Why India is a sham democracy
India presents itself internationally as the world’s largest democracy—a claim anchored in its constitution, regular electoral cycles, and long-standing republican institutions.
However, democratic legitimacy cannot be assessed solely through procedural markers. Where the will of a population is suppressed, where dissent is criminalised, and where governance is sustained through force rather than consent, democracy ceases to be substantive and becomes performative.
Nowhere is this contradiction more visible than in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK). Despite being a territory recognised internationally as disputed, Kashmir has been governed for decades through extraordinary laws, heavy militarisation, and systematic political disenfranchisement. In this region, India’s democratic narrative collapses under the weight of documented massacres, widespread human rights violations, suppression of civil liberties, and the denial of the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination.
The denial of self-determination
The most profound democratic failure in Kashmir lies in the systematic denial of the right to self-determination. This right, enshrined in the UN Charter and reaffirmed through multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions (1948–49), recognises that the people of Jammu and Kashmir must be allowed to determine their political future through a free and impartial plebiscite. India accepted these resolutions at the United Nations but never implemented them.
The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has repeatedly emphasised that self-determination is not merely a political aspiration but a fundamental human right. Its denial constitutes a continuing violation under international law. Democracy cannot coexist with permanent denial of consent. A state that governs a population indefinitely without allowing it to choose its political status may hold elections, but it does not practice democracy in substance. In Kashmir, this denial is not historical—it is ongoing.
From conditional autonomy to direct rule
On 5 August 2019, India unilaterally revoked Articles 370 and 35A of its constitution, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its limited autonomous status. This decision was taken without consultation with the Kashmiri people or their elected representatives. In fact, most mainstream political leaders were detained, and the region was placed under an unprecedented security lockdown.
The constitutional reorganisation downgraded the state into two Union Territories, placing real authority in the hands of a centrally appointed Lieutenant Governor. This effectively dismantled the last remaining institutional safeguards for local political agency.
Militarisation and governance by exception
Kashmir today is among the most militarised regions in the world, with an estimated hundreds of thousands of troops deployed. Governance operates under a framework of exceptional laws, most notably the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and the Public Safety Act (PSA).
AFSPA grants security forces powers to shoot to kill, arrest without warrant, and conduct searches with minimal oversight. Crucially, it provides de facto immunity by requiring government sanction for prosecution—a sanction that is rarely, if ever, granted. The PSA allows detention without trial for up to two years, often on vague or recycled charges.
According to Kashmir Media Service, since the late 1980s, more than 96,000 Kashmiris have been killed, thousands have been forcibly disappeared, and tens of thousands detained arbitrarily. Entire generations have grown up under constant surveillance, raids, and fear.
Month of massacres: January
Gawkadal Massacre
On 21 January 1990, Indian paramilitary forces opened fire on unarmed protesters at Gawkadal Bridge in Srinagar. Demonstrators were protesting political repression demanding basic rights. Without warning, fired indiscriminately into the crowd, killing at least 50 civilians. Many victims were shot in the back, indicating they were fleeing rather than posing a threat.
Handwara Massacre (1990)
The Handwara Massacre of 1990 occurred on May 25, when Indian BSF forces opened fire on unarmed protesters in Handwara, Kupwara district, killing 21 civilians and injuring dozens more. Eyewitnesses described chaos as families fled the streets. This incident highlighted the use of excessive force against civilians and the impunity of security forces under laws like AFSPA, deepening fear and resentment in Kashmir.
Sopore Massacre (1993)
Indian BSF forces opened fire on unarmed civilians, resulting in over 43 deaths, numerous injuries, and the destruction of homes and businesses. Eyewitness accounts describe chaos and panic as residents attempted to flee the indiscriminate violence. The incident reflects the unlawful use of force against non-combatants and highlights the impunity afforded to security personnel under laws such as the AFSPA.
Kupwara Massacre (1994)
On November 27, Indian security forces, including the 31 Madras Regiment and 15 Punjab Regiment, engaged in indiscriminate firing on civilians in Kupwara district, resulting in the deaths of at least 21 individuals and injuries to many others. Eyewitnesses described the scene as chaotic, with unarmed men, women, and children caught in crossfire.
Legal analysis
Under International Human Rights Law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the right to life is non-derogable. Lethal force may be used only when strictly unavoidable to protect life. The massacres in Kashmir fail this test entirely.
Under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, applicable in non- international armed conflicts, violence against civilians, cruel treatment, and collective punishment are explicitly prohibited. The burning of civilian property and indiscriminate killings constitute grave violations of customary International Humanitarian Law.
Elections without freedom
India frequently invokes elections in Kashmir as proof of democratic legitimacy, but this claim does not withstand serious legal or political scrutiny. Elections conducted under conditions of prolonged military occupation—marked by mass arrests of political leaders, routine use of preventive detention laws, restrictions on movement, and pervasive surveillance—cannot meet the minimum standards of free and fair political participation. When the public sphere is militarised and dissent is equated with criminality, the act of voting is stripped of its democratic meaning.
As Amartya Sen rightly observed, “Democracy is not merely about voting; it rests on the freedom to think, speak, organise, and dissent without fear.”
