Genocide in Kashmir and the United Nations Failure to Invoke Responsibility to Protect (R2P): Causes and Consequences

1 Introduction

The seven decades prolonged dispute over Jammu & Kashmir is a nuclear flashpoint between India and Pakistan, preventing peace, tranquility, and good neighborly relations in South Asia. It has led to two major wars and many small scale skirmishes in the past seven decades (Ganguly 1998). The genesis of the dispute can be traced back to the partition plan of India, which gave the choice to 565 Princely states to join either India or Pakistan considering the religious, geographic, economic, and ethnic affinity (Lamb 1991). Jammu and Kashmir being the only Muslim majority state wanted to accede Pakistan, yet Maharaja Harri Singh’s instrument of accession to India dragged the two neighbors into the first war in 1947–1948. Consequently, Pakistan liberated one-third territory from Dogra rule, yet the remaining is under Indian control. Since then, India is violating the fundamental human rights recognized by the UN, deliberately involved in genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. The Indian security forces overtly killed nearly a hundred thousand innocent civilians, illegally detained thousands in detention camps, and introduced several draconian laws to repudiate the basic human rights (Fayaz 2016).

The peoples of Jammu & Kashmir are struggling for the inherent right of self-determination a right recognized by the international peace keeping bodies and civilized nations, but India has been denying to accept it. Meanwhile, years of mismanagement and oppressive rule of India set the stage for an uprising in the late 1980s and streets of Srinagar experienced a new phase of the intifada. The legitimate demand was brutally crushed by the Indian forces and mass demonstrations of civilian killings, kidnapping, extra-judicial killing, gang rape, and property vandalism were reported across the region. Indian central government introduced various draconian laws contrary to the international human rights law, and provided immunity to security forces deployed in the Jammu & Kashmir region to commit the overt acts of genocide.

Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) define genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” (OSAPG n.d.). As per the definition, Indian inhumane acts in Jammu & Kashmir are part of a larger plan of genocide. Indian security forces are intentionally killing the Kashmiri civilians, using the pellet gun to blind Kashmiris, detaining them in torture camps, raping women, and destroying the physical and psychological conditions of Kashmiri peoples. Since the abolition of the Special Status of Jammu & Kashmir on August 5, 2019, eight million peoples are living in complete siege and no one is immune from the Indian brutality (Wani 2020).

The world community developed a robust mechanism to stop the genocide and ethnic cleansing after witnessing the same in Rwanda and Balkans. The then Secretary-General Kofi Annan of the UNGA made pleas to the international community to find a way to stop human suffering. Therefore, the Canadian government in September 2000 established the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. In 2001, it presented a report on “Responsibility to Protect” (ICISS 2001). In 2005, the UN adopted the R2P commitment with wider support from member states. The UN invoked R2P in certain cases but failed to do so in the case of Indian atrocities in the occupied Kashmir. Therefore, the present paper investigates the compelling factors behind the UN inability to invoke the norm. The paper argues that failure is a consequence of systemic and domestic factors. At the system level, the US is safeguarding its dominance with the help of India. The UN being a global peacekeeper is dependent on major powers including India, so it is not in a position to incite the Indian anger. At the domestic level, India is an emerging state with economic, military, diplomatic, and political clout, so its voice is more pronounced than the plights of peoples of Kashmir. Therefore, the high politics of major powers and emerging Indian status forbid the UN to invoke R2P.

The paper is organized into five major sections. Section one illuminates the theoretical underpinning, followed by the Indian atrocities in the Jammu & Kashmir. The third section explicitly highlights the barriers behind the UN failure, followed by a section on opportunities and challenges for Pakistan. The last section concludes the study.

