India, Globally: Kashmir, Critics and Silencings

The Narendra Modi government frequently posits India as a ‘Vishwaguru’ or world leader. How the world sees India is often lost in this branding exercise.

Outside India, global voices are monitoring and critiquing human rights violations in India and the rise of Hindutva. We present here fortnightly highlights of what a range of actors – from UN experts and civil society groups to international media and parliamentarians of many countries – are saying about the state of India’s democracy.

Read the fortnightly roundup for April 1-30, 2025.

International media reports

RNZ, New Zealand, April 12

Gill Bonnett reports on Sapna Samant’s refusal to be “silenced by the Indian government” while facing a possible revocation of her Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) status “because of her political activities and online criticisms”. A doctor and filmmaker, Samant says she will continue to be “vocal” in her critique of the Indian government. In her reply to the Government of India’s notice, “she asked why public debate was dangerous”. She added that “if the government of India is thinking that they can use me as an example to silence other Indians, then I think they're quite mistaken."

BBC, UK, April 22

The BBC gives voice to the concerns of residents of Mumbai’s Dharavi, the largest slum in Asia, about the plans of the Government of Maharashtra and the Adani group to redevelop it. The project seeks to rebuild Dharavi slum, a diverse community of about one million people, into a modern township with high-rise homes. One set of concerns relate to the collapse of Dharavi’s ecosystem in which “livelihoods thrive by revolving around each other”. Other concerns relate to relocation including fears around eligibility, lack of evidence on the nature of relocation, and “environmental safety and health risks” of areas to which residents might be relocated.

Bloomberg, US, April 24

Karishma Vaswani analyses the recent Pahalgam terror attack in Kashmir to cut through the Prime Minister’s claim that “normalcy has returned under his leadership”. She notes that the violence is situated in an environment of “rising anti-Islamism and policies aimed at changing the province’s demographics by encouraging Hindu settlers”, “the potential loss of jobs and land ownership rights” as well as intimidation of “critical dissenting voices from speaking out”. Vaswani underscores that “when long-suffering grievances aren’t addressed, they erupt”. She also highlights that this attack follows a “spate” of “less publicised” incidents “that show militant violence never subsided”.

The Washington Post, US, April 29

Karishma Mehrotra writes about actions against civilians in Kashmir after the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, including demolitions of homes, detentions, raids and increased check-points. Mehrotra describes Kashmiris feeling “they are cornered by a cruel paradox: forced to publicly condemn the violence even as they are made to bear the cost”. There has also been the rise of a “people’s peace movement” with marches, and vigils in mosques, for the victims. In a reversal from past incidents, “the outcry this time was directed at the attackers” not the Indian government. Yet, the State seems to be imposing “collective punishment”. Beyond Kashmir, Muslims across the country are being targeted on social media and news channels like the Republic demanding #WeWantRevenge.

Parliamentarians and public officials advocate

Senator Anna M. Caballero recently introduced Senate Bill 509 in the California State Senate that addresses the growing threat of “transnational repression”, defined as “efforts of foreign governments to intimidate, harass, threaten, or harm individuals living outside their home country, often targeting dissidents, activists, journalists, or marginalized communities”. The Bill focuses on specialised training for law enforcement “to identify and respond to the persecution of diaspora communities by foreign governments”. Caballero said the Bill can strengthen “safety, justice, and freedom of expression for all, regardless of their background or country of origin.”

Experts say

Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai, a senior writer on cybersecurity, reports on a key “exhibit” comprising a “Victim Country Count”, published in a document released in court on April 4  during the ongoing lawsuit by WhatsApp against the NSO Group’s spyware Pegasus. This “shows exactly in what countries 1,223 specific victims were located when they were targeted with NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware”. The country-wise breakdown provides “rare insight into which NSO Group customers may be more active, and where their victims and targets are located”. India had the second highest number of victims of the spyware attack with 100 victims.  