Media suppression
A free and independent press is a cornerstone of democratic accountability, serving as a check on state power and a conduit for public truth. In Kashmir, however, journalism operates under constant threat. Reporters face police raids, interrogations, surveillance, travel bans, and prosecution under sweeping anti-terror and public order laws. Media offices have been sealed, equipment seized, and journalists routinely summoned for questioning over routine reporting, creating an environment of intimidation and self-censorship.
Amnesty International
Amnesty International’s 2025 briefing: “We Are Being Punished by the Law: Three Years of Abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu & Kashmir” documents a sustained campaign to silence independent voices. The organisation found that civil society, journalists, lawyers and human rights defenders have faced “relentless interrogations, arbitrary travel bans, revolving-door detentions and repressive media policies” since 2019.
Amnesty warns that the Indian government has effectively taken “total control of information coming out of the region after passing restrictive media policies”, and that authorities have employed draconian laws and unlawful practices specifically to stifle dissent and intimidate credible, independent sources of information. Amnesty also recorded at least 60 instances of crackdowns on journalists and human rights defenders between August 2019 and early 2025, including summons, travel bans and detentions without clear legal justification — all of which contribute to a chilling environment for press freedom.
Psychological control
Recent policies, including VPN bans, prolonged internet shutdowns, and surveillance of digital activity, have transformed everyday life into an environment of constant monitoring. Residents describe these measures as forms of psychological pressure designed to induce compliance and silence dissent. Digital repression in Kashmir is not incidental; it is a deliberate strategy to control narrative and isolate the population.
Religious profiling
In early 2026, Indian authorities in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir launched an unprecedented and highly intrusive exercise to profile mosques, madrasas, and religious functionaries across the territory. Police began circulating multi-page forms demanding extensive information on mosque properties, ideological or sectarian affiliation, sources of funding, monthly expenditures, land ownership, congregation capacity, and administrative structures. More alarmingly, subsequent pages required detailed personal data on imams, muezzins, khatibs, and others associated with these institutions—including mobile phone numbers, email addresses, bank account and financial details, passport information, social media handles, and even the model and IMEI numbers of their mobile devices.
Religious leaders were also asked to disclose travel histories and whether they had relatives abroad, raising profound privacy and freedom-of-religion concerns. Residents described the exercise as far beyond a routine survey, characterising it as state surveillance under the guise of data collection. Senior clerics and bodies such as the Mutahida Majlis-e-Ulema (MMU) condemned the profiling for violating spiritual autonomy and privacy rights, noting that sacred institutions traditionally self- managed by their communities were being treated as sites of suspicion and control. Critics argue the differential application of such measures; targeting only Muslim institutions—signals discriminatory intent, deepens alienation, and infringes on fundamental freedoms guaranteed under both international human rights law and humanitarian law.
The polarised reality of minorities in India
Reports regarding the condition of minorities in India present deeply contrasting narratives, ranging from allegations of systemic, "abysmal" marginalisation to official assertions of safety, comprehensive development, and constitutional protection. International reports, including those cited by the USCIRF (United States Commission on International Religious Freedom), have noted an increase in violence against religious minorities, particularly Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs, often by right-wing groups.
Critics and observers allege that since 2014, the rise of Hindutva-inspired ideologies has led to a more exclusionary environment, where minorities are targeted through cow-vigilantism, hate speech, and campaigns like "love jihad." Reports have highlighted a growing sense of insecurity among Muslims, who, despite occupying important positions, often face social and economic exclusion, with studies showing a higher prevalence of discrimination and socio-economic deprivation. Concerns have been raised regarding the complicity of law enforcement, with reports indicating a lack of prompt action in cases of mob violence or communal incidents. The Indian government maintains that the constitution guarantees equal rights and protections for all citizens, regardless of religion. Government proponents point to the significant share of minorities in welfare schemes, such as the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (31% in some areas), Kisan Samman Nidhi (33%), and Mudra Yojana (36%), arguing that there is a, focusing on their economic and social welfare. In 2025, a government minister claimed that India is the "safest place for minorities.
Selected democracy
The international community; including the United Nations, major world powers, and global human rights mechanisms—must confront an uncomfortable reality: India’s democratic self- portrait collapses when examined through the lens of Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. While elections, courts, and institutions function elsewhere, Kashmir is governed through coercion, surveillance, and systematic denial of fundamental freedoms.
Under the Modi-led BJP government, Kashmir has witnessed the wholesale erosion of civil and political rights. Freedom of expression, thought, assembly, religion, and the press have been deliberately curtailed through law, force, and fear.
Until Kashmiris are allowed to freely exercise their right to self- determination, and until fundamental rights are restored without discrimination, India’s claim to democratic integrity will remain deeply compromised. Silence in the face of these realities does not preserve stability; it entrenches injustice.
Kashmiris are entitled to the right to self-determination, as affirmed by multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions (1948–49). Yet India has persistently refused to implement these resolutions, instead imposing direct rule, revoking autonomy, and suppressing dissent. The current governance model reflects a form of “Modicracy,” where power is centralised, opposition is criminalised, and elections function as tools of control rather than genuine democratic choice.
Excerpts from a report by the Institute of Voice of Victims, Islamabad
All facts and information are the sole responsibility of the writers