alignment with India. Reports estimate the death toll between 20,000 and 237,000 Muslims, with nearly half a million displaced. This episode of ethnic cleansing effectively altered the region’s demographics and continues to influence the geopolitical landscape, with Jammu’s Muslim population remaining drastically reduced today.

The massacre also underlines how domestic policies in post-colonial states can have far-reaching implications for regional security dynamics. The forced displacement of Muslims into newly formed Pakistan not only created a refugee crisis but also worsened the political antagonism between India and Pakistan. By entrenching religious divisions, the events in Jammu contributed to the enduring “Kashmir Question,” one of the longest-standing and most volatile territorial disputes in the world.

The Jammu Massacre also raises questions regarding the principle of self-determination, a core tenet in international law. The forcible expulsion of Jammu’s Muslims, who overwhelmingly favored alignment with Pakistan, violated their right to participate in determining the political status of their homeland. Furthermore, the continued division of Jammu and Kashmir between India and Pakistan following the 1948 ceasefire has denied these communities the opportunity for self-governance, despite repeated calls for a plebiscite under United Nations auspices.

The massacre's legacy remains deeply tangled with the political narratives on both sides of the Line of Control (LoC). For Pakistan, the incident exemplifies a broader pattern of oppression against Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir and critiques India’s human rights record in the region. For India, acknowledging such an incident raises questions about state accountability and the secular democratic ideals it aspires to uphold.

This duality has rendered the Jammu Massacre a “frozen memory,” acknowledged by survivors and activists but seldom incorporated into official discourse. The massacre also exemplifies how historic grievances can fuel protracted conflicts. The Jammu Massacre has contributed to a broader narrative of Muslim disenfranchisement in Kashmir, fueling resentments that continue to inspire both armed resistance and nonviolent calls for justice.

The Jammu Massacre of November 1947, often referred to as an “invisible genocide. In international relations, forgetting the past adopts unresolved tensions and erodes trust. For Jammu’s Muslims, remembrance is a form of resistance against erasure, as the massacre highlights the perils of ethno-nationalism. If regional stability is to be achieved, a balanced historiography that includes the suffering of all communities, and a concerted effort toward truth and reconciliation, must guide future diplomatic efforts. The Jammu Massacre should not remain a hidden chapter but a reminder that justice and historical clarity are indispensable to achieving enduring peace in Jammu and Kashmir.

Ukraine's Kursk Offensive: A Tactical Win, Strategic Dilemma

By Mehr un Nisa

Ukraine’s current military strategy reflects the dual nature of modern conflict, where wars occur on both physical and political fronts. Ukraine faces a two-front challenge: fighting Russia while also securing sustained Western support. In other words, Ukraine is navigating both a kinetic conflict and an alliance management challenge—two theaters where success is interdependent. The August 2024 Kursk offensive was a calculated incursion into Russian territory to reshape the narrative of the war and demonstrate Ukraine’s capacity to challenge Russia on its own soil. Since Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine has pursued a diversified strategy in the ongoing conflict. This approach is a deliberate gamble intended to reveal Russia's vulnerabilities and destabilize its domestic situation.^{^[1]}

Historically, such tactics have been employed to weaken a state's legitimacy by exposing its inability to protect its citizens. This mirrors Edward III's incursions during the Hundred Years’ War, where his campaigns undermined French state legitimacy by exposing its military vulnerabilities.^{^[2]} Ukraine's offensive similarly seeks to erode Russia’s social contract under President Vladimir Putin, which promises security in exchange for political acquiescence. The psychological impact of this incursion was immediate—capturing prisoners and Russian territory provided a significant morale boost to Ukrainian forces while embarrassing Moscow on the global stage.

The Kursk offensive, while primarily a military operation, was also an information war designed to capture the West's attention and reinforce the perception that Ukraine is still capable of dealing significant blows to Russian forces.^{^[3]} Despite its boldness, the Kursk offensive is not without strategic constraints. Ukraine's capacity to translate battlefield successes into strategic gains is limited by its coalition partners, particularly the United States. The U.S. has imposed restrictions on the use of long-range missile systems to avoid provoking direct conflict with Russia. This echoes the challenges of coalition warfare seen throughout history, where the divergent political goals of allies often limit the ability to fully capitalize on military achievements. For Ukraine, this means that its objectives in the war may not always align with the broader geopolitical calculations of its Western allies, creating friction in strategy.

Ukraine's reliance on Western military and financial support highlights another dimension of coalition warfare: the potential for political divergence. While Kyiv seeks decisive victories on the battlefield to strengthen its negotiating position, Western allies like the U.S. and Europe are more cautious about escalation, preferring to avoid actions that might provoke a broader conflict. This divergence of goals constrains Ukraine's ability to fully exploit its operational successes, as seen in the Kursk offensive. A critical issue facing Ukraine in the aftermath of the Kursk offensive is the risk of military overextension. While Ukrainian forces managed to capture approximately 60 square kilometers of Russian territory, the operation has stretched Ukraine’s military resources thin.^{^[4]}

At the same time, Russian forces have continued to make gains around Donetsk, posing a serious threat to Ukrainian defensive positions in the east. By pursuing operations in Kursk while defending the eastern front, Ukraine risks overextending its forces—a dangerous gamble in a war of attrition where manpower and resources are already strained. The strain on resources is another key concern for Ukraine. Since the beginning of the war, Ukraine has relied heavily on Western-supplied precision weaponry, intelligence and financial aid. However, these resources are finite. Western stockpiles of ammunition, particularly artillery shells, are dwindling, while U.S. aid packages are becoming increasingly politically contentious. The risk for Ukraine is that continued operations like the Kursk offensive could deplete its military supplies and manpower faster than they can be replenished, especially if Western support begins to wane.

On the diplomatic front, the Kursk offensive has delivered mixed results. On the one hand, moving the battlefield onto Russian soil has embarrassed the Kremlin, potentially putting pressure on President Putin to reconsider his strategy. Ukraine hopes this could force Russia to negotiate from a position of weakness, especially as domestic discontent grows in the face of military failures. However, the reality is more complex. Despite the symbolic victory in Kursk, Russia remains entrenched in eastern Ukraine and its military-industrial complex, while strained, continues to function.^{^[5]} Thus, while the offensive may have rattled Moscow, it has not fundamentally altered the broader strategic picture of the war.

The operation also risks alienating some of Ukraine’s key Western supporters. European nations like Germany and France have consistently advocated for diplomacy and a ceasefire, fearing the escalation of the conflict into Russian territory. These nations have made it clear that their support for Ukraine is conditioned on defensive operations rather than offensive incursions into Russia. If the war is perceived as expanding beyond Ukraine's borders, Kyiv could lose key diplomatic support, further limiting its options on the battlefield.

Looking ahead, Ukraine faces a critical strategic choice. While the Kursk offensive has provided short-term morale boosts and headlines, it has not resulted in a decisive shift in the war's balance. The challenge for Ukraine now is to maintain control of the territory it has captured while avoiding overextension. Holding Kursk as a buffer zone could theoretically provide Ukraine with leverage in future negotiations, but this presupposes that Kyiv has the military strength to maintain control of the region indefinitely—an assumption that appears increasingly tenuous.

The offensive has also raised broader questions about the sustainability of Ukraine’s military strategy. With limited resources and a shifting international environment, Ukraine must align its military operations with realistic diplomatic objectives. This means carefully weighing the risks and benefits of future offensives against the need to maintain Western support and preserve military resources. The Kursk offensive, while impressive in the moment, could evolve into a Pyrrhic victory if Ukraine continues to stretch itself too thin in a war that shows no signs of abating.

The Kursk offensive condenses the broader strategic challenges facing Ukraine in its dual war effort. While the operation successfully demonstrated Ukraine’s offensive capabilities and embarrassed Russia, it has also exposed the limitations of Ukraine’s military and diplomatic strategy. As the conflict enters a critical phase, Ukraine must adopt a more coherent approach that balances military operations with realistic diplomatic goals and resource constraints. The coming months will be pivotal for both Ukraine and its Western allies. The success of Ukraine’s strategy will not be measured by territorial gains alone but by its ability to maintain Western support, manage resources effectively and ultimately secure a sustainable resolution to the conflict.

Bibliography

Episkopos. Mark. “Ukraine’s Kursk Incursion Is a Two-Edged Sword.” The American Conservative September 9, 2024. Accessed on Sep 10, 2024, https://www.theamericanconservative.com/ukraines-kursk-incursion-is-a-two-edged-sword/.

Kofman, Michael and Rob Lee. “Ukraine’s Gamble.” Foreign Affairs September 2, 2024. Accessed on Sep 6, 2024, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ukraines-gamble.

Lucian Staiano-Daniels. “How the Hundred Years’ War Explains Ukraine’s Invasion of Russia.” Foreign Policy September 2024. Accessed on Sep 6, 2024, https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/09/01/ukraine-russia-war-history-middle-ages-comparison-kursk/.

‌

The Legacy of Burhan Wani: Catalyst for Kashmir's Freedom Struggle

By Mehr un Nisa

Burhan Muzaffar Wani, a name of the revolution, a face of resilience and a symbol of resistance continues to live on in every Kashmiri heart, his legacy stands as the unyielding spirit of defiance against oppression and a beacon of hope for a future free from strife. Burhan’s martyrdom anniversary highlights the ceaseless struggle in Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Wani, a commander of Hizbul Mujahideen (HuM), became an emblematic figure of the Kashmiri freedom movement. He symbolized the new wave of youthful defiance against Indian rule. His martyrdom on July 8, 2016, marked a significant turning point in the ongoing conflict which exposed the depth of the region’s socio-political dynamics. The aftermath saw a resurgence of protests, a heavy-handed response from Indian occupation forces and an escalation in human rights abuses, all profoundly impacting regional stability and international relations.

Born on September 19, 1994, in Dadsara village of Tral, Pulwama, Burhan Wani was the son of a school principal and a Quran teacher. Despite his promising academic trajectory, the personal trauma inflicted by Indian occupation forces pushed Wani into resistance movement. In 2010, at the age of 16, an incident involving the brutal beating of his elder brother Khalid by Indian soldiers catalysed Wani’s decision to join HuM. Six months later, Wani left home and never returned, dedicating his life to the armed struggle against Indian occupation.

Wani’s adept use of social media platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp distinguished him from earlier generations of freedom fighters. He openly revealed his identity, encouraging young Kashmiris to join the resistance movement. His charismatic appeal and strategic communication turned him into a household name. This boosted the Kashmiri freedom narrative and garnered widespread support among the youth. This digital activism invigorated the movement, countering the Indian state's attempts to suppress dissent through traditional and social media blackouts.

Burhan Wani’s killing on July 8, 2016, by Indian forces in Bundoora village of Kokernag marked a pivotal moment in the Kashmir conflict. The immediate aftermath saw massive protests, with an estimated 200,000 people attending his funeral. The use of force by Indian troops during these protests resulted in significant casualties, with over 60 people killed and around 5,500 injured. The unrest following Wani’s death surpassed previous episodes of resistance, underscoring the deep-seated discontent among Kashmiris.

The response to Wani’s martyrdom exposed the harsh realities of Indian draconian laws for instance the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). Human rights violations, including custodial killings, mass arrests and the use of pellet guns, have been well-documented. From January 1989 to June 2016, the conflict has led to the deaths of 94,391 individuals, with thousands of others suffering from the fallout of the prolonged military presence.

Internationally, Wani’s death and the subsequent human rights abuses drew attention from bodies like the European Union and the United Nations. The EU expressed concerns over civilian casualties and urged for dialogue involving Kashmiris. The U.S. State Department also called for a peaceful resolution, highlighting the need for India and Pakistan to address the grievances of the Kashmiri people.

The scale and intensity of these protests demonstrated the transformation of the freedom struggle from a largely freedom movement to a mass civilian uprising. The widespread participation of civilians, including women and children, underscored the collective resolve of the Kashmiri people.

Wani's martyrdom marked a shift in the dynamics of Kashmir's freedom struggle in several key ways: First, the large-scale participation in protests indicated a broadening of the resistance movement. No longer confined to freedom fighters’ groups, the struggle now included ordinary citizens demanding their rights. Second, Wani's death also led to a surge in local youth joining resistance movement. There was a significant increase in the number of local recruits in resistance movements following 2016. Third, the global media coverage of the protests and the subsequent human rights abuses brought international attention to the Kashmir issue. Reports by organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch highlighted the excessive use of force by Indian occupation forces.

In response to the unrest, the Indian government implemented a series of measures aimed at projecting an image of normalcy in Kashmir. The government imposed curfews, suspended internet and mobile services and banned local newspapers. These measures were intended to curb the flow of information and prevent the coordination of protests. However, they also drew criticism from international bodies concerned about freedom of expression and the right to information. The local administration, under Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, attempted to downplay the unrest. Efforts were made to show that the government was in control, including the dredging of Dal Lake and the hurried beautification of Srinagar ahead of the Durbar Move in May 2016.

These actions were criticized as superficial attempts to mask the underlying discontent. The heavy deployment of occupation forces in the Valley was justified by the Indian government as necessary for maintaining law and order. However, the pervasive military presence contributed to a climate of fear and repression among the local population. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), Public Safety Act (PSA) and nlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) provided legal immunity to Indian forces, enabling human rights abuses without accountability. The Indian government announced various economic packages and development projects aimed at winning hearts and minds. However, these initiatives were often seen as attempts to buy peace rather than address the root causes of the conflict.