2 R2P: Theory and Practice

The responsibility to protect is not a new concept, rather the European states in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century have effectively used the humanitarian intervention to protect the life and economic interests of Christians in the Ottoman Empire. Yet, the erosion of state sovereignty in the inter-war period led the statesmen to develop a coherent framework to simultaneously safeguard the state sovereignty and human rights of citizens. So the Charter of United Nations correspondingly prohibits the use of force in Article 2(4), and legally bind the member states to respect the human rights in article 1(3) of the charter (Francioni and Christine 2013). But the unfortunate genocide occurs in Rwanda in 1994, the inability of the UN Peacekeeping force to prevent the massacre at Srebrenica, Bosnia in 1995, and an unauthorized NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999 required the international community to develop an effective political mechanism to collectively respond to such kind of tragedies. So the restrictive concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) came forth and mandates the UNSC to prevent such kind of crimes (Welsh 2009).

The United Nations approved the framework of R2P in a 2005 world summit meeting to tackle the plights of citizens under suppression and assimilation. Articles 138 and 139 of the World Summit Outcome Document “have not only affirmed the primary responsibility of states to protect their citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, but also accepted the collective responsibility to assist each other in fulfilling this responsibility, and declared their preparedness to take timely and decisive action through the Security Council, and in accordance with the United Nations Charter, when national authorities manifestly fail to protect and peaceful means have proven inadequate” (Welsh 2017). Since R2P as a political norm is in conformity with the established fundamental standards of human rights as well as international criminal and humanitarian laws (such as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as well as the 1967 Protocol; Convention on the Rights of the Child; Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; and Arms Trade Treaty) (Ercan 2015). In this regard, it can be safe to argue that the R2P norm has a close resemblance with the established standards of human rights and the international community unanimously adopted it to save the civilians from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.

R2P is articulated around three pillars. The pillar one recognizes the responsibility of a sovereign state to protect its citizens from the four types of crimes. The pillar two entails that if a state is not capable enough to protect its citizens, the global community then helps the state to develop the capacity to safeguard its population. The pillar three illustrates that if a state manifestly involves in genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, then the responsibility to protect citizen’s transfer to the international community, and it has the mandate to take collective action appropriately and decisively through the guidelines given in the Chapter VI and VIII of the United Nations Charter (United Nations 2005). Therefore, it is understood that the sovereign state is exclusively responsible to protect citizens, and the international community helps the state to develop the capacity to fulfill obligations, nonetheless, if a state itself involves in mass human rights violations, the international community then retain the residual responsibility to protect the population in a timely and decisive response.

Although the states have made significant improvements to implement the Pillar I and Pillar II responsibilities, yet the record of Pillar III – decisive and timely response has a mixed record. The humanitarian catastrophe began in Libya in February 2011, when a rebellion broke out and the Gaddafi regime used the unprecedented force to kill the ‘cockroaches’, a term used by the Gaddafi to designate the protestors (Zifcak 2012). After mounting civilian casualties, on February 26, the Security Council passed the resolution 1970 condemning the widespread and systematic killing of civilians and demanded an end to state-sponsored violence (UNSC 2011). When the Libyan government continued to kill civilians the UNSC met again on March 17 and deliberately discussed the deteriorating human rights situation and state-sponsored persecution. The outcome was the adoption of Resolution 1973 (UNSC 2011). The council expressed its stern disappointment with the Libyan government to comply with the responsibility to protect its citizen and authorized a military intervention by a coalition of nations under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) umbrella (Zifcak 2012).

Two days later, the coalition forces initiated the military campaign over the Benghazi area against the government forces and military installations. The US deprived the Gaddafi forces of its air defense system, provided intelligence about the deployment of Libyan forces to the coalition partners for air assault. Once the fighting continued between government forces and NATO, the coalition forces decided to change the regime to save the civilians from extermination. The UNSC authorization revealed the old age practice of humanitarian intervention and compromise for state sovereignty, so Gaddafi’s dispossession from power was deemed natural (Francioni and Christine 2013). In the meantime, Libyan military action is influenced by the humanitarian and wider geopolitical and geostrategic interests. Some regional states and the US wanted to use the most celebrated Arab Spring movement to remove the Gaddafi from power and to increase the US force’s presence in the region for geosecurity, geopolitical and economic interests (Schmitt and Sanger 2011).

