(Written by: Abdul Basit Alvi)
For decades, the region of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) has been a focal point of contention between India and Pakistan, with its residents caught in the crossfire of geopolitical tensions. Within this complex landscape lies a tragic narrative of human rights abuses and systemic repression, particularly in the Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) under Indian governance.
India’s control over the region dates back to 1947, when military forces were deployed following the signing of the Instrument of Accession by the then Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. Efforts of Pakistan and later people of J&K themselves resulted into liberation of a part of Kashmir which is known as AJK.
The situation in IIOJK remains deeply troubling, marked by a significant Indian military presence and stringent security measures. In August 2019, the Indian government revoked Article 370 of the Constitution, which had granted special autonomy to the region, and restructured the state into two Union Territories. This decision was accompanied by a severe crackdown, including a blackout on communications, mass arrests of political figures and activists, and restrictions on movement.
Reports from international human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations consistently highlight serious human rights violations in IIOJK, including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, torture, and sexual violence perpetrated by Indian security forces. Civilians, including women and children, have been caught in the crossfire or deliberately targeted during military operations.
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) and the Public Safety Act (PSA) grant Indian security forces sweeping powers with limited accountability, contributing to a climate of impunity. Under these laws, security personnel can arrest individuals without a warrant and detain them for extended periods without trial, leading to widespread fear and mistrust among the local population.
The conflict has taken a heavy toll on the civilian population of IIOJK, with reports of psychological trauma, displacement, and economic hardship. The region’s development has been hampered by curfews, internet shutdowns, and restrictions on freedom of movement, hindering access to education, healthcare, and livelihood opportunities.
The international community, including the United Nations and various human rights organizations, has consistently urged India to uphold its international obligations, thoroughly investigate allegations of human rights abuses, and ensure justice and reparations for victims. However, progress has been slow, with India often dismissing external criticism as interference in its internal affairs.
Article 370 was integrated into the Indian Constitution in 1949, recognizing the special status of Jammu and Kashmir within the Indian Union. This article granted the state significant autonomy, enabling it to have its own constitution, flag, and substantial legislative powers, except in defense, foreign affairs, finance, and communications, which required approval from the Indian government. Over the years, Article 370 underwent multiple amendments and interpretations, reflecting shifting political dynamics and internal governance challenges within IIOJK.
Despite its special status, the region experienced periods of political instability, armed conflict, and Independence movements. In August 2019, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Government of India revoked Article 370 through a presidential order, alongside Article 35A, which conferred special privileges and rights to permanent residents of J&K. This decision also involved reorganizing the state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
The revocation of Article 370 sparked widespread controversy and protests both domestically and internationally. Critics argued that it eroded the region’s autonomy and breached commitments made to the people of J&K during the accession period.
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) became involved in the Kashmir issue in 1948, adopting Resolution 47, which called for a ceasefire and a referendum to allow the people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine their future status. This resolution laid the groundwork for subsequent resolutions that reaffirmed the principle of self-determination and the necessity for a plebiscite to ascertain the wishes of the Kashmiri people. Resolution 47 (1948) outlined a three-step process: ceasefire, withdrawal of foreign forces, and a plebiscite supervised by the United Nations to decide the future of Jammu and Kashmir.
Throughout the years, the UNSC passed multiple resolutions reiterating the right of the Kashmiri people to self-determination. These resolutions emphasized the importance of creating conditions conducive to a free and fair plebiscite. Despite the United Nations’ clear stance and international consensus on the issue, implementing these resolutions has encountered significant challenges. India has consistently denied the right of self-determination to the people of IIOJK, instead opting to revoke the region’s special status and seeking to integrate it into India, bypassing UN resolutions on Kashmir.
The Kashmir conflict remains a focal point of international attention and concern due to its potential for regional instability and humanitarian consequences. The United Nations and various international organizations have repeatedly urged for dialogue and a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir issue, emphasizing the importance of upholding human rights and addressing grievances through diplomatic channels. However, the issue remains unresolved, largely due to India’s actions.
The Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) region has a turbulent history marked by conflict and political instability, exacerbated by the killings and arrests of prominent Kashmiri leaders. These incidents have not only exacerbated divisions within the region but have also elicited international concern and condemnation. One of the most significant and tragic events in recent memory was the killing of Burhan Wani in July 2016. Wani, a young and influential commander and advocate for Kashmiri freedom, was viewed as a symbol of resistance against Indian rule.