The legacy of Burhan Wani continues to resonate in the Kashmiri freedom struggle. His transformation from a bright student to a resistance leader underscores the tragic consequences of state oppression. Wani’s life and death have galvanized a new generation of Kashmiris, determined to seek justice and self-determination.

Environmental Warfare in Conflict Zones:

The Case of Kashmir's Fragile Ecosystem

By Mehr un Nisa

War does not only devastate nations; it scars the land, poisons the water and strips the earth of its life. On November 6, the world pauses to acknowledge the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict, a reminder that peace and environmental stewardship are inseparable paths to global security. Historically, the degradation of resources has fueled hostilities and driven the resurgence of conflicts, as evidenced by the fact that nearly 40% of all internal conflicts over the past 60 years have been linked to natural resource exploitation.

In conflict zones like Indian occupied Jammu & Kashmir, environmental protection is not just an ecological concern; it is a pivotal element of human security and regional stability. IoJK’s rich and biodiverse environment is integral to the larger Himalayan ecosystem, one of the most significant ecological zones globally, often referred to as the "water tower of Asia" or the "third pole." This region sustains the lifelines of ten major river systems, serving nearly 1.3 billion people across South Asia. However, the Indian military presence in Jammu and Kashmir has intensified resource depletion and environmental degradation in the valley. This militarization, coupled with decades of illegal timber smuggling and unchecked development, has accelerated deforestation, depleted water resources and devastated local wildlife populations.

The extensive presence of military forces has had severe consequences for IoJK’s natural environment. Illegal construction projects, the clearing of forested lands for military infrastructure and the widespread contamination of rivers have polluted vital water sources and disrupted the local ecosystem. In the last five decades alone, J&K has lost nearly 23% of its forest cover due to deforestation and exploitation, often by unauthorized timber operations. These practices not only diminish forest resilience but also jeopardize the already declining Himalayan glaciers, which have seen a 23% reduction in coverage due to climate change. This accelerated degradation is a grave violation of international environmental laws, such as the Geneva Conventions’ Additional Protocol I and the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD), both of which prohibit deliberate environmental damage in warfare.

The degradation of IoJK’s environment is not merely an unintended consequence of conflict; it is a strategy that has been used to alter the social and ecological landscape of the region. According to the ICRC’s Customary International Humanitarian Law Study, Rule 45 clearly prohibits using environmental destruction as a method of warfare. However, evidence suggests that in IoJK, natural resources are exploited as a tool of control, with severe repercussions for the local population and biodiversity. Indiscriminate shelling and infrastructure development have led to soil erosion, polluted water sources and the destruction of agricultural land, affecting food security and public health for the civilian population.

The disruption of natural ecosystems directly impacts local biodiversity. The Hangul deer, an Asiatic sub-species of the European red deer, which holds cultural significance in Jammu and Kashmir, has seen its population decline by 95% due to habitat loss and fragmentation. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies the Hangul as critically endangered, highlighting the species' dire need for protection. The Kashmir stag’s plight shows the cascading effects of environmental destruction on both the natural heritage of the region and the socio-cultural identity of its people. Without robust environmental protections, the conflict in IoJK will continue to result in the irreparable loss of Kashmir’s natural and cultural wealth.

The protection of the environment in conflict zones is enshrined in international humanitarian law (IHL), yet these principles are frequently undermined in IoJK. The Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions prohibits “widespread, long-term and severe” damage to the environment, emphasizing the necessity of preservation even amidst warfare. Additionally, under ENMOD, the use of environmental modification techniques as weapons is expressly forbidden, with the threefold criteria of “widespread, long-lasting, or severe” being alternative, not cumulative, requirements for the prohibition. However, IoJK’s militarized environment remains vulnerable to both direct and indirect environmental harm, indicating a disregard for these legal standards.

As stipulated under Article 54(2) of Additional Protocol I and Article 14 of Additional Protocol II, objects essential to civilian survival, including agricultural lands, water resources and livestock, should be protected against attacks, destruction, or exploitation. The indiscriminate shelling of these vital resources in IoJK not only violates the Geneva Conventions but also hinders efforts to build sustainable peace in the region. By undermining the ecological and resource base of the valley, these actions destabilize not only IoJK but also the wider South Asian region, risking prolonged insecurity and displacement.

The International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict calls for a coordinated international response to protect conflict-affected ecosystems and uphold environmental rights in conflict zones like IoJK. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has increasingly recognized that environmental protection is essential for maintaining international peace and security. In IoJK’s case, addressing environmental destruction requires not only humanitarian intervention but also a commitment to conflict resolution, as outlined in the principles of sustainable peacebuilding.

To safeguard Kashmir’s environmental future, it is imperative for international actors to enforce compliance with international environmental law and IHL. The international community must encourage India to respect its obligations under these frameworks, ensuring that environmental degradation is neither a consequence nor a strategy of conflict. The conservation of the Himalayan region is not just a regional concern; it is a global responsibility. International mechanisms, including the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), should be mobilized to hold parties accountable for environmental damage in conflict zones and to develop robust frameworks for ecosystem preservation in disputed territories.

Modi’s Srinagar Visit: A Rhetorical Misstep

By Mehr un Nisa*

“Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Srinagar visit, rather than paving the way for genuine peace and reconciliation, has only served to add salt to the wounds of a community that feels marginalized”

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to Srinagar, ostensibly aimed at heralding a new era of development and stability in Jammu and Kashmir, has once again spotlighted the glaring inconsistencies in his government’s approach to the region. Modi’s speeches during the visit imbued with rhetoric, failed to address the core issues faced by the Kashmiri people. Rather than fostering an environment conducive to peace and reconciliation, his statements aggravated existing tensions and further made locals feel like aliens. Modi’s visit to Srinagar was marked by the inauguration and foundation stone-laying of multiple developmental projects worth more than Rs 3,000 crores. Despite significant developmental initiatives, Modi’s persistent focus has overshadowed any potential for meaningful engagement with the Kashmiri people.

Modi’s approach in Srinagar represents a strategic miscalculation in addressing the larger issue of Kashmir. The multifaceted nature of the Kashmir issue encompasses historical grievances, ethnic identities, political aspirations, and socio-economic disparities. Modi’s strategy lacks the necessary depth and nuance required for a comprehensive conflict resolution approach, as it reduces the problem to a mere security concern framed around countering terrorism. In international relations theory, this can be likened to the pitfalls of reductionism, where complex issues are oversimplified, often leading to ineffective or counterproductive policies. A more holistic approach would require addressing the root causes of discontent, engaging with local stakeholders, and integrating diverse perspectives into the peace-building process.The securitization of the Kashmir issue, where the Indian state frames the region’s challenges primarily through the lens of national security, has been a recurring theme in Modi’s rhetoric.

Modi’s continuous emphasis on Pakistan’s role in fomenting terrorism acts as a strategic diversion from the legitimate political and socio-economic grievances of the Kashmiri people. This tactic not only reinforces a binary us-versus-them mentality but also legitimizes heavy-handed security measures that further alienate the local population. For example, the emphasis on external threats has historically been used by states to deflect from internal problems, such as in the Cold War era, where the US focused on the Soviet threat to divert attention from domestic civil rights issues.

Shifting focus

Similarly, Modi’s rhetoric shifts the focus from pressing issues such as human rights abuses, political disenfranchisement, and economic marginalization in Kashmir. The narrative construction neglects the diverse identities and aspirations within Kashmir, perpetuating a sense of disenfranchisement among its people. Constructivist theories in international relations stress the importance of identity and social constructs in shaping political outcomes. Modi’s approach exacerbates feelings of alienation and disenfranchisement by failing to recognize and address the unique cultural, ethnic, and political identities within Kashmir. For instance, the abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, was seen by many Kashmiris as an assault on their unique identity and autonomy. This move ignored the region’s historical and cultural complexities, leading to widespread resentment and unrest.

The abrogation of Article 370 and the subsequent rhetoric around it can be viewed as an imposition of a monolithic national identity over the pluralistic and contested identities within Kashmir. Modi’s declaration that “the Constitution of India has finally been adopted by Jammu and Kashmir in the true sense” following the abrogation is a stark reminder of the central government’s unilateral actions that many Kashmiris perceive as a betrayal.

This move, while celebrated by some, has been a source of profound discontent and has intensified the sense of alienation among the Kashmiri population From a realist perspective, Modi’s approach to Kashmir underscores the central government’s reliance on hard power rather than soft power to maintain control. Modi’s assertion that “the Kashmir Valley is gradually emerging as a major hub of start-ups, skill development, and sports” may be optimistic, but it overlooks the pervasive sense of mistrust and disillusionment towards New Delhi.

This highlights a gap between developmentalist rhetoric and the lived realities of the locals. In international relations, this can be seen as a form of “symbolic politics”, where political leaders use symbols and narratives to create a perception of progress while underlying issues remain unaddressed. Development initiatives, without accompanying political engagement, risk being perceived as mere instruments of control rather than genuine efforts to improve the lives of the locals.

The realist critique highlights the limitations of relying solely on economic incentives to pacify a region with deep-seated political grievances. Sustainable peace and stability in Kashmir require addressing the power asymmetries and ensuring that the voices of the Kashmiri people are heard and respected.

Diplomatic implications

Modi’s anti-Pakistan rhetoric also has significant diplomatic implications. India risks alienating potential international allies who advocate for a more balanced and sophisticated approach to the Kashmir issue by continuously framing Pakistan as the primary antagonist. This aligns with the realist perspective in international relations, which emphasizes the importance of balancing power and maintaining alliances. Over-reliance on a hardline stance against Pakistan can lead to diplomatic isolation and weaken India’s position in the international community.

This rhetoric undermines India’s position on the international stage. From a liberal internationalist perspective, a country’s standing is enhanced by its adherence to international norms and its ability to engage in constructive diplomacy. India risks being perceived as an intransigent actor unwilling to engage in dialogue or adhere to international calls for peaceful conflict resolution by adopting a confrontational stance.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Srinagar visit, rather than paving the way for genuine peace and reconciliation, has only served to add salt to the wounds of a community that continues to feel marginalized and unheard. It is evident that without addressing the legitimate grievances of the Kashmiri people and shifting focus from externalizing blame to internal resolution, sustainable peace in the region will remain elusive.

India’s Political Landscape And BJP’s Campaign Tactics

“Current political climate is characterised by increasing polarisation, signalling a move away from established democratic practices towards a more centralised and potentially authoritarian style of governance”

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), guided by its ideological commitment to Hindutva, is actively pursuing an ambitious electoral programme. The party aims to win an overwhelming parliamentary majority of more than 400 seats, emphasising its quest for political supremacy. This goal involves a series of targeted tactics, particularly aimed at influencing Hindu voters in northern India and making inroads into regions that normally resist their influence, such as southern India.

The BJP’s strategic use of religious symbols, such as the inauguration of the Ram Mandir, is aimed at polarising Hindu voters in the northern heartland. The careful orchestration of the Ram Mandir inauguration ceremony was a key element in strengthening the BJP’s electoral fortunes. This approach capitalises on deep-rooted connections within its primary Hindu base. However, this tactical manipulation risks further alienating secular voters and exacerbating existing communal tensions. Such risky electoral strategies highlight the party’s precarious balance between religious mobilisation and the need to maintain social harmony within a diverse nation.

Another strategy of the BJP is to portray the situation in Jammu and Kashmir as “normal” after the revocation of Article 370. However, this portrayal overlooks the ongoing challenges in the region, including deep-rooted grievances and human rights issues. As the saying goes, no amount of whitewashing can hide the inherent problems, suggesting that the BJP’s portrayal of an idyllic Kashmir may appear insubstantial to voters who want real solutions. Traditionally, South India has been dominated by regional and Congress-affiliated parties, posing significant challenges to the BJP’s expansionist efforts in the area. However, recent developments indicate a marked shift in the BJP’s strategy towards the southern states, especially Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Telangana.

The party is aiming to win up to seven seats in Tamil Nadu and increase its vote share from 4% to 20% in 2019. By working to weaken opposition leaders and build a stronger presence in these regions, tactics such as targeted crackdowns by government agencies highlight the BJP’s relentless efforts to break down traditional political barriers.

Southern push

In the southern states, the BJP’s strategies are tailored to local political nuances. While alliance-building in Karnataka could improve its prospects in a stronghold, the party’s focus on Lingayat-centric politics could alienate other communities. Moreover, attempts to gain a foothold in Kerala by positioning itself as an alternative to mainstream parties could face resistance from established political identities. Conversely, in a state with strong anti-BJP sentiments rooted in historical political ideologies, efforts to establish a new leadership in Tamil Nadu could face challenges.

Contested narratives such as the “love jihad” theory and the use of hate speech by BJP representatives pose a major challenge to the party’s electoral efforts. Such narratives could alienate voters, especially in states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu where social harmony is highly valued. As India gears up for critical elections, the role of the Muslim population is also a crucial factor in shaping the political dynamics. Indian Muslims, who constitute about 15% of the population, being the socio-economically disadvantaged majority, face an increasingly precarious situation characterised by marginalisation and heightened communal tensions.