With the demise of Gaddafi, the international community seriously considers the internal turmoil in Syria and resulted gross human rights violations. Multiple credible sources confirmed that the Assad regime has committed serious crimes against humanity requiring international response to end the extermination of civilians. Syrian Center for Policy Research documented between 15 March 2011 and May 2016, 470,000 peoples were killed. Similarly, the UN and Arab League recorded that 400,000 people were killed between March 15 and April 2016. The atrocities and genocide in Syria increased the importance of a decisive and timely response under the umbrella of R2P. But the world powers have remained at odds on how to intervene and save civilians from the negative repercussions of disorder (Erameh 2017). The entire context of the crisis has become problematic as different actors view the situation from the opposite lens. For instance, Russia and China have continued to veto the UNSC resolutions since the beginning of the crisis. They are of the view that the intervention will end up in the regime change in Syria such as was carried out in Libya.

The failure to make advancement in Syria is complex. Security and national interests of domestic, regional, and international stakeholders are at stake (Eddine 2012). Emerging and the established power is maneuvering for Realpolitik and power politics. Three veto members of the UNSC (US, Russia, and China) are facing off in a contest for the new Middle East. Gareth Evans, Co-founder of R2P stated, “Syria has a very different geopolitical environment, no Arab League unanimity in favor of tough action; a long Russian commitment to the Assad regime; and strong Syrian armed forces with a credible air-defense system, meaning that any intervention would be difficult and bloody” (Evans 2012). In short, the quest for major powers to secure natural resources, political and economic influence makes it difficult for the UNSC to apply R2P in Syria.

The genocide and crimes against humanity in Gaza demand immediate intervention from the UNSC. The civilians are largely affected by the lingering conflict between Israeli forces and Hamas. Ilan Pappe in 2007 labeled civilian killings as ‘genocide’ in Gaza and ‘ethnic cleansing’ in West Bank and urged the international community to stop the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Gaza is an inter-state conflict between Palestine and Israel (Ercan 2015). The Palestinian Authority is a legitimate representative of the state, whereas Hamas is the de facto government exercising authority on the territory of Gaza and Israel is illegally occupying the area and targeting civilians. The conflict is inter-state among Hamas, PA, and Israel. Hamas is overtly challenging the authority of the PA through firing rockets on Israeli forces, whereas the retaliatory response of Israel largely targets the civilians. Nevertheless, the nature of inter-state conflict and geopolitical struggle of big powers makes it difficult for the UN to call for responsibility to protect (Hindawi 2014). Yet, the case of Kashmir is unique, as India proclaims it an integral part of the state, but the security forces stationed in Kashmir are deliberately committing the genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. Like Libya and Syria, Indian government is itself perpetrating the crimes against humanity, so Kashmir calls the international community to fulfill its responsibility and to save civilians from persecution.

3 Indian Occupation and Human Rights Abuses in Kashmir

The nation-states are sovereign in determining their internal and external policies, fully responsible to protect their citizens from harm and dangers. They constitute certain laws to uphold the basic rights and protect citizens from persecution. India always praises its democratic and secular posture. Nonetheless, the situation in Jammu & Kashmir is contradictory. Since 1947, the fundamental human rights of peoples of Jammu and Kashmir have been grossly violated by the Indian occupied forces. The paramilitary troops are purposefully involved in systematic killings and gross violations of basic human rights, using various draconian laws to legitimize the persecution. Since January 1989, the suppressive forces persecuted some hundred thousand Kashmiris to change the demography of the region (KMS 2016). The given table illustrates the human rights violations committed by the Indian forces in the region.

