Since the Hindutva government led by the Narendra Modi came into power the former princely
state of Jammu and Kashmir has witnessed a series of far reaching political, administrative and
legal changes. All these measures have changed the constitutional position, governance structure
and socio-political landscape of Jammu and Kashmir and led to the unprecedented centralization
of power and restructuring of the state without the consent of Legislative assembly of Jammu and
Kashmir. One of the most consequential steps was the revocation of semi-autonomous status of
Jammu and Kashmir on 5th august 2019, followed by the reorganization Act, that is the bifurcation
of state into two union territories. There were many objectives behind the revocation of semi
autonomous status of Jammu and Kashmir, one is the nationalist Government wanted to fully
ensure the full annexation of the Jammu and Kashmir in a belief that this move would lead to an
end of the long standing dispute. Second, the Hindutva Government wanted to establish exclusive
Hindu settlement in Jammu and Kashmir, they wanted to demographic transformation of state from
a Muslim Majority to Hindu Majority. Third, they wanted to change all those laws which were
related to land ownership and residency status to encourage non-Muslims to settle in the disputed
region. However, instead of ending the dispute and ensuring the integration of disputed territory
into Union of India, all the decisions and policies has deepened the sense of alienation. All the
measures including the removal of regions special status reinforced the belief that the political
future of Jammu and Kashmir is being decided without the consent of its people. Moreover, the
Hindutva government framed the decisions as a step towards development but in reality the
restrictions, military operations and political uncertainty have continued to affect trade, tourism
and everyday livelihoods.
Alongside the revocation of article 370 and 35A and bifurcation of state into two union
territories, a range of hegemonic polices have been introduced including the new domicile laws,
changes in land ownership rules, establishment of sainik and Pandith colonies, ban on socio
religious parties, expanded surveillance of religious institutions especially mosques, increased
militarization and excessive use of repressive laws like Public Safety Act (PSA), Unlawful
Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) to suppress and oppress dissent. All these measures have totally
reshaped the political and social dynamics of Jammu and Kashmir. These policies have curtailed
the political activities of people of Jammu and Kashmir to advocate for their political aspirations,
intensified armed forces control and raised serious questions about the identity, dignity and future
of the region.
Undoubtedly, all these policies are implemented by the Hindutva government led by the
Narendra Modi in Jammu and Kashmir after coming into power that has significantly altered
political, administrative and demographic dynamics of region, however, the process of
demographic transformation did not only originate after they came into power, its historical roots
can be traced back to the period of the partition of the British India, particularly during the Jammu
Massacre, when lakhs of Muslims were killed and displaced from the Jammu region. This early
momentum that altered the demographic composition of the region and weakened its Muslim
majority character reflects that ideological forces that later crystallized politically within the BJP
and the boarder Hindutva framework were already present and inclined toward reshaping the
demographic and political structure of the state. The early phase was marked largely by hard power
tactics, violence, coercion and forced displacement which had immediate consequences and laid
the foundations for subsequent political and demographic shifts within the region.
However, the strategy is widely perceived to have evolved from overt coercion to more
institutionalized and policy driven mechanism. All the measures which were taken after the
assumption of power are forms of soft power aimed to gradually reconfiguring the social and
political character of Jammu and Kashmir. The transition from direct force to administrative and
legal instruments reflects a broader shift in approach, where the objectives are pursued through
structured policy interventions rather than explicit coercive measures.
Moreover, the implementation of Hindutva Policies in Kashmir has relied exclusively on
hard power tactics rather than dialogue or consent based governance. All the measures including
the establishment of military and paramilitary colonies, land grab, ban on pro-resistance political
parties demonstrates a realpolitik approach, the union government of India leverages coercion,
surveillance, and demographic engineering to achieve its objectives. The strategy only prioritizes
only control and compliance over legitimacy, relying on the use of force, arbitrary detention and
systematic suppression of dissent. In essence, these policies are designed to consolidate territorial
and political dominance through the application of state power, illustrating a calculated, hardline
approach to integrating disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir under a centralized Hindutva
agenda. The absence of soft power tactics highlights Hindutva’s realistic approach rooted in
coercion, signaling that the Hindutva Government considers use of force and administrative
restructuring as primary tools for maintaining control in the disputed region.
Moreover, the implementation of Hindutva driven policies have raised serious concerns
regarding the violations of international standards, human rights norms and democratic principles.
Measures like revocation of semi-autonomous status, bifurcation of state, ban on socio-religious
parties, mass detention, surveillance, establishment of military colonies and frequent
communication blackouts have undermined the core democratic values and principles. The
extensive use of military force, surveillance, restrictions on assembly and suppression of dissenting
voices has created an environment where fundamental freedoms like freedom of expression,
association and peaceful protests are severely constrained.
Furthermore, The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom
(USCIRF) has recommended sanctions on the Hindutva’s government’s ideological and cultural
wing, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) due to concerns about its role in promoting or
enabling religious intolerance and human rights violations in India. These sanctions are closely
linked to the policies implemented in Jammu and Kashmir by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP),
the political wing of the RSS, reflecting a continuum from ideological influence to governance
actions.
The RSS’s Hindu nationalist ideology fundamentally shapes the BJP’s political agenda,
particularly in Jammu and Kashmir. This ideological foundation drives efforts to integrate the
region fully into the Indian Union, aligning with the RSS’s vision of a unified Hindu-majority
nation. The constitutional changes in Kashmir aimed to dissolve the region’s distinct political
identity, leading to increased central control, widespread unrest, and heightened military measures.
Following the revocation, extensive security protocols were imposed, including curfews,
communication blackouts, and the detention of political leaders and activists. These measures have
drawn international scrutiny for human rights concerns, mirroring USCIRF’s warnings about
religious intolerance and abuses linked to RSS-affiliated entities. The situation in Kashmir
exemplifies the type of state actions that underpin USCIRF’s rationale for recommending
sanctions.
Moreover, the BJP’s policies, influenced by RSS ideology, have been criticized for
exacerbating religious and ethnic tensions in Kashmir’s Muslim-majority population. These
policies are perceived as marginalizing religious and cultural identities, undermining minority
protections, and contributing to an environment of intolerance and repression.
USCIRF’s recommended sanctions on the RSS thus respond to broader patterns of
ideological influence translating into governance actions with significant human rights
implications. The Kashmir example illustrates how domestic policies aligned with RSS goals have
provoked international concern, prompting calls for accountability and diplomatic pressure to
uphold religious freedom and minority rights.
Moreover, these recommendations include designation under the Global Magnitsky
Human Rights Accountability Act, allowing the U.S. government to impose asset freezes and
travel bans on key RSS leaders and affiliated entities. Targeted financial sanctions are also
proposed to block the property and financial interests of the RSS and its leaders within U.S.
jurisdiction.
Additionally, USCIRF suggests visa restrictions to prevent RSS leaders and affiliates from
traveling to the United States. Diplomatic measures form another aspect of the recommendations,
urging the U.S. government to raise concerns about the RSS in bilateral discussions with India and
to condition certain cooperation on improvements in religious freedom and human rights.
These sanctions seek to hold the RSS accountable for contributing to religious persecution
and violence, particularly against minority communitiess
Ultimately, the strategic implementation of Hindutva centric policies ranging from
intensified militarization to the fundamental restructuring of land and residency frameworks has
catalyzed a paradigm shift in the region’s socio-political landscape. By leveraging punitive
legislative instruments and revising territorial statutes, the state has effectively recalibrated the
political order, reflecting a governance strategy predicated on hegemonic consolidation and the
rigid regulation of the public sphere.