The spectre of persistent discrimination suggests that Indian Muslims face constant prejudice and bias, which negatively impacts their socio-political standing and rights. In this climate of increasing stigmatisation and political polarisation, it is imperative for Indian Muslims to carefully assess their current situation and prepare for future challenges. India’s political landscape depends to a large extent on the collective actions of its diverse population, which includes the large Muslim community. By capitalising on their demographic strength and voting potential, Muslim voters can exert a decisive influence, especially in regions with a large Muslim population.

Historical voting patterns and recent trends show that unified support for specific political parties or alliances can influence election outcomes in key constituencies. A concerted effort to support a single political alliance, such as the Congress-led Indian Bloc, has the potential to translate numerical strength into tangible electoral results. The current political climate is characterised by increasing polarisation, an erosion of democratic norms and a noticeable rise in authoritarian tendencies, signalling a move away from established democratic practices towards a more centralised and potentially authoritarian style of governance.

The BJP’s abuse of power and neglect of democratic principles point to a move away from secularism towards the pursuit of a Hindu Rashtra, which seriously jeopardises India’s pluralist democracy. The stakes are high and the time for collective action has come. By overcoming their divisions and rallying behind a unified electoral strategy, Indian Muslims can exert their influence on the country’s political future.

BJP’s Electoral Gambits

By Mehr un Nisa

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), driven by its ideological foundation in Hindutva, is vigorously pursuing an ambitious electoral agenda. The party’s aim is to secure a substantial parliamentary majority of over 400 seats, reflecting its determined push for political dominance. This drive involves a slew of calculated manoeuvres, particularly focused on swaying and garnering support from Hindu voters in North India and expanding its footprint into traditionally resistant regions such as South India.

The BJP’s calculated deployment of religious symbolism, like the Ram Mandir inauguration, seeks to rally Hindu voters in the northern heartland, skillfully orchestrating the Ram Mandir consecration ceremony as a crucial tool in fortifying the BJP’s electoral success. This strategy capitalizes on sensitive connections within its core Hindu constituency. However, this strategic manoeuvring carries the peril of further alienating secular voters and inflaming existing communal divides. Such a high-stakes electoral gambit highlights the party’s precarious balancing act between religious mobilization and the imperative of maintaining social cohesion in a diverse polity.

Another strategy pursued by the BJP involves portraying the situation in Jammu and Kashmir as ‘normal’ following the abrogation of Article 370. However, this narrative glosses over the region’s persistent challenges, including deep-seated grievances and human rights issues. As the saying goes, noamount of gloss can disguise the true nature of the beast, suggesting that the BJP’s attempt to paint a rosy picture in Kashmir may ultimately ring hollow to voters seeking substantive solutions to the region’s issues.

Historically, South India has been a stronghold of regional and Congress-affiliated parties, which has presented a formidable challenge to the BJP’s aspirations for expansion in the region.However, recent developments indicate a notable shift in the BJP’s approach towards the southern states, specifically targeting Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Telangana. The party aims to secure up to seven seats in Tamil Nadu and increase its vote share from 4% to 20% since 2019. The party is actively working to weaken opposition political leadership and establish a stronger foothold in the region. Tactics such as targeted enforcement actions by government agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and National Investigation Agency (NIA), alongside measures to curb funding to rival parties, demonstrate the BJP’s determined push to break through the traditional political barriers in the South. BJP’s efforts to disrupt the political status quo in the South may encounter resistance akin to trying to move mountains.

The BJP’s strategies in southern states are tailored to capitalize on local political nuances, while forming alliances in Karnataka may bolster its prospects in a stronghold, the party’s reliance on Lingayat-centric politics risks alienating other communities. Similarly, efforts to increase vote share in Kerala by positioning itself as an alternative to traditional parties could face resistance from deeply entrenched political identities. On the other hand, the BJP’s focus on projecting new leadership in Tamil Nadu may encounter challenges in a state with a strong anti-BJP sentiment rooted in historical political ideologies.

The divisive ideologies, controversial narratives like the “love jihad” theory, and the use of hate speech by the BJP pose significant challenges to its electoral activities. Such narratives risk alienating voters, particularly in states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu, where societal harmony is valued. As India braces for critical elections, the pivotal role of its Muslim population emerges as a crucial determinant in shaping the political dynamics. In India, Muslims constitute approximately 15% of the population, with Pasmandas, representing the socioeconomically disadvantaged within the Indian Muslim community, comprising around 80-85% of this population. Indian Muslims are experiencing a precarious environment characterized by growing marginalization and heightened communal tensions. This marginalization stems from various factors, including discriminatory policies or rhetoric targeting Muslim communities.

The specter of continued stigmatization implies that Indian Muslims face persistent prejudice and bias, which negatively impact their socio-political status and rights. In the current climate of increasing stigmatization and political polarization, it becomes absolutely essential for Indian Muslims to carefully evaluate their present circumstances and anticipate the challenges they may encounter in the future.

The political terrain in India hinges significantly on the collective actions of its diverse population, including the sizable Muslim community. Indian Muslims possess the capacity to apply decisive influence, particularly in regions where their concentration is substantial, by leveraging their demographic strength and voting bloc potential. As demonstrated by past voting patterns and recent trends, the unified support of Muslim voters for specific political parties or alliances has the potential to sway the results in key constituencies. A concerted effort to consolidate support behind a single political alliance, such as the Congress-led India alliance, holds the promise of translating numerical advantage into tangible electoral outcomes.

The current political scenario is marked by escalating polarization, diminishing democratic principles, and the evident ascent of authoritarian tendencies. This indicates a shift away from established democratic norms towards a more centralized and potentially authoritarian style of governance.

BJP’s abuse of power and disregard for democratic principles signal a departure from secularism towards the pursuit of a Hindu Rashtra, posing grave implications for India’s pluralistic democracy. The stakes are high, and the time for concerted action is now. By transcending divisions and galvanizing behind a unified electoral agenda, Indian Muslims can assert their agency in shaping the trajectory of the nation’s political future through a strategic and cohesive approach.

International Women’s Day In The Shadow Of The Conflict In Kashmir

Mehr un Nisa*

“In Jammu and Kashmir, International Women’s Day is overshadowed by harsh reality and is more of a sombre reminder of the ongoing fighting than a reason to celebrate”

On Friday, the global community celebrates International Women’s Day to honour the achievements of women and advocate for gender equality. This year, the United Nations has chosen the theme “Investing in Women: Accelerating Progress” to emphasise the importance of women’s empowerment globally. In Jammu and Kashmir, however, the celebrations of International Women’s Day are overshadowed by the harsh reality. It is more of a sombre reminder of the ongoing struggles of women than a cause for celebration. The loss of loved ones, including husbands, brothers and sons, has created a special category of women known as ‘half-widows’ who are trapped in uncertainty about the fate of their missing husbands. The region is full of whispered stories about the social hurdles half-widows face after the disappearance of their partners.

Added to this is the psychological trauma of rape and sexual assault, where victims face both the initial abuse and subsequent condemnation by patriarchal norms. The multiple effects of sexual assault on women are evident in psychological, emotional, economic and educational terms. The staggering numbers illustrate the magnitude of this silent tragedy. Between 2,000 and 2,500 half-widows live in Jammu and Kashmir, each carrying the burden of deep loss and unresolved grief. In addition, there are 6,000 orphans, the children of these half-widows, who face the challenges of growing up after a conflict that has left them deeply scarred. However, these figures are just the tip of the iceberg, as the actual number is likely much higher and is masked by the pervasive fear and uncertainty that surrounds the region.

The number of this unique and tragic category has risen to thousands in recent years. What characterises these women is the unbearable pain and agony they endure, a burden that surpasses even that of other women whose loved ones have been tragically killed by Indian Army bullets. Thousands of women facing an identity crisis and struggling with the ambiguity of their marital status are in a silent crisis. This struggle not only reflects a cultural divide but also throws light on the overlooked needs and gender equality issues of women in the region.

Thousands of women, labelled “half-widows”,” find themselves in a confusing situation where their marital status remains uncertain. Some half-widows consider remarriage, but numerous factors contribute to a complex decision-making process. Many hesitate because they believe that they will eventually receive information about their husbands. Others are deterred by fears that a stepfather might not accept their children or do what is best for them. Even for those who do consider remarriage, social stigma and the interpretation of religious rules remain.

Plight of half-widows

The lack of a clear explanation about the fate of their missing husbands plunges them into a constant identity crisis. This dilemma is indicative of the cultural divide in Kashmir, where women’s rights and equality are often not recognised, leaving these women to languish in the shadows of uncertainty. To legally declare a missing person dead requires the intervention of a cleric who is well-versed in Sharia law. Unfortunately, these clerics seem to be indifferent and do not want to recognise the agony of the half-widows. As a result, these women are denied the rights to which they are rightfully entitled. Their struggle does not fit into the categories established by various NGOs, orphanages or widows’ homes, which further aggravates their plight.

While men are the main victims of enforced disappearances worldwide, women are also affected in Kashmir. The term refers to cases where people go missing and the circumstances of their disappearance are shrouded in uncertainty and fear. A major challenge in tackling this problem is the lack of thorough investigations. From the beginning, there have been few proper investigations into these cases, making it difficult to grasp the full extent of the problem. Fear of retaliation and reprisals prevents many affected families from reporting these cases, resulting in incomplete documentation of the problem. As a result, the actual number of people who have disappeared is unknown. However, it is estimated that more than 8,000 men disappeared during the turbulent period between the late 1980s and the early 2000s. The authorities have given widely varying figures for these disappearances, ranging from 1,105 to 3,931.

In August 2011, the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) in Jammu and Kashmir uncovered the discovery of 2,730 unidentified bodies buried in 38 unmarked graves in three districts of north Kashmir, but a full investigation into these mass graves is still pending. The process of reporting missing persons in Srinagar is a daunting ordeal with many obstacles that only add to the distress of the affected families. Attempting to report a missing member often leads to pressure and intimidation from the police, forcing some families to withdraw their report out of sheer fear.

Making the situation even more ironic for the women is the fact that the government relief pension, a nominal sum of 100,000 rupees (£937), is only granted if the families obtain a death certificate from the district authorities. There is, however, a cruel catch: the families must first prove that the missing victim was not involved in activities that could be construed as political militancy. This bureaucratic hurdle makes matters worse and further delays help for the families who desperately need it.

Effects Of Militarisation On Educational Landscape In Kashmir

By Mehr un Nisa

“Educational malaise in Kashmir is symptomatic of a broader colonisation of education, where political decisions hinder the academic and career prospects of residents”

Education is a cornerstone of empowering individuals to recognise, claim and defend their rights. The World Conference on Human Rights emphasises the need to integrate human rights education into all areas of education to promote a culture of valuing human dignity and diversity. However, in the context of Jammu and Kashmir, the basic human right to education is threatened by an ongoing conflict. In the past, schooling has been affected by regular curfews, closure of educational institutions and systematic disruptions. Now, the policies of the Kashmiri government are casting a long shadow over the future of the young generation and erecting formidable obstacles to the educational entitlements enshrined in both international and national legal frameworks.

The political turmoil in the region, especially after the revocation of Article 370 in 2019, has exacerbated the disruptions in the education system. The closure of certain educational institutions has left over 10,000 teachers in Kashmir unemployed. Even an elite St Joseph School in Baramulla district has not been spared and has been asked to close down. This has adversely affected the quality of education. Of great concern is the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education (JKBOSE) introducing revised textbooks for classes VI to X in Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh regions. This move is seen as an attempt to manipulate the presentation of history and diminish the contribution of Muslims in the region, reflecting the influence of Hindutva ideology on the content of education.

The omission of the reference that Kashmir’s accession to India is contingent on autonomy under Article 370 symbolises a deliberate change that is in line with the ethos of the current government in New Delhi. This revision, four years after the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35-A – which granted nominal autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir – is aimed at reinforcing the narrative of a united India while marginalising the historical and political nuances. “The introduction of a new chapter on Article 370 in the textbooks of Jammu and Kashmir, with no reference to the subsequent persecutions, internet bans or arrests, is a historical revisionist narrative.”

The introduction of a new chapter on Article 370 in the textbooks of Jammu and Kashmir, with no reference to the subsequent persecutions, internet bans or arrests, is a historical revisionist narrative. This obfuscation of reality denies the life experience of Kashmiris, especially the struggles of students during this period. This revision whitewashes the harsh reality that the students faced during this period. The penetration of Hindutva ideology in Kashmir has a much stronger impact than the occupation of schools, hospitals and other civilian spaces by the military.

There are reports of Kashmiri students being forced to recite Hindu hymns and prayers, violating their cultural and religious identity. Such incidents, including the intimidation of Muslim schoolgirls who refused to participate in Hindu prayers, underscore a broader agenda of cultural and religious imposition. These actions are part of a broader pattern of cultural and religious imposition in which the Hindu nationalist ideology of Hindutva is forced upon the predominantly Muslim population of Kashmir.

Besides the lack of qualified teachers, financial constraints have also severely affected the educational infrastructure in the region. As a result, nearly 10,000 schools in Kashmir have no libraries, over 10,000 schools have no ramps and about 10,000 schools have no playgrounds. This lack not only affects the quality of education but also hampers the holistic development of students. This has led to the closure of over 3,000 adult education and non-formal education centres since 1990. Children born into this period of ongoing violence have only spent a limited amount of time in school and have been at home for long periods, making their education even more difficult.