His death during an encounter with security forces triggered widespread protests and a harsh crackdown, resulting in numerous civilian casualties and hundreds injured. Following Wani’s death, the region experienced a wave of unrest, marked by curfews, severed communication lines, and subsequent targeted killings of other vocal advocates for Kashmiri rights and autonomy, such as Riyaz Naikoo and Zakir Musa, who were killed in separate encounters with security forces.
In addition to these killings, there have been numerous instances of arbitrary arrests and detentions of Kashmiri political leaders and activists. Mehbooba Mufti, former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir and leader of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), was detained under the stringent Public Safety Act (PSA) following the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019. She, along with other political figures like Omar Abdullah and Farooq Abdullah, remained under house arrest for months. India’s treatment of its Kashmiri allies underscores a broader pattern of skepticism and disregard toward Kashmiri sentiments.
These arrests have been widely criticized as politically motivated attempts to stifle dissent. Many detainees have been held without charge or trial, violating their fundamental rights. Reports from human rights organizations and local activists detail the harsh conditions and allegations of torture faced by detainees, further escalating tensions in the region.
The killings and arrests of prominent Kashmiri leaders have drawn international condemnation and scrutiny. Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented cases of extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions, and torture, calling for independent investigations and urging the Indian government to uphold human rights and international humanitarian law.
The United Nations and various countries have expressed concerns over the situation in IIOJK. The lack of transparency in legal proceedings and the denial of access to independent observers have heightened apprehensions about the human rights situation in the region. The repercussions of these killings and arrests extend beyond the immediate victims, deepening distrust between the local population and security forces and perpetuating a cycle of violence and retaliation. The environment of fear and uncertainty has suppressed political dissent and dialogue, undermining the prospects for a peaceful resolution to the Kashmir conflict.
The Indian government has solidified its decision to revoke the special status of IIOJK by approving a contentious notification. After nullifying IIOJK’s special status, the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs recently amended the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, thereby expanding the powers of the lieutenant governor of IIOJK. Indian President Droupadi Murmu has authorized these changes under section 55 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, which introduce new provisions aimed at enhancing the authority of the IIOJK lieutenant governor. Manoj Sinha has served as the lieutenant governor of IIOJK since August 2020.
These amendments, titled the Transaction of Business of the UT of IIOJK’s Government (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024, were recently published in the Indian Official Gazette. They hold particular significance in light of the upcoming assembly elections in IIOJK, as they grant the IIOJK lieutenant governor increased discretion in various administrative domains. A newly introduced sub-rule, 2A, specifies that proposals concerning ‘Police,’ ‘Public Order,’ ‘All India Service,’ and ‘Anti-Corruption Bureau’ must be routed to the IIOJK lieutenant governor via the chief secretary for the Finance Department’s concurrence.
Another addition, rule 42A, mandates that the Department of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs submit proposals for the appointment of the Advocate-General and other law officers to the IIOJK lieutenant governor through both the chief secretary and the chief minister. Rule 42B dictates that proposals related to prosecution sanctions or appeals must also be channeled to the IIOJK lieutenant governor through the chief secretary by the Department of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs. Additionally, amendments to rule 43 introduce new provisions concerning Prisons, the Directorate of Prosecution, and the Forensic Science Laboratory, requiring the Administrative Secretary of the Home Department to forward these matters through the chief secretary to the IIOJK lieutenant governor.
Furthermore, proposals regarding the posting and transfer of Administrative Secretaries and All India Services officers must be presented to the IIOJK lieutenant governor by the Administrative Secretary of the General Administration Department through the chief secretary.
These controversial revisions signal a significant shift in IIOJK’s administrative structure, indicating a trend toward heightened central control. This action bypasses UN resolutions on Kashmir and further consolidates the annulment of IIOJK’s special status.
The detailed notification from the Indian ministry ensures that all proposals in specified domains follow proper channels before reaching the IIOJK lieutenant governor’s office, laying the groundwork for substantial changes in IIOJK’s governance and administrative dynamics.
These amendments suggest India’s lack of confidence in the elected civilian government of IIOJK and may exacerbate human rights violations. This move has been vehemently criticized by Kashmiris on both sides of the LOC. The UN and the international community should take note and urge India to halt these actions and grant the people of IIOJK the right of self-determination.
India must acknowledge the reality that Kashmiris do not wish to remain part of India, and India’s ongoing actions to integrate IIOJK further exacerbate Kashmiri resentment. India’s attempts to suppress Kashmiri aspirations for self-determination are unlikely to succeed, and India is obligated to grant Kashmiris the right to determine their own future. India’s recent and historical actions violate UN resolutions that recognize Kashmir as a disputed issue, requiring global attention and condemnation of India’s actions.