Sushant Singh, lecturer in South Asian Studies at Yale University, highlights larger global implications of India’s “foreign interference”, on April 7. Drawing from Canada’s ongoing public inquiry into foreign interference, Singh reveals that it “ranks India as the second most active meddler after China”. He warns of “heightened risks” to Canada’s impending election in April 2025, with Canadian intelligence alleging that “Indian proxies funded diaspora community organizers and amplified pro-Poilievre narratives” in his 2022 political campaign. Singh says this is India’s strategy to “identify potentially sympathetic politicians, mobilize diaspora networks, and promote the religious fundamentalist Hindutva ideology”, indicating the “emergence of a coordinated transnational right-wing alliance”.

The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions’ (GANHRI) Sub-Committee on Accreditation recently recommended downgrading India’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) from category ‘A’ to ‘B’. The Committee has expressed concerns about “transparency in the selection process” of Commissioners and points out that the composition of the staff does not “meet the pluralism requirements of the Paris Principles”. It has questioned the NHRC’s effectiveness in addressing human right violations, “the shrinking civic space and increased instances of targeting human rights defenders, journalists and perceived critics”. With serving police officers making up the NHRC’s investigative staff, the Committee notes this impacts its “ability to conduct impartial investigations”. The NHRC has until 2026 to provide evidence of compliance with the Paris Principles. 

On April 24, Nitasha Kaul, professor of Politics, International Relations and Critical Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Westminster, identifies key questions of accountability after the recent terror attack in Kashmir.  These include why there was “no security deployment” despite the heavy tourist presence, why the Union Home Minister is not being held accountable even though Kashmir’s security is the central government’s responsibility, and why voices asking for accountability are being deemed “anti-national”. Kaul also points to the terror attacks as evidence of the dangers of the policy of “tourism as a response to terrorism” and “post-conflict normality as a propaganda coup”.  

Sunil Amrith, professor of History and Environmental Studies at Yale University, describes  India’s decision to suspend its participation in the Indus Waters Treaty, (a water-sharing agreement between India and Pakistan since 1960) following the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, as “imperilling” security. Amrith says that India’s threat to “withhold water data” would pose a “substantial risk to lives on both sides of the border” and especially “endanger Pakistani farmers’ ability to plan for an increasingly erratic monsoon”. He advises that instead of “weaponsing water”, it should be managed as a “vital shared resource”.

Indian diaspora and civil society groups

In the run-up to the 2025 elections in Canada, Just Peace Advocates launched a new campaign “I Vote Kashmir 2025”. It calls for “a human rights-based approach to Canadian policies on Kashmiri self-determination”. It urges candidates to demand “that India restores the fundamental rights of freedom of expression, and end systematic campaigns of arbitrary detention and collective punishment… [and] frees all human rights activists, journalists, and political activists and dissenters”. As of April 2025, 36 election candidates endorsed the campaign. Groups and movements such as International Coalition Against Enforced Disappearance, Rohingya Human Rights Network, Jewish Network for Palestine, Regina Peace Council Global BDS Movement, Palestinian Canadian Community Association, and the South Asian Diaspora Action Collective also gave their support. 

SACRED, the South Asian American Coalition to Renew Democracy, mobilised a coalition of 22 organisations and 65 community leaders, based in the US, to demand that the Hanuman Temple of Greater Chicago cancels a talk by Sadhvi Rithambara scheduled for April 19. A collective statement issued on April 25 said “Sadhvi Rithambara is widely known for spreading inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric as a leader in India’s Hindu supremacist movement. In recent years multiple institutions have rescinded invitations for her to speak in the U.S. and U.K”. SACRED expressed its disappointment that the temple proceeded as planned and that “hundreds attended and applauded her remarks”. However, they pointed out “no local leaders attended the event” following their advocacy.  For more information, read the statement by Hindus for Human Rights in response to Sadhvi Rithambara’s scheduled appearance.  

Read the previous roundup here. 

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.