In response to the chaos, many Kashmiri families are looking for educational alternatives outside the region, where they become victims of hate crimes. At many people Kashmiri students have been subjected to brutal attacks fuelled by extremist ideologies. These victims, for whom education is a beacon of hope, are caught in the maelstrom of violence and are not only facing disruption of education but are also being targeted for hate crimes.

To make matters worse, India’s ban on Kashmiri students studying in Pakistan is jeopardising the future of hundreds of them. Despite the turbulent educational landscape, the scholarships offered by Pakistan for over a decade have helped many needy students continue their education in a peaceful environment without the fear of being beaten up.

The students who had enrolled in medical and engineering institutions across Pakistan face the threat of having their degrees invalidated. This illogical and potentially disastrous move raises concerns about the impact on the educational and career prospects of those studying in Pakistan.

The educational malaise in Kashmir is symptomatic of a wider colonisation of education, where policy decisions are affecting the academic and career prospects of residents. International advocacy and intervention are crucial to overcoming these challenges by bringing to light the adversities faced by Kashmiri students and standing up for their rights. Such efforts can put pressure on the government and other stakeholders to ensure Kashmiri students’ right to education in a peaceful environment.

Mental Health Crisis In Kashmir: A Call For Urgent Action

Statistics show alarming rates of mental health problems among Kashmiris, with depression, anxiety and PTSD prevalent among the population

The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action highlight the inextricable link between human rights and health and emphasise the fundamental right to the highest attainable standard of health for all. When applied to the disturbed region of Jammu and Kashmir, these principles are particularly important, especially given the profound mental health problems of the region’s population.

Since the outbreak of violence in 1989-1990, the Kashmir conflict has set in motion a cycle of intense militarisation, causing fear and insecurity among the population. The unilateral revocation of Article 370 in August 2019 has aggravated the situation and led to increased insecurity, communication breakdowns and mass arrests. These events have exacerbated the mental health emergency and exacerbated the already dire mental health crisis.

The heavy presence of security forces and the climate of impunity that accompanies their actions have not only led to widespread human rights violations but also to psychological stress. The constant threat of violence, the loss of loved ones and the erosion of basic freedoms have contributed to high rates of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among the population.

The pervasive atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, heightened by the lack of access to adequate mental health care, poses further challenges to Kashmiris in their struggle for peace and justice. The loss of autonomy and political disenfranchisement have exacerbated the sense of powerlessness and despair among Kashmiris, increasing stress and anxiety levels. Statistics show alarming rates of mental health problems among Kashmiris, with depression, anxiety and PTSD prevalent among the population.

“Alarmingly, 45% of adults suffer from mental health issues, with depression, anxiety, and PTSD prevalent. The scarcity of mental health resources, with only 41 psychiatrists serving a population of over 12.5 million, exacerbates the crisis further, leaving vast regions underserved and vulnerable.”

The prevalence of mental health problems in the region is staggering, with 45% of Kashmir’s adult population (1.8 million) suffering from some form of mental health problem. The figures show a high prevalence of depression (41%), anxiety (26%) and post-traumatic stress disorder (19%). Shockingly, 47% of the population has experienced some form of trauma.

Even children aged 8 to 14 are not immune: the prevalence of childhood disorders is between 22 and 27%. A retrospective study of suicide attempts between 1994 and 2012 documented a striking increase of more than 250%. Despite these alarming figures, there is an inescapable shame in Kashmir to seek mental health treatment. About 90% of people with mental health problems do not seek treatment because they fear social labelling.

The toll of trauma is profound, but the resources to deal with it are shamefully scarce. With a population of more than 12.5 million people (as of 2011), there are only 41 psychiatrists in Kashmir – a severe shortage that exacerbates an already acute mental health crisis. These professionals are largely concentrated in major urban centres such as Jammu and Srinagar, leaving large parts of the region underserved and vulnerable.

Limited resources

In the Kashmir Valley alone, with an estimated population of 6.8 million, resources for mental health care are very limited, with only 140 inpatient beds in 10 districts. There are only 16 psychiatrists, 12 psychologists and one social worker for outpatient care. At the district level, access to psychiatric care is even more limited, with only around 5 to 6 psychiatrists serving multiple districts.

“Actions such as strengthening infrastructure, combating stigma, and conflict resolution must be prioritised to combat the mental health crisis.” The challenges faced by women in post-conflict Kashmir are profound and harrowing, as societal norms severely limit their ability to remarry after losing a spouse. An astounding 91% of widows in the Kashmir Valley have not even considered remarriage, highlighting the significant hurdles they face. It is worth noting that the latest data from India’s National Family Health Survey (NFHS) paints a grim picture: 61% of currently married women in Kashmir report one or more reproductive health problems, a figure well above the national average.

Alarmingly, the rate of premature ovarian failure (POF) among infertile Kashmiri women under the age of 40 is between 20 and 50 per cent, compared to the national rate of one to five per cent. The incidence of physical illnesses such as thyroid dysfunction emphasises the alarming impact of conflict-related stress on women’s health. In addition, psychiatric outpatient clinics in Kashmir have a disproportionate number of female patients, indicating the far-reaching impact of conflict-related stress on mental health.

The plight of healthcare professionals in Kashmir is also a matter of concern as the denial of registration of pharmaceutical licences to aspiring professionals poses significant hurdles and jeopardises healthcare delivery in the region. The implementation of the Indian Pharmacy Act of 1948 has compounded the problem by placing obstacles in the way of medical assistants and pharmacy students. Despite assurances from the J&K government, the plight of over 2,400 medical assistants/pharmacists currently in government service and thousands of aspiring professionals remains unresolved.

The Way Forward

Addressing the mental health crisis in Kashmir requires urgent international attention. Efforts must be made to strengthen the mental health infrastructure and combat the social stigmatisation of seeking treatment. Conflict resolution efforts are essential not only to mitigate humanitarian crises but also to promote stability and facilitate the delivery of essential services. Resolving the Kashmir issue is of paramount importance for peace and security in the region and requires diplomatic dialogue, mediation and inclusive peace-building initiatives. Through a joint international approach, stakeholders can promote reconciliation and create long-term peace and prosperity in Kashmir and beyond.

*The author is head of the research and human rights department of the Islamabad-based think tank Kashmir Institute of International Relations (KIIR). She can be contacted at the following email address: mehr_dua@yahoo.com

The Unholy Alliance Of Kashmir Conflict And Climate

By Mehr un Nisa

Militarization across line of divide in Kashmir has impeded initiatives in tackling environment issues and climate change

Consequences of militarization along the line of divide in Kashmir not only play a role in climate change but also impede initiatives aimed at tackling environmental concerns. The presence of military activities in the region contributes to environmental degradation and also poses a significant obstacle to endeavours focused on addressing pressing environmental issues.

In a world where political conflicts and climate change may initially seem like disparate issues, there exists a substantial correlation between the two forces. The connection becomes more apparent when we shift our perspective from climate’s impact on conflict to the vulnerability of regions affected by conflict to climate change.

A notable case in point is the region of Jammu and Kashmir, where the effects of militarization across the line of divide not only contribute to climate change but also hinder efforts to address environmental issues. The absence of any cooperative management of resources or to attend to the common issues on both sides further aggravates the problem.

Issues such as habitat loss, deforestation, pollution, and ecological imbalances are prevalent in this region, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. Disruption of traditional livelihoods has pushed more people into poverty, while the delicate ecosystems of lakes are threatened by pollution and habitat destruction caused by military activities.

The consequences of climate change, including glacier melting and altered water flow patterns, further exacerbate environmental challenges in the region. The expansion of military facilities and activities has played a significant role in contributing to ecological problems.

Deforestation is a prominent consequence of conflict, driven by increased demand for timber resources and a lack of oversight. This rampant deforestation not only results in the loss of crucial ecosystems but also reduces the planet’s capacity to absorb carbon dioxide, a key driver of climate change.

Resource exploitation driven by conflict often leads to widespread pollution, as industrial activities and infrastructure development proceed without adequate environmental safeguards. The unrestricted release of pollutants into the atmosphere intensifies the greenhouse gas effect, exacerbating global warming and amplifying the impacts of climate change.

In Kashmir, a staggering 3,000 metric tonnes of plastic waste are generated annually, with over 1,700 metric tonnes recklessly dumped into agricultural fields, forests, and water bodies. The improper disposal of waste poses a severe threat to the region’s fragile ecosystem. Shockingly, more than 50 percent of waste in Kashmir is disposed off without proper treatment, harming the land, air, and water bodies and affecting the overall environmental health of the region.

Black carbon emissions from various sources in India, including diesel vehicles, brick kilns, cookstoves, and coal-based power plants, contribute significantly to regional warming. Irresponsible scattering of land mines and activities like chemical blasting and ice cutting for military camp establishment further degrade the environment and pose risks to local communities.

The influx of new residents into ecologically fragile regions as part of post-August 5, 2019 decisions, exacerbates resource demand and waste management challenges. This contributes to environmental degradation, including deforestation, soil erosion, and pollution, disrupting the natural balance of ecosystems and affecting local weather patterns. It underscores how conflicts, the environment, and climate are all interconnected.

The nexus between conflict and climate change results in a web of interconnected consequences, where humanitarian crises and environmental degradation are intertwined. The Indian government’s introduction of the new domicile order expands residency definitions, allowing a new category of non-Kashmiris to settle in the region.

This policy shift and new laws that facilitate land use, encourage new settlers and lead to expansion of military camps and development projects, at the risk of dislocating local populations, do not only lead to forced abandonment of homes but also adversely impact biodiversity, ecosystem resilience, and broader environmental conditions.

International organizations, such as the United Nations and its specialized agencies, play a crucial role in addressing climate change resulting from conflicts. Their involvement ensures a collective approach to climate-induced conflicts, providing essential protection and support to affected populations.

In conclusion, the relationship between climate change and political conflicts is far from coincidental. These two forces walk hand in hand, with conflicts exacerbating environmental challenges and climate change intensifying the impacts of conflicts. To address this complex issue, international cooperation and concerted efforts are essential. Recognizing the interdependence of climate, conflict, and the environment is the first step towards finding sustainable solutions to these pressing global challenges.

Striving For Peace: Complex Path To Stable South Asia

By Mehr un Nissa

The fixation on maintaining secure borders has longdominated the national security discourse, often overshadowing the potential for co-operative economic initiatives

The legacy of colonial-era border demarcation in South Asia continues to cast a shadow over geopolitics, highlighting how historical territorial decisions can have a lasting impact on politics in the region. The fixation with maintaining secure borders has long dominated national security discussions in South Asia, often overshadowing the potential for joint economic initiatives between neighbouring nations. In this complex landscape, characterised by historical hostilities, territorial disputes and nuclear capabilities, the dream of a peaceful South Asia is on the brink of becoming a reality. At the Centre of South Asia’s Security Challenges is the unresolved Jammu and Kashmir issue, which further exacerbates the ongoing hostility between India and Pakistan. This unresolved issue increases the risk of nuclear confrontation and creates a precarious environment that affects the entire region.

Apart from open military conflicts, South Asia has to contend with proxy wars and transnational terrorism, which further exacerbates the nuclear threat in the context of inter-state relations. From a realist perspective, the strategic calculus of South Asian states is primarily driven by the relentless pursuit of power and security, with Pakistan’s nuclear weapons playing a central role in shaping its national security strategy.

Pakistan’s pursuit of nuclear weapons arose from the realisation that the country was unable to match India at the conventional level after the 1965 and 1971 wars. This prompted Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons as a strategic deterrent, thereby shaping its national security strategy. Ongoing modernisation efforts are focused on improving the accuracy, reliability and survivability of its nuclear arsenal. The integration of nuclear capabilities is a cornerstone of Pakistan’s approach, striking a balance between proactive deterrence and the prevention of unintended escalation.

In a region as culturally interconnected as South Asia, psychological boundaries also play a crucial role in perpetuating divisions. The narrative of imminent danger, often propagated through nationalist and populist rhetoric, fuels mistrust and animosity between people on both sides of the border. State-sponsored propaganda, media manipulation and discriminatory social practices further contribute to the creation of mental borders.

The intertwining of issues such as caste discrimination, religious fundamentalism, patriarchy and economic inequalities makes the promotion of harmonious co-existence even more difficult. Nationalism can be a powerful political tool, but in the Indian context, its intertwining with these issues complicates the regional landscape and can potentially spiral out of control.

The escalation dynamics of a nuclear conflict

The situation in Jammu and Kashmir has direct and profound implications for regional stability. The historical enmity between India and Pakistan, coupled with their nuclear capabilities, creates an environment in which miscalculations or misunderstandings can lead to a devastating conflict. The entire South Asian region is caught in the crossfire and there is a risk of economic disruption, population displacement and erosion of diplomatic relations.

Since their nuclear tests in 1998, India and Pakistan have experienced five major crises, including the Kargil War in 1999, the Mumbai attacks in 2008, the Pathankot attack in 2016, the Uri attack in 2016 and the Pulwama-Balakot crisis in 2019. The Balakot incident, in which an Indian Air Force MiG-21 Bison was shot down and its pilot, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, was captured, highlighted the potential for a catastrophic escalation.

