Human Rights Crisis in Indian Kashmir
Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir-particularly the Kashmir Valley-has long been one of South Asia’s most disputed and human rights–sensitive regions. As India’s only Muslim-majority territory, many security measures imposed there have had a disproportionate impact on the Muslim population. Since August 2019, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government revoked Article 370 and withdrew Kashmir’s special autonomous status, the situation has become more rigid and centrally controlled. While the Indian government presents this move as necessary for development, security, and national integration, human rights organizations, international observers, and a large segment of the local population view it as the beginning of systematic political disenfranchisement and repressive governance.
The historical roots of the Kashmir conflict date back to the partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947. Following the accession of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir to India, the first India–Pakistan war broke out, resulting in the region’s division. Although an UN-brokered ceasefire ended hostilities, the Kashmir dispute was never resolved. The armed insurgency that began in 1989 transformed Kashmir into a heavily militarized zone, where civilians, insurgents, and Indian security forces have all suffered. Over the decades, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and other international organizations have documented allegations of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, torture, mass arrests, and a culture of impunity.
The situation changed further after 2019. Following the revocation of autonomy, Jammu and Kashmir were reorganized into two union territories, bringing the region under direct control from New Delhi. This transition was accompanied by prolonged internet and communications shutdowns, among the longest digital blackouts in modern history. These shutdowns severely disrupted education, healthcare, commerce, journalism, and access to legal assistance. Human rights groups have argued that communication blackouts made it nearly impossible to document abuse or seek timely legal remedies. In recent years, concerns over human rights have intensified. In January 2026, Kashmiri journalists were reportedly asked by police to sign bonds pledging not to “disturb peace,” a move widely interpreted as intimidation and a direct assault on press freedom. Media associations described the practice as an attempt to enforce self-censorship through fear. At the same time, arrests and detentions under stringent security laws have continued. Laws such as the Public Safety Act (PSA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) have been used to detain political activists, human rights defenders, and ordinary citizens for extended periods without trial. Multiple reports indicate that hundreds of individuals have remained detained for years, raising serious concerns about due process and the rule of law.
Political participation has also remained constrained. Although regional elections were held in 2024 after a long hiatus, the authority of elected representatives is extremely limited. Key powers relating to law and order, administration, and security remain firmly in the hands of the central government. When local political leaders demanded restoration of autonomy, the central leadership rejected those calls outright. As a result, many Kashmiris perceive elections as symbolic exercises rather than genuine expressions of self-governance. Religious identity has become an increasingly sensitive factor in this context. Although the Indian government maintains that its policies are secular and security-driven, the Muslim-majority population of Kashmir bears the brunt of restrictions, surveillance, raids, and administrative controls. Investigations into mosques, religious charities, and Islamic institutions, restrictions on religious gatherings, and monitoring of clerics have deepened perceptions of collective punishment and discrimination among Kashmiri Muslims.
The role of the international community is therefore critical. The UN human rights machinery has previously issued reports on Kashmir, calling for independent investigations and accountability. The global community should press for regular monitoring missions, ensure access for UN special rapporteurs, and demand transparency regarding arrests, detentions, and trials. Even where political constraints limit action, the UN Security Council can continue to emphasize civilian protection, human rights obligations, and regional de-escalation. International partners-including the European Union, the United States, the Commonwealth, and others-should integrate human rights benchmarks into their diplomatic and strategic engagement with India. Press freedom, reduction of arbitrary detention, speedy judicial review, and restoration of civil liberties should be treated as measurable indicators of progress. At the same time, renewed dialogue and confidence-building measures between India and Pakistan are essential to prevent escalation and create space for a political process.
Lasting peace in Kashmir cannot be achieved through security measures alone, because peace built purely on force is inherently fragile. The political rights, cultural identity, economic opportunities, and human dignity of the Kashmiri people are not secondary issues; they are the foundation of any sustainable stability. When these rights are systematically constrained, resentment accumulates beneath the surface, even if overt violence appears temporarily reduced. Arbitrary detention, prolonged incarceration without trial, suppression of independent media, recurring digital blackouts, and the persistence of institutionalized impunity have created an atmosphere where fear replaces trust and silence replaces genuine consent. History-both in Kashmir and elsewhere-clearly demonstrates that repression may impose short-term calm, but over time it deepens alienation, hardens grievances, and perpetuates cycles of unrest.
In recent years, the situation has further deteriorated with the Indian government exercising increasingly intrusive checks and controls over religious life. Surveillance of mosques, monitoring of sermons, restrictions on religious gatherings, investigations into madrasa funding, and interference in routine religious activities have become more frequent. Such measures go beyond legitimate security concerns and intrude directly into the private and collective religious practices of citizens. Mosques and madrasas, which traditionally function as centers of worship, learning, and community life, are now often treated as security liabilities rather than protected civic spaces. This represents a serious violation of basic human rights, including freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom of association.
True peace in Kashmir requires a shift from coercive governance to inclusive, rights-based engagement. Protecting civil liberties, restoring trust in institutions, allowing free political expression, and respecting religious freedom are not concessions to instability; they are prerequisites for genuine and lasting peace. Without these, any claim of stability will remain superficial, enforced rather than earned, and vulnerable to collapse at the slightest shock. Therefore, a just and sustainable resolution of the Kashmir conflict requires the international community to place human rights at the center of its engagement. Equally, India must find a balance between legitimate security concerns and fundamental freedoms, and open pathways for meaningful political participation and self-governance for the people of Kashmir. Without justice, accountability, and genuine dialogue, real peace in Kashmir will remain elusive.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Opinion Desk.