However, Pakistan’s swift and competent response disproved the assumption that either side could impose its will on the other. Nevertheless, hypothetical scenarios such as the question of what would have happened if the Indian pilot had been killed or had not returned in time emphasise the fragility of the situation. This conflict has set a new dynamic in motion, forcing both nations to carefully reassess and rethink their strategic approaches.

A new Cold War in South Asia?

In the current geopolitical dynamics, South Asia is emerging as a battleground for an escalating Cold War between the United States, China and India. This raises the question of whether the current scenario signifies the outbreak of a Cold War or whether it is the “myth of a new Cold War” Within this complex mosaic of conflicts, achieving peace in South Asia seems challenging but not unattainable.

The turbulent history and diverse challenges of the region do not preclude the possibility of promoting stability through concerted efforts. However, realising a peaceful South Asia requires a departure from the traditional paradigms of power politics and a commitment to addressing the root causes of conflict. It requires a comprehensive approach that goes beyond immediate geopolitical concerns and relies on diplomatic engagement, conflict resolution mechanisms and sustained dialogue to mitigate the risk of a nuclear flashpoint.

The possibility of peace

The possession of nuclear weapons by states is not necessarily an indication of an impending crisis or war. The South Asian nuclear states – China, India and Pakistan – have always viewed their nuclear arsenals as a means of deterrence, emphasising the colossal costs that a conflict would entail. Despite the gravity of their nuclear programmes, the region’s leaders are compelled to ensure the security of their arsenals and implement robust command, control and communication systems to prevent accidents, unauthorised use or theft.

However, the risk of accidents in nuclear systems remains a reality. The misfire of the Indian Brahmos missile in Pakistan last year clearly demonstrated the complexity and the possibility of human or technical error in nuclear systems. It illustrates the catastrophic consequences of even a single nuclear detonation.

The path to lasting peace in South Asia is a daunting challenge that requires a strong commitment to mutual understanding, overcoming deep-rooted conflicts and building a shared future. It is our collective responsibility to transform the dream of a peaceful South Asia from a distant mirage into a tangible reality. This transformation should replace the threat of a nuclear flashpoint with the promise of regional co-operation and prosperity.

As we reflect on South Asia’s turbulent history and the complex challenges it faces, we must recognise that peace is not an idealistic wish, but a goal that can be achieved through unwavering commitment and concerted efforts. The determination of regional actors and the international community to overcome historical grievances, prioritise dialogue over confrontation and invest in joint efforts for inclusive development will ultimately determine whether a peaceful South Asia remains a dream or becomes a reality.

General Asim Munir’s courage’s stand on Kashmir issue

By: Altaf Hussain Wani

The appointment of General Asim Munir as chief of the army staff has evoked a mixed response from within and outside the country. On the one hand, the new chief, who has many achievements to his name, is widely hailed as a good omen for Pakistan’s politics and democracy, while on the other, his elevation to the top slot has left many tongues wagging in the immediate neighbourhood-India where small-minded bigots sitting in the cosy TV studios have been spitting venom against the Pakistan army in particular the newly appointed chief of the army staff (COAS).

A change of command that happens to be a routine phenomenon in every army was projected by the Indian media as something unusual and uncustomary.

As part of 5th Generation Warfare and propaganda against the Pakistani state institutions, a campaign was run in the media, wherein hack journalists and so-called defense analysts were seen discussing the new chief’s appointment with reference to the impact on Indo-Pak relations. Some were seen as highly obsessed with General Munir’s impeccable character and reputation within the army, while others were worried about him being a devout Muslim and a “Hafiz-e-Quran”. Unsurprisingly, the new chief was projected in some sections of the Indian media as a man who planned the “Pulwama Attack”.

Former RAW Specialist and a member of the National Security Advisory Board, Tilak Devasher, in an interview to ANI said, “It was under his (Lt Gen Munir's) watch that the Pulwama attack took place and he was DG of the ISI in November and this happened in February 2019. Devasher said that Gen. Munir also served in the areas in the core that overlooks or deals with Kashmir in India.

Another author, in his writeup published in abplive.com, wrote in the same derogatory language saying “A General in the Pakistan Army has to prove his strong anti-India credentials. Munir has proved this through his role as the ISI chief in February 2019 when the Pulwama terrorist attacks took place, killing 40 CRPF personnel”. Though this smear campaign against the new chief was initiated soon after, the former ISI chief’s name figured in the list of the top five generals who were in the running for the top slot of the Pakistan Army. But, this vicious vilifying and propaganda campaign against him gained traction in the media since he paid his maiden visit to the LoC, where he reiterated his country’s demand for a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir dispute in line with the UN resolutions and Pakistan's armed forces’ unwavering commitment to defend the country’s ideological and geographical frontiers.

Taking strong exception to highly irresponsible statements from the Indian leadership on Gilgit Baltistan and Jammu and Kashmir, Gen. Munir warned India against any misadventure. With no ifs and buts, the army chief, in a direct reference to India said, “Let me make it categorically clear, Pakistan's armed forces are always ready, not only to defend every inch of our motherland, but to take the fight back to the enemy, if ever, war is imposed on us".

Referring to the Pakistan army’s high standard operational preparedness, he said that the Pak army was fully prepared to thwart any misadventure on the eastern front. “India will never succeed in tis nefarious designs and any misadventure will be responded with the full might of our armed forces backed by a resilient nation”, he warned.

Spelling out his country’s policy on the issue of Kashmir, Gen. Munir, in a short but precise manner, reminded the world of its legal and moral obligations vis-à-vis the settlement of the long-pending Kashmir dispute that has now assumed dangerous proportions. “The world must ensure justice and deliver what is promised to the Kashmiri people as per the UN resolutions”, the general said. The army chief’s crystal clear and categorical statement, which reflected Pakistan's commitment and its uncompromising stance on the issue, has certainly baffled the Indians who have been spreading lies to create cobwebs of confusion around the Kashmir issue. The timely statement has not cleared the propaganda of freezing Kashmir for 20 years but it has revitalized and rejuvenated the passion of the freedom-loving people of Kashmir who have been scripting a new history of resistance while fighting against the Indian occupation forces.

The courageous stand taken by the Pakistan Army chief on Kashmir has put to rest the rumours about a plot to defer the plebiscite in Kashmir until the next 20 years. The fact remains that no Pakistani politician or army officer can even think of betraying Kashmiris. The Kashmir issue is so deeply linked with the sentiments of the common masses of Pakistan that no government can even dare to compromise on it.

The Pakistan army as an institution has a long history of standing in support and solidarity with the people of occupied Kashmir, who consider Pakistan and its armed forces as their saviours. The Kashmiri people firmly believe that, whatever circumstances, Pakistan will never leave them in the lurch. Its consistent and continued support of the Kashmiris’ legitimate cause has always been a source of great strength and encouragement to the people of the Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Despite facing a myriad of challenges, the army has never shied away from calling a spade a spade. The military leadership believes that Kashmir is an unfinished agenda of partition of the subcontinent, which it believes should be resolved in line with the UN Security Resolutions. This is the reason that General Asim Munir, while referring to settlement of the Kashmir problem, made a special mention of these resolutions that, besides acknowledging the Kashmiris’ inalienable right, provide a comprehensive mechanism to resolve the dispute peacefully.

It goes without saying that on the issue of Kashmir, Pakistan’s civil and military leadership has always been one page. Every government in Pakistan, irrespective of political affiliations, has selflessly promoted the Kashmir cause, besides highlighting the Kashmiris’ plight at home and abroad. It is this fearless advocacy of the Kashmir cause by the Pakistani civilian/military leadership that kept the issue of Kashmir alive despite India’s malicious attempts to remove Kashmir from the Security Council’s agenda.

Pakistan believes that a just settlement of the Kashmir dispute in line with the UN resolutions and aspirations of the Kashmiri people is the only way forward to resolve this dispute peacefully. The Pakistani state being a legitimate party has every right to lend its aid and support to the Kashmiris’ indigenous struggle for right to self-determination. Sadly, India has been organizing all sorts of campaigns to malign Pakistan and its state institutions (army and ISI) before the international community to force her to rescind its support for the Kashmir cause.

The Dhaka Tragedy 1971

By Mehr un Nisa

Today we have got revenge for 1000 years of Muslim rule in the subcontinent,” these words, spoken by Indian PM Indira Gandhi in reaction to the fall of Dhaka, reflect a sentiment that goes beyond the surface and reveals a deep-seated animosity and hostility towards a historical period marked by Muslim rule in the subcontinent. Again, claiming to have drowned the “Two-Nation Theory” in the Bay of Bengal, she inadvertently acknowledged India’s role in orchestrating the events leading to the fall of Dhaka. While the language may seem casual, it exposes a more extensive narrative with an unsettling tone that fuels division and animosity.

The creation of Pakistan in 1947 was a testament to the unifying power of Islam, anchoring the aspirations of the Muslim community in the subcontinent. The political landscape underwent a significant shift with the passing of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. This transition paved the way for Iskender Mirza’s influence and set the stage for the imposition of the first martial law in 1958 by Field Marshal Ayub Khan, initiating a turbulent and politically charged era.

The Hindus in India were unhappy about the subcontinent’s division, as they believed it belonged solely to them. This discontent, rooted in historical grievances, contributed to the eventual split, notably marked by the fall of Dhaka. India played a crucial role in worsening the differences as a form of retaliation against Muslims for creating Pakistan.

Admittedly, contradictions between East and West Pakistan fuelled discontent. The contradictions between East and West Pakistan can be analyzed through the lens of identity politics and nationalism, which often play a crucial role in shaping the dynamics of nation-states. These dynamics emphasize the importance of understanding ethno-linguistic politics, national identity formation, and the delicate balance between internal cohesion and potential fragmentation in the broader context of regional security and territorial integrity.

The Bengalis, fueled by India’s passion for revenge post the 1965 war, mobilized themselves under a banner of independence. The subsequent mutiny among the Bengalis led to violence, with West Pakistanis and non-Bengalis becoming targets. “Bihari” encompassed immigrants from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, and Gujarat who had migrated to East Pakistan during the partition. Unfortunately, they became scapegoats for perceived atrocities, leading to clashes with Bengalis.

The 1971 conflict in East Pakistan saw violence not only between Bengalis and non-Bengalis (Biharis) but also within Bengali factions, with some supporting Bangladesh’s independence and others supporting Pakistan. The post-war era witnessed brutal clashes between Bengalis and Biharis, exacerbating the complex dynamics of a nation in turmoil. The fight for independence achieved its goal but left lasting scars on the historical fabric of the region.

The factors contributing to the creation of Bangladesh were multifaceted. Geographical, socio-cultural, and linguistic differences between East and West Pakistan, economic disparities, political alienation of the Bengalis, and leadership crises played pivotal roles. The rise of Bengali sub-nationalism, fueled by a lack of parity, linguistic tensions, and political alienation, culminated in the demand for a separate identity.

The role of Hindu teachers in shaping the narrative and influencing Bengali sentiment against West Pakistan cannot be ignored. The leadership crisis in West Pakistan, dominated by landlords and feudal elites, contrasted with East Pakistan’s politically aware and educated professionals, further fueled the divide.

The political landscape, marked by a struggle for autonomy and power, took a drastic turn after the general elections, with Mujibur Rehman’s role resembling a feudal lord. The subsequent non-cooperation movement in East Pakistan escalated into loot and massacres, prompting the military operation Operation Searchlight on March 25, 1971.

The Bengali movement gained momentum with the rise of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the presentation of the six points, signaling a turning point. The Agartala Conspiracy, although seen as a tool to divert attention, intensified the political landscape. The imprisonment of Mujib and others led to a surge in support for him, transforming him into a charismatic leader and a hero in East Pakistan.

The disintegration of Pakistan wasn’t merely a result of internal strife but was also profoundly influenced by the geopolitical chessboard involving significant powers like the United States, India, China, and the Soviet Union. Sheikh Mujib’s six points and the subsequent election campaign, backed by India, marked a pivotal moment in the region’s history. The Bangladeshi Hindu community, culturally and historically linked with India, played a significant role in supporting the Awami League, securing a landslide victory.

In the great game of big powers, the socio-economic backwardness of East Bengal, exacerbated by the aftermath of the partition in 1947, provided an opportunity for external influences. India, disapproving of the “Two-Nation Theory,” strategically exploited the disparities between East and West Pakistan. The lack of a land corridor between the two wings facilitated India’s agenda, attempting to agitate Bengali sentiments and convince them of their cultural links with West Bengal. The global context of the Cold War further complicated the situation, with the U.S. fearing Soviet expansion and viewing a strong Pakistan as a bulwark against such dominance.

Historically allied with Pakistan, China played a cautious role, offering moral support but refraining from direct military intervention. The Indo-Soviet friendship and cooperation treaty in August 1971 tilted the balance in India’s favor, reducing the likelihood of Chinese involvement. The geopolitical landscape was further shaped by Nixon’s fear of total Soviet domination in the region, leading the U.S. to support Pakistan.

Indira Gandhi’s diplomatic offensive in Europe and the establishing of a 21-year treaty with the Soviet Union aimed to block pro-Pakistan directives. The complex dance of global powers, from Nixon’s support for Pakistan to Indira Gandhi’s efforts to isolate it diplomatically, added layers to the unfolding crisis.

The conflict reached its climax when, on December 3, 1971, the Indian army invaded East Pakistan with significant support from the Bengalis. In a mere two weeks, Pakistan faced severe losses, losing half of its navy, a quarter of its air force, and a third of its army. The surrender of General Niazi to General Jagjit Singh Arora on December 16, 1971, marked the tragic denouement of the conflict.

While Pakistan demonstrated resilience during the 1965 war, subsequent complacency and India’s continuous preparations for conflict led to a divided nation in 1971. As we reflect on this complex history, it is essential to understand the intricate factors that led to the disintegration of Pakistan in 1971. However, in the post-disintegration era, the failure of Pakistan’s ruling elite to learn from the past underscores the challenges of statecraft and governance.

PM Kakar’s Strategic Discourse on Kashmir, Defense and Global Affairs

By Mehr un Nisa

Caretaker Prime Minister Anwar ul Haq Kakar’s recent address during his two-day visit to Muzaffarabad, AJK on December 14 to 15, encapsulates and illuminates Pakistan’s strategic considerations within the international legal framework, its regional posture, global humanitarian concerns and the delicate balance between repatriation and the diaspora’s potential as an asset. It sheds light on Pakistan’s approach to the Kashmir issue and the importance of diplomatic efforts in addressing both domestic and global challenges. The complexities of regional geopolitics, navigating the fine equilibrium of peace and security and the importance of consistent policy all play pivotal roles in shaping Pakistan’s strategic narrative on this enduring conflict. As the international community observes these developments, the diplomatic chessboard in South Asia remains dynamic, with the Kashmir issue at its geopolitical epicenter.

Pakistan’s commitment to regional peace is a recurrent theme in international relations discourse, a point emphasized by Prime Minister Kakar. His assertion that the pursuit of peace should not be perceived as a sign of weakness resonates within diplomatic circles. This discerning stance reflects Pakistan’s dedication to engaging in peaceful negotiations while steadfastly safeguarding its security interests—a delicate balancing act crucial for regional stability.

In responding to perceived Indian aggression, Prime Minister Kakar strategically expresses confidence in Pakistan’s defense capabilities. Drawing a parallel between the attitudes of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he illuminates the nuanced nature of strategic postures. This comparative analysis, grounded in international relations theory, underscores the significance of comprehending not only intent but also the capacity for implementation and response mechanisms.

The resolute rejection of rumors regarding a shift in Pakistan’s policy towards the merger of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) with India reflects the paramount importance of policy consistency. In the complex arena of statecraft, consistency is a linchpin of credibility and predictability. Prime Minister Kakar’s emphasis on the non-feasibility and impossibility of such an act aligns seamlessly with Pakistan’s established diplomatic norms, reinforcing the nation’s steadfast commitment to a principled stance on the Kashmir issue.

The Kashmir conflict, deeply entrenched as a geopolitical challenge, demands a diplomatically refined strategic approach. As a key regional player, Pakistan consistently advocates for a just resolution that aligns with the legitimate aspirations of the Kashmiri people. Prime Minister Kakar’s steadfast affirmation of Pakistan’s commitment to the people of Kashmir resonates with a dedication to upholding international legal norms. This commitment, forged through enduring sacrifices and a decades-long struggle, aligns seamlessly with the foundational principles of self-determination and human rights enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

In reiterating Pakistan’s unwavering stance on the Kashmir dispute, Prime Minister Kakar emphasizes the nation’s adherence to United Nations Security Council resolutions, advocating for a plebiscite. This alignment with international legal frameworks, designed to foster peaceful resolutions to territorial disputes, underscores Pakistan’s commitment to a diplomatic path guided by established norms and international consensus.

The dismissal of the notion of a corridor between Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and the Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu & Kashmir (IIOJK) reflects the intricate complexities entwined with the Kashmir conflict. Emphasizing the prerequisite for a final settlement before entertaining such measures, Pakistan strategically positions itself within the parameters of international legal considerations, acknowledging the unresolved nature of the Kashmir question.

Turning attention to the humanitarian crises beyond its borders, Prime Minister Kakar’s statements regarding Gaza showcase Pakistan’s unwavering commitment to global humanitarian concerns. His expression of solidarity with the Palestinians and condemnation of Israel’s use of force align with established international norms safeguarding civilians in conflict zones. The call for a ceasefire and the establishment of a humanitarian corridor manifests a judicious approach to conflict resolution, prioritizing the imperative of minimizing civilian suffering.

On the home front, Prime Minister Kakar’s handling of repatriation and security concerns demonstrates a prudent approach. By explicitly stating that only illegal foreigners posing security challenges are subject to repatriation, he navigates the intricate intersection of security imperatives and diplomatic protocol. Simultaneously, his acknowledgment of the brain drain issue showcases a nuanced understanding of the diaspora as an asset. While emphasizing the imperative of enhancing education quality, he skillfully walks the tightrope between addressing security concerns and tapping into the valuable advantages offered by a skilled diaspora for the nation’s development.

The Prime Minister’s skillful articulation frames the nation’s pursuit of peace as a calculated diplomatic strategy rather than a sign of vulnerability. This level of sophistication within proactive diplomacy unequivocally communicates that the commitment to peace is not a concession but a deliberate and strategic choice, reflecting the nation’s readiness to address aggression with resilience and resolve.

The Environmental Impact of Militarization in

Indian Occupied Jammu & Kashmir

By Mehr un Nisa

International humanitarian law unequivocally prohibits the excessive and disproportionate damage to the environment during warfare and armed interventions. Key treaties, including the Hague Regulations, Fourth Geneva Convention, Protocol I, and the 1977 Convention on the Prohibition of Military and Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, underscore the significance of safeguarding the environment amidst conflicts. Precedents set by UN Security Council Resolution 687 (1991) and Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2002) declare intentional infliction of severe and widespread environmental damage as war crimes. Even during extended military presence, the controlling forces are obliged to protect civilian resources, while the affected population retains permanent sovereignty over its natural wealth and resources, as mandated by UN General Assembly Resolution 305 (1972).

Militarization has devastating consequences on the environment, severely impacting ecosystems, biodiversity, and natural resources. The unrestrained use of weaponry and military infrastructure causes irreparable damage to delicate landscapes, while loss of habitats, deforestation, and pollution further exacerbate environmental vulnerabilities. Human actions and socio-economic disparities play a crucial role in determining the severity of natural disasters, with marginalized communities disproportionately affected due to their vulnerability and lack of resources.

The breathtaking landscapes of Indian Occupied Jammu & Kashmir hide a troubling reality - the long-standing military presence of ecologically fragile areas. The presence of armed forces, with permanent installations and militarized infrastructure constructed in delicate ecosystems has led to expropriation, illegal encroachment, and extensive weaponization of natural areas, including wetlands, forests, glaciers, mountains, hills, paddy fields, streambeds, permafrost areas and water bodies. This has resulted in severe ecological degradation like deforestation, soil erosion, and pollution, leading to reduced biodiversity, water scarcity, compromised flood absorption capacity and heightened flood risks during heavy rainfall.

In the Kashmiri Himalayan region, there are 147 glaciers, but the relentless impact of global warming has caused their loss and fragmentation. Kolahoi, the largest glacier in Jammu and Kashmir is also known as the 'Goddess of Light,' has also shrunk from 13.57 square kilometers to 10.69 square kilometers, receding at a staggering rate of 73.26 meters per year due to militarized climate change. Smaller glaciers are particularly vulnerable to climate change due to their lower elevation and accumulation area. Thajiwas, Drang-Drujng, Machoi, and Shafat are among the glaciers that have been severely impacted by climate change, melting at alarming rates. Sadly, militarized climate change has expedited glacier melting, leading to water reserve depletion and posing environmental threats.

The Siachen Glacier, the world's second-largest in Indian Occupied Jammu & Kashmir, has experienced a substantial and catastrophic decline, shrinking to half its former size, tragically transforming into the “world's highest garbage dump”. Over the years, the glacier's serenity has been marred by the accumulation of over 10,000 tons of toxic waste and pollution resulting from militarization activities, as the area is intensely militarized, with military infrastructure causing toxic and ammunition waste pollution.

There have been instances of deliberate chemical blasting and cutting of glacial ice to accommodate military camps. The regular troop movements, vehicle activities, and helicopter flights further contribute to the glacier's instability and degradation. The debris used by Indian troops found on the glacier's surface paints a grim picture, encompassing remnants of crashed helicopters, worn-out gun barrels, shrapnel from gun shelling, fuel barrels, burnt shelters, communication wires, para-dropping boards, canisters, gunny bags, and even human remains. This alarming collection of non-biodegradable materials significantly contributes to the greenhouse effect, elevating temperatures, and hastening the melting of snow and glacial ice. The formation of unstable glacial lakes as a consequence poses a severe and ever-present risk of Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOF).

The adverse repercussions of the glacier's degradation extend beyond its immediate surroundings. The Indian Occupied Jammu & Kashmir’s heightened vulnerability to floods, landslides, and avalanches is a direct consequence of this environmental deterioration. The dumping of wastes from the glacial ridge into lower crevasses has been directly linked to the tragic 2012 Saltoro avalanche, which claimed the lives of 140 individuals.

The combination of political ecology and militarized governance has made Indian Occupied Jammu & Kashmir highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, including extreme weather events, landslides, and ecological imbalances. The disastrous consequences of militarization on the environment have created a cycle of ecological vulnerability and disaster susceptibility in the region.

One of the main challenges in Indian Occupied Jammu & Kashmir is the inadequate governance and lack of priority given to environmental preservation over military interests. The focus on militarized governance has marginalized ecological concerns, perpetuating an unsustainable balance between military activities and environmental well-being.

It is worth mentioning that the Amarnath Yatra, code-named “Operation Shiva”, has raised concerns as a form of militarized tourism with extensive troop deployments, movements, and the establishment of military camps along the route, operating under a state of surveillance and siege. The militarized approach aims to integrate Kashmir into a Hindu cartography, undeniably the influx of tourists has generated non-biodegradable waste, potentially causing more ecological harm than physical land appropriation.

The cost of this militarized environmental catastrophe is not merely confined to nature alone. India's substantial stockpile of land mines along Line of Control has resulted in significant loss of lives and limbs for both humans and livestock. The indiscriminate placement of land mines in forests and fields has haunted communities, leaving them grappling with immeasurable grief due to the loss of loved ones and livelihoods. The unexploded shells have been found to cause fatalities after military deployment, while the contamination of soil and water sources renders them unsuitable for use, devastating the livelihoods and communities that rely on these resources.

The Biodiversity Act of 2002 was put in place to protect our natural resources, as highlighted in the 1992 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). However, the stunning wetlands of Wular lake in Bandipora, home to a wide range of birds and animals, now face a serious threat. The Indian government is dumping solid and biomedical waste, even on grazing lands for local cattle and sheep, putting many bird species, including migratory birds, in danger. These wetlands are vital for flood control, coastlines, and clean water, but the waste dumping in flood-prone areas could harm the delicate balance of nature and the diverse life they support. It's crucial to act swiftly to stop this harmful practice and protect our environment and its rich biodiversity.

The impact of constant military presence and patrolling, including the establishment of Naval Bases, around Kashmir's lakes has been severe on lake-dwelling communities. Their traditional lifestyles and economic activities have been disrupted, leading to increasing impoverishment. The fragile lake ecosystems are at risk due to water pollution, habitat destruction, and loss of biodiversity resulting from military activities.

The ecological fragility of Indian Occupied Jammu & Kashmir demands urgent attention to ensure the well-being of both its environment and inhabitants. The impact of this militarization extends beyond ecological concerns. It is imperative to address the environmental degradation caused by the military presence and its long-term consequences on the region's ecological richness and sustainability. Protecting Kashmir's natural beauty and promoting sustainable development requires awareness and concerted efforts to restore and preserve the delicate ecosystems that have been deeply affected by this troubling reality.

Climate Change and Food Security in South Asia: Challenges and Solutions

By Mehr un Nisa

Climate change has far-reaching global implications, evidenced by the significant disruptions in weather patterns. South Asia, a region highly susceptible to climate change, is witnessing a profound impact on its agricultural sector. The rising temperatures attributed to greenhouse gas emissions have become a defining characteristic of the changing climate, posing challenges to crop growth, yield, and quality, thereby affecting the agrarian economies of South Asia.

South Asia encompasses diverse geographical landscapes and climatic conditions, with varying degrees of vulnerability to climate change. The Indo-Gangetic Plains, coastal regions of Bangladesh, and the Himalayan foothills as particularly susceptible areas. These regions heavily depend on agriculture and face numerous challenges due to rising temperatures, erratic rainfall patterns, and an increased frequency of extreme weather events.

For instance, Bangladesh, highly vulnerable to cyclones and flooding, has experienced significant agricultural losses and food shortages due to climate change-induced disasters. Similarly, in the Indian state of Bihar, changes in precipitation patterns and prolonged droughts have severely impacted crop production, leading to food insecurity among vulnerable communities.

Pakistan, ranked among the top ten countries most affected by climate change according to the Global Climate Risk Index 2021, recently experienced devastating floods in 2022. These floods affected 33 million people, displaced over 200,000 individuals, claimed more than 1,700 lives, and caused extensive damage to approximately 3 million infrastructures and the agricultural sector, resulting in an estimated economic loss of $16 billion. The World Bank estimates that about 400 million people in South Asia are at risk of food insecurity due to climate change impacts. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports that South Asia accounted for 27% of the global undernourished population in 2020-2021, with approximately 199.2 million people experiencing hunger.

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) warns that climate change could potentially reduce wheat yields by up to 50% in certain parts of South Asia by 2050. These alarming figures emphasize the urgent need for action to address the impacts of climate change on food security in the region.

The agricultural sector in South Asia faces additional hurdles due to shifting precipitation patterns. Erratic rainfall distribution and prolonged dry spells are increasingly prevalent, negatively impacting soil moisture, crop irrigation, and overall agricultural productivity. Consequently, water scarcity and drought conditions further strain food production systems, necessitating the adaptation of agricultural practices to ensure food security.

Extreme weather events, such as cyclones, heatwaves, and floods, have emerged as some of the most devastating consequences of climate change in South Asia. These recurrent phenomena disrupt planting and harvesting seasons, damage infrastructure, and exacerbate soil erosion, resulting in a decline in food production and heightened vulnerability for farmers and communities reliant on agriculture.

Vulnerability to climate change in South Asia goes beyond geographical factors and is intertwined with socio-economic dynamics. Poverty, limited resource access, and weak infrastructure worsen the impact of climate change on food security. Communities in impoverished regions often lack the financial means to invest in climate-resilient agriculture or cope with climate-related shocks. The limited access to education and healthcare further reduces the adaptive capacity of vulnerable populations.

Changing climate conditions in South Asia, including rising temperatures and altered rainfall patterns, have significantly reduced crop yields and compromised agricultural produce quality. Studies by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) project a potential decline of up to 30% in wheat and rice yields in the region by 2050. This decline poses a significant threat to food security, given the region's reliance on these staple crops. A study published in the journal Science suggests that each 1-degree Celsius temperature increase could lead to a 10% reduction in rice yields due to the combined impacts of rising temperatures and precipitation changes.

Warmer temperatures and shifting rainfall patterns create favorable conditions for pests and diseases. The incidence of crop-damaging pests like locusts has risen, causing substantial losses for farmers. Livestock production is also affected as rising temperatures and altered precipitation impact grazing lands, feed availability, and water resources. Similarly, warming oceans and disrupted marine ecosystems decrease fish stocks and income for coastal communities dependent on fisheries.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) highlights that climate change-related factors could reduce agricultural productivity by 9-25% in South Asia by 2080. The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) estimates that climate change-induced heat stress may decrease livestock production in the region by 10-15% by 2030. The World Bank reports that climate change impacts could result in a 10-30% decline in fish catch from South Asian fisheries by 2050.

Addressing climate change impacts on South Asian agriculture requires robust adaptation and resilience through international cooperation. This entails sharing best practices, providing financial and technological support, and promoting sustainable agricultural practices. Investment in climate-resilient infrastructure is essential to improve food storage and distribution. Climate change diplomacy should prioritize emission reduction, climate financing, and technology transfer to support sustainable agriculture in the region.

The critical importance of research, innovation, and technology transfer in South Asia lies in their potential to effectively address climate change and enhance food security. Investing in scientific research yields valuable insights, while collaboration and knowledge sharing drive the development of innovative solutions. Technology transfer, particularly for smallholder farmers, plays a pivotal role in implementing these innovations. By seizing these opportunities and taking a comprehensive approach, South Asia can bolster agricultural productivity, foster resilience, and ensure food security in the face of climate change.

Targeted Repression of Human Rights Defenders in Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir

By Mehr un Nisa

The Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly in 1998, solidifies the commitment of UN member states to protect the right of every individual to promote, protect, or strive for the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms through peaceful means. The declaration recognizes the vital role played by human rights defenders in upholding the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law treaties.

Human rights defenders are invaluable individuals who champion the promotion, protection, and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms. They expose human rights violations and advocate for good governance, transparency, and the rule of law. Their unwavering efforts contribute significantly to the fulfillment of human rights and the UN's 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The Indian-Occupied Jammu and Kashmir has long been a subject of political and human rights concerns. In recent years, there has been a disturbing intensification of the crackdown on human rights defenders in the region, characterized by repression and intimidation tactics employed by the authorities to silence dissent and stifle civil society.

One key aspect that warrants examination is the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and its implications for human rights defenders, media professionals, and civil society in Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. The UAPA, initially designed to combat terrorism, has been frequently misused to suppress voices of dissent, with individuals being labeled as "terrorists" without due process. This misuse not only undermines the right to freedom of expression and association but also hampers the work of human rights defenders and media organizations striving to expose human rights violations.

Khurram Parvez, a prominent human rights activist, has been arbitrarily detained since November 2021 as an act of reprisal for his vital work in documenting and advocating for human rights in the region. The recent filing of criminal cases against Khurram Parvez and Irfan Mehraj, a journalist and human rights defender, in March 2023, further alarms the international community, as it signifies the ongoing pattern of reprisals against defenders.

The United Nations and various human rights organizations have repeatedly called for the release of human rights defenders detained in Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir, emphasizing the need for accountability for any abusive actions. On March 24, 23, Mary Lawlor, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders called for an immediate end to India's crackdown on Kashmiri human rights defenders. The arrest of Khurram Parvez on terrorism charges, along with journalist Irfan Mehraj and other arbitrarily detained defenders, has raised grave concerns. The escalating repression of civil society in Kashmir and the misuse of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act are condemned. The release of detained defenders and accountability for arbitrary arrests are urged by the UN expert.

In a powerful statement on May 12, 2023, sixteen human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, collectively urged Indian authorities to cease the reprisals against human rights defenders and organizations in Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Specifically, they highlighted the concerning cases of Khurram Parvez, Irfan Mehraj, and the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS). The intentions behind the attack on human rights defenders are starkly apparent and deeply troubling. Through the annulment of Article 370, the Indian government seeks to establish unwavering dominion over the region, eradicating any means of accountability that would expose the grim reality of violence in Kashmir to both the people of India and the international community. This calculated move aims to shield the truth and suppress voices calling for justice, demanding our unwavering attention and collective action to ensure that transparency and accountability prevail in the face of such actions.

According to the 2023 World Press Freedom Index, India is ranked 161st out of 180 countries, while the Human Freedom Index 2022 places it at 112th position out of 165 countries. India's position in the Rule of Law Index of the World Justice Project has fallen to 77th out of 140 countries. These numbers indicate a troubling trend, reflecting the deterioration of dissent and human rights within the nation.

A recent report by the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre based in the UK has specifically highlighted India as one of the most dangerous countries for human rights and labor activists in 2022. These factual figures underscore the urgent need for immediate action to address the alarming decline in human rights and ensure the safety and well-being of activists and citizens in India.

India, as a member of the international community, bears the responsibility to uphold human rights obligations under international law. It is vital for the global community to foster international solidarity and advocate for the release of human rights defenders in Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Through collective action, including raising awareness, engaging with relevant stakeholders, and supporting local organizations, we can contribute to the protection and empowerment of these defenders. By standing in solidarity, the international community sends a powerful message that the rights and well-being of those defending human rights in Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir must be upheld.

The G20 TWG Meeting in Kashmir: The Camouflage of Oppression by the Normalcy Mantra

By Mehr un Nisa

Under India's presidency, the third meeting of the G20 tourism working group is slated to occur from May 21 to 23, 2023, in Indian Illegally occupied Jammu & Kashmir (IIoJK), which is recognized as a disputed territory by the United Nations. This decision has raised considerable concerns, given that IIoJK has been embroiled in political tensions and human rights violations for several decades.

India's stated objective behind this move is to promote its "normalcy mantra" and showcase an image of stability and development in IIoJK. This move can be seen as a form of political signaling aimed at communicating India's intentions to the international community. By hosting a high-profile international meeting in IIoJK, India seeks to demonstrate its control over the region and assert its sovereignty in the face of Pakistan's claims.

The G20 summit is an annual meeting where the world's leading economies come together. By 2027, the GDP of G20 nations is projected to make up 44.64% of the global GDP, showing a 2.2% increase from 2021. The decisions and policies made at the summit can have far-reaching consequences beyond their own borders, influencing the agenda of other international organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The G20's influence derives from its role as a forum for global economic cooperation and its members' significant economic power. However, India's decision to host the third meeting of G20 TWG in IIoJK has sparked debate and condemnation from the international community. The cosmetic changes made to "Naya Kashmir", a development plan initiated by the Indian government to promote economic development in the region, have failed to address the real concerns and grievances of the Kashmiri people.

Jammu and Kashmir has been illegally occupied and under military control by India since 1947, with over 900,000 troops stationed in the IIoJK perpetuating human rights violations and using excessive force against civilians. The Indian government's attempt to project the situation as "normal" is an attempt to whitewash crimes against humanity and to deflect attention from the human rights abuses being committed there. The situation in IIoJK is marked by a high degree of human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and violence against women. Since August 5th, 2019, more than 800 civilians have been killed following the abrogation of Article 370. Over 18,811 civilians have been arrested, and more than 2,354 people have been injured by the occupying forces.

In 2018, and 2019, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) released reports stating that there were credible reports of widespread and serious human rights violations in IIoJK, including excessive use of force, arbitrary detention, and torture. The hosting of such a high-profile international event in a region that is under lockdown and where there are restrictions on freedom of movement and expression is a cause for concern.

The lack of political representation and a transparent and accountable governance structure has left the Kashmiri people feeling marginalized and disempowered. By hosting the TWG meeting in a disputed territory, India is legitimizing its illegal occupation of IIoJK and sending a message that it is willing to flout international law and disregard the human rights of the region's residents. The hosting of the third meeting of G20 TWG in IIoJK is a symbol of India's growing global influence and its emergence as a major player in international politics and economics. However, it could also exacerbate the already volatile situation in the region and increase the risk of conflict between the two countries. Indian opposition parties have also condemned and criticized the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for using the TWG meeting as a political tool to further its agenda of Hindu nationalism. Even in India, the move is seen as an attempt to shore up support in the upcoming state elections in IIoJK, where the BJP has faced significant opposition from separatist groups.

Furthermore, hosting the third meeting of G20 TWG in IIoJK could have wider implications for international relations, potentially seen as a violation of international norms and a challenge to the global order. This could lead to diplomatic backlash from other countries and damage India's reputation on the global stage. The projection of a false image of normalcy in the region could have long-term geopolitical consequences given the strategic importance of the region, bordering China, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Any instability in the region could potentially have far-reaching consequences for the entire region, including potential implications for global security and stability.

As a collective, the G20 has the power to influence India's actions by exerting diplomatic pressure and supporting multilateral efforts to resolve the Kashmir conflict. Failure to hold India accountable could have serious consequences not only for the people of IIoJK but for regional and global stability as well. Therefore, it is essential for the G20 to prioritize this issue and work towards a peaceful and just resolution for all parties involved.

Deciphering Pakistan's Foreign Policy Through Army Chief's Speech

By Mehr un Nisa

The recent address delivered by Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff, General Syed Asim Munir, at the passing-out parade of cadets at the Pakistan Military Academy (PMA) in Kakul, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, has shed light on the country's foreign policy priorities and strategic considerations. In particular, the speech underscored Pakistan's unwavering commitment to preserving its territorial integrity and national sovereignty, while also emphasizing the significance of regional stability and peace. General Munir's remarks further illuminate Pakistan's position on critical issues, such as the protracted conflict in Afghanistan and the disputed territory of Kashmir, while also highlighting the country's proactive engagement in shaping the dynamics of international relations. In light of these developments, the address has significant implications for the broader South Asian region and the conduct of international affairs. This article aims to analyze and evaluate Pakistan's foreign policy priorities through the lens of the Army Chief's speech, which provides valuable insights into the state's strategic outlook and priorities in the contemporary international system.

The emphasis of the Army Chief on safeguarding Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity signifies a fundamental principle in international relations - the state's right to protect its borders and territory from external threats. This assertion reaffirms Pakistan's commitment to regional stability and peace, both of which are crucial aspects of international relations. The statement regarding the significance of maintaining good relations with Afghanistan and other neighbouring countries aligns with the concept of regional security in international relations.

The COAS's speech debunked rumours that Pakistan had abandoned or frozen the Kashmir issue for 20 years, indicating a continued focus on the matter. The statement is significant as it clarifies Pakistan's stance on the issue, and it has been positively received by Kashmiris. Pakistan’s support for the Kashmiri people's right to self-determination is a legitimate stance in international relations. The longstanding Kashmir dispute is a critical issue in South Asia, and Pakistan's unwavering commitment to this cause is evident from the speech. The reference to peace efforts not being taken as a sign of weakness is indicative of the concept of deterrence, where a state seeks to demonstrate its strength and capability in defending its interests, while simultaneously pursuing peaceful relations.

The recognition of complex security threats and emphasis on intelligence and counterintelligence capabilities demonstrate Pakistan's understanding of the multifaceted challenges facing states in the contemporary world. The Army Chief's emphasis on upholding democratic principles in the governance of Pakistan, highlighting the constitutional role of the armed forces and their loyalty to the state, underscores the significance of internal stability and coherence, which can impact a state's external vulnerabilities. National unity and loyalty to the state are essential factors in ensuring internal stability and coherence, which are critical components of a state's ability to address external challenges.

The reiteration of Pakistan's will, capability, and capacity to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity can be interpreted as a demonstration of the state's resolve and deterrence posture. This is a crucial element of international relations, where a state's ability to demonstrate its commitment to its territorial integrity and sovereignty through deterrence is essential in deterring potential threats. By emphasizing its preparedness to make any necessary sacrifices, COAS aims to convey a message of strength and resilience, which is essential in shaping regional security dynamics.

The Army Chief's speech is indicative of a realist perspective in international relations, which employs a traditional state-centric approach to security that prioritizes the protection of the state from both external and internal threats. He emphasizes the importance of peace efforts while simultaneously highlighting the need for vigilance against potential spoilers. The concept of spoilers, or those who aim to undermine peace processes and create instability, is a crucial element of conflict analysis in international relations. The call for the identification of both exposed and hidden enemies echoes the importance of intelligence gathering and counterintelligence measures in maintaining national security. The reference to distinguishing between reality and deception is significant in terms of perception management, which is an essential component of international diplomacy.

The Army chief's focus on defeating organized terrorism as an existential threat aligns with the global fight against terrorism. The commitment to preventing destabilization and terrorism in Pakistan reflects the state's securitization efforts. The mention of both internal and external threats indicates Pakistan's recognition of the multidimensional nature of security threats and its readiness to address them. Overall, the COAS’s speech underscores the importance of a comprehensive and nuanced approach to foreign policy that can enhance a country's security and stability in a dynamic and complex security environment.

Comparing Diplomatic Behavior: SCO Meeting Goa vs. Trilateral Meeting Islamabad

By Mehr un Nisa

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meeting in Goa, India on May 4-5, 2023, served as a platform for political, economic, and security cooperation among its members, including China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, India, and Pakistan. This regional organization, founded in 2001, facilitates dialogue, trust-building, and collaboration on issues of mutual interest, demonstrating the principles of regionalism.

However, the visit of Pakistani Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari to India, which was the first by a Pakistani FM in 12 years, was met with a cold reception from his Indian counterpart, External Affairs Minister Dr. S Jaishankar. Pakistani FM's remarks at the SCO in response to the Indian EAM's assertion on cross-border terrorism underline the need to avoid the politicization of terrorism for diplomatic purposes. Nonetheless, the serious allegation made by Jaishankar accusing Bhutto of being a "promoter and justifier of a terrorism industry" is an incendiary charge and such inflammatory rhetoric is not the product of a vacuum but rather a manifestation of their insincerity and lack of genuine intentions towards Pakistan.

The Indian leaders have been displaying hypocrisy by maintaining forked tongues, which reflects their deep-seated animosity and antipathy for Pakistan. FM Bilawal Bhutto expounded Pakistan's stance on the contentious issues that have strained the frosty Pakistan-India relationship, in his much-anticipated interview with Indian news channel India Today. The anchorperson Rajdeep Sardesai, opened the conversation with the Indian adage "terror cannot coexist with talks." Despite Sardesai's persistent and confrontational efforts to steer the discussion towards terrorism, Bilawal maintained a poised and composed demeanour and answered questions that were at times impolite. He criticized India's unilateral decision to revoke the special status of Kashmir in 2019, as it has hindered the prospects of dialogue between the two countries. The Kashmiris commended the Pakistani FM’s assertive stance on Kashmir and condemned Jaishankar's uncivilized remarks, which they deemed to be indicative of his crude mindset and poor ethical conduct.

The Indian saying "Atithi Deva Bhava," which means "the guest is a God," is often used to emphasize the importance of hospitality and welcoming guests with open arms. However, in this instance, the behavior of the Indian government towards its Pakistani guest was far from hospitable.

Shortly after returning from his visit to India, Pakistan's FM Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari hosted two significant international events with his counterparts Qin Gang from China and Mawlawi Amir Khan Muttaqi from Afghanistan: the 4th Pakistan-China Strategic Dialogue and the 5th China-Afghanistan-Pakistan Foreign Ministers' Dialogue on May 6th, 2023.

The 4th Pakistan-China Strategic Dialogue was a high-level platform for reviewing bilateral cooperation in key areas between Pakistan and China. The two sides celebrated the ten-year anniversary of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) in 2023, and reaffirmed their commitment to high-quality development of CPEC and noted the steady progress of projects, with a focus on advancing the ML-1 project and the Karachi Circular Railway, as well as cooperation in agriculture, science and technology, IT, and renewable energy.

The 5th China-Afghanistan-Pakistan Foreign Ministers' Dialogue was a structured mechanism to review trilateral cooperation in key areas. The dialogue aimed to enhance trilateral cooperation and develop a roadmap for multidimensional cooperation between the three countries. This dialogue was an important event in international relations as it highlighted the willingness of these countries to work together towards common goals and engage in dialogue to address complex regional and global challenges. FM Bhutto’s hosting of these two important events demonstrated Pakistan's commitment to its strategic partnerships and willingness to engage in constructive dialogue with its neighbors and allies.

Moving forward, Pakistan was praised for hosting the trilateral dialogue between China, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The event was hailed as a success, with China and Afghanistan expressing their gratitude to Pakistan for its warm hospitality and successful organization of the event. This positive feedback highlights Pakistan's efforts to facilitate productive dialogue, promote regional cooperation and stability, especially in light of the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and the broader regional dynamics. This acknowledgement also emphasizes the importance of soft power and cultural factors in shaping international relations, reflecting Pakistan's commitment to regional cooperation and stability.

In contrast, the host, Jaishankar, deviated from diplomatic norms by rudely shifting the focus from regional security matters to the ongoing standoff between the two South Asian countries. This shift has been perceived as provocative and reflects a departure from the principles of constructive engagement and dialogue in resolving inter-state disputes. His contentious behavior against Pakistani FM was undiplomatic and disrespectful. Such behavior not only goes against the principles of diplomacy but also undermines the integrity of international forums. While the road ahead may be difficult, it is imperative that both India and Pakistan take steps to build trust, cooperate on common challenges, and work towards a more stable and secure region.

Pakistan’s Military Might

Analyzing Capabilities and Readiness for Strategic Defense

Pakistan's armed forces are known for their professionalism and readiness to defend the country's sovereignty at all times. They have been successful in thwarting many attempts by the enemy to destabilize the region. The country's armed forces are ever ready not only to defend every inch of our motherland but to take the fight back to the enemy. This readiness is a testament to the high level of training and dedication of the soldiers.

Pakistan's military is one of the largest and most well-equipped in the region. Its armed forces include over 600,000 active personnel, making it the seventh-largest military in the world. Pakistan's military doctrine emphasizes a combination of conventional and unconventional warfare, with a focus on defense rather than offense. This strategy is aimed at deterring aggression from neighboring countries and insurgent groups, rather than actively seeking out conflict.

One of Pakistan's key strengths in defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity is its nuclear capabilities. Pakistan is one of only nine countries in the world to possess nuclear weapons, and its nuclear program is considered to be one of the most advanced in the region. The presence of nuclear weapons serves as a powerful deterrent against potential aggression from neighboring countries, including India, which also possesses nuclear weapons.

Another strength of Pakistan's military is its airpower. The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has a fleet of modern fighter aircraft, including F-16s, JF-17s, and Mirage III and V aircraft. The PAF has played a critical role in both conventional and unconventional warfare, including in the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and in the 2019 standoff with India over the Kashmir region.

Pakistan's Army Chief General Asim Munir has made its stance very clear regarding the Indian leadership’s irresponsible and provocative statements on the matters of Gilgit-Baltistan and Azaad Kashmir. General warns that any "misconception resulting into a misadventure will always be met with the full might of Pakistan armed forces backed by a resilient nation." This is a clear indication that Pakistan is willing to use force to protect its interests, and that India should not underestimate Pakistan's military capabilities. The nation is fully prepared to stand with its armed forces to fight for the defense and integrity of Pakistan. The Pakistan Army has thus given a stern warning to the Indian leadership to not meddle in matters of Gilgit-Baltistan and Azaad Kashmir as it could lead to serious consequences in the form of a military confrontation between two nuclear powers.

The statement also reflects Pakistan's broader geopolitical strategy. Pakistan has long sought to project itself as a regional power, and has used its military might to achieve this goal. By making this statement, General Munir is attempting to bolster Pakistan's image as a powerful military force that is willing and able to take on its enemies. The fact that General Munir has chosen to make this issue a central point of his statement indicates that Pakistan is not willing to back down from its demands.

Furthermore, General Munir's call for the world to ensure justice and deliver what is promised to the Kashmiri people as per UN resolutions is a reference to the longstanding Kashmir conflict. This statement is a reminder of the longstanding dispute over Kashmir, which has been a major source of tension between India and Pakistan for over seven decades. General Munir's statement suggests that Pakistan is committed to finding a peaceful resolution to the Kashmir conflict.

It is important to note that the appointment of General Munir as the new Army Chief has also raised eyebrows in India and his statement comes at a time when India-Pakistan relations are already strained. The two countries have been engaged in a bitter war of words over several issues, including cross-border terrorism, ceasefire violations, and the treatment of minorities. The situation has been further complicated by the recent revocation of Article 370 by India, which gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan has strongly objected to this move, and the issue has become a major source of tension between the two countries.

The implications of General Munir's statement for India-Pakistan relations are significant. His statement suggests that Pakistan's military strategy is focused on deterrence and defense, but also indicates a willingness to use military force if necessary. General Munir's statement also indicates that Pakistan is committed to finding a peaceful resolution to the Kashmir conflict, but this commitment is unlikely to include a compromise on Pakistan's territorial claims in the region. Moreover, by highlighting the issue of Gilgit-Baltistan and Azaad Kashmir, General Munir has reiterated Pakistan's long-standing position on the disputed region. This could be interpreted as a challenge to India's sovereignty and territorial integrity, which could further strain relations between the two countries. Overall, General Munir's statement can be viewed as a warning to India not to take any aggressive steps that could potentially escalate the conflict and reiterated that Pakistani military is always prepared to defend the country against any external aggression or threat.

The issue of IIOJK has been a long-standing dispute between India and Pakistan, and it has been a source of tension between the two countries for many years. India's policies towards Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu & Kashmir have included the deployment of security forces, the use of curfews and restrictions on movement, and the revocation of the region's special autonomous status in 2019. Pakistan has strongly opposed this move and has been raising the issue at various international fora. Indian policies have led to human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and torture. The Kashmiri people have suffered a great deal due to this dispute, and the world must ensure justice is delivered as promised to them by the UN resolutions. The Kashmiri people have been denied their basic human rights, and the world must take notice of their plight.

India's aggressive posturing is an example of the failed policies of its leadership and an imminent breach of peace that could determine the fate of the region. It is important that the international community takes the necessary steps to hold India accountable for its irresponsible behavior. The resolution of the Kashmir dispute is the only way to bring about lasting peace and stability in the region. The people of Kashmir continue to suffer and it is high time that their voices are heard and their wishes are respected. Pakistan has always advocated for a peaceful resolution of the IIOJK issue through dialogue, but unfortunately, India has not reciprocated this gesture. India's policy of repression and aggression towards the Kashmiri people has only fueled the fire and led to further tensions in the region.

In 1948, the United Nations passed a resolution calling for a plebiscite to be held in IIOJK to determine the wishes of its people. However, this resolution has yet to be fully implemented, leaving the Kashmiri people in a state of limbo. The international community must step up and ensure that justice is served and that the Kashmiri people are given the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination. It is important that the UN resolution is followed and that the voices of the Kashmiri people are heard and respected. The world must also play its part in ensuring that justice is delivered to the Kashmiri people as per the UN resolutions. Only then can we hope to achieve lasting peace in the region.

It is also essential that both India and Pakistan exercise restraint and refrain from any actions that could further escalate tensions in the region. Both countries must engage in constructive dialogue and work towards finding a peaceful solution to the Kashmir issue.

Pakistan’s military preparedness and capabilities in defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity are strong. The recent strong stance taken by the Pakistan Army is a clear indication of their determination to defend their country's sovereignty at all costs. They have warned India that any attempt to misconceive the situation and indulge in a misadventure will result in a full-scale response from Pakistan's armed forces. The issue of Gilgit-Baltistan and IIOJK is a sensitive matter that requires careful handling by both India and Pakistan. Any irresponsible statements or actions could lead to an escalation of tensions and have serious consequences. It is crucial that both countries exercise restraint and engage in constructive dialogue to find a peaceful solution to the issue. The world must also play its part in ensuring that justice is delivered to the Kashmiri people as per the UN resolutions.

[1] Mark Episkopos, “Ukraine’s Kursk Incursion Is a Two-Edged Sword,” The American Conservative September 9, 2024, Accessed on Sep 10, 2024, https://www.theamericanconservative.com/ukraines-kursk-incursion-is-a-two-edged-sword/.

[2] Lucian Staiano-Daniels, “How the Hundred Years’ War Explains Ukraine’s Invasion of Russia,” Foreign Policy September 2024, Accessed on Sep 6, 2024, https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/09/01/ukraine-russia-war-history-middle-ages-comparison-kursk/

[3] Ibid

[4] Michael Kofman and Rob Lee, “Ukraine’s Gamble,” Foreign Affairs September 2, 2024, Accessed on September 6, 2024, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ukraines-gamble

[5] Ibid

Facebook Twitter

Hindutva Crackdown on Religion in Jammu & Kashmir

Hindutva Crackdown on Religion in Jammu & Kashmir

Related Detail