The forces are part of the gross and systematic assassination of citizens of Kashmir. On 8th July 2016, the Indian security forces killed a 22-year charismatic leader of Hizbul Mujahedeen Burhan Muzaffar Wani. The murder of the Kashmiri poster boy provoked the widespread protests across the valley deteriorated the law and order situation. The law enforcement agencies used the brutal force to control and curtail the crowds leading to higher numbers of causalities and injuries. It is estimated that around 145 civilians were killed and heavy injuries were reported from July 2016 to the end of March 2018 (OHCHR 2018). “Human Rights Watch” reported that “Indian forces in Kashmir have engaged in massive human rights violations, including extrajudicial executions, rape, torture and deliberate assault on health care workers” (HRW 1993). The UN commission for human rights have also expressed grave concerns for peoples of Kashmir. Back in 1992 and 1993, human rights conditions aggravated as the security forces embarked on a “catch and kill” campaign against the militants. The summary executions of detainees, civilian massacres, and shooting of unarmed protestors have become a routine life in Kashmir. The citizens in Kashmir often face widespread degradation of human rights in the form of extrajudicial killings, wounds, unlawful detentions, torture, sexual violence, disappearances, and vandalism of civilian goods, chattels, and properties throughout the conflict (JKCCS 2016).

The pellet-short gun has become a weapon of security forces to control and curtail the protestors in the Jammu & Kashmir. This has been exceptionally used amidst the unrest from 2016 to 2018 (Amnesty International 2018). The UNHRC report of 2019 exposed that despite the warnings issued by human rights groups and civil society activists, security forces continue to use the pellet shotgun to disperse the crowds. Doctors at Shri Maharaja Hari Singh Hospital confirmed the eyesight loss of 1253 individuals from mid-2016 to the end of 2018 (OHCHR 2019). Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) estimated that 1726 civilians were injured by the metal pellets in 2016. In January 2018, former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti testified to the state assembly that the pellet gun injured the 6221 individuals from 8th July 2016 to 27th February 2017 (OHCHR 2019). Among them, 728 suffered eye injuries. According to the UN Convention, the use of pellets is torture and a violation of the international convention on Civil and Political Rights. Article 7 inscribes “No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (JKCCS n.d.). So, the use of a pellet gun is a serious crime against humanity including the rights associated with life, personal freedom, a reason to livelihood, and work.

The security forces are using rape as a weapon to terrorize the locals. The sexual assault and intimidation of Kashmiri women have become a routine phenomenon for security forces during the “cordon and search” operations. It is a matter of fact, that army and paramilitary forces have been involved in rape, but no serious investigations have taken place. Security forces personnel’s involvement in rape cases is a somber violation of International human rights and humanitarian law. Torture is a crime under the Indian criminal law and it has very often sentenced members of police and security forces involved in the rape cases. Indian Penal Code under section 376 para 1 entails that, a minimum term of seven years imprisonment is to be obligatorily imposed for rape. Also, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 1983 prescribes compulsory imprisonment for 10 years for custodial rape and human rights abuses (Asia Watch 1993). Nonetheless, security forces deployed in Kashmir are immune from these laws, and victims are denied to offer justice and reparation. It is reported by “Kashmir Media Service” that security forces raped 11,224 women including as young as 11 years and as old as 60-year women. The major incident of gang rape took place on the night of October 10, 1992, when 23 women were gang-raped by the security forces personnel in the town of Shopian and Kunan Pushpura, district Pulwama (Asia Watch 1993).

India has granted the sweeping powers to security forces under various laws and ordinances. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), 1990 is one of them. Section 7 of AFSPA grants complete immunity to the security forces personnel from prosecution for human rights violations. The record of Amnesty International from 1989 to 2013 exposed that army and security forces killed more than 800 civilians in custodial torture and hundreds another in extrajudicial executions (Amnesty International 2015). Yet, despite the undeniable facts not a single member of security forces deployed and positioned in Jammu and Kashmir faced trial for human rights violations in a civilian court. The International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice based in Jammu and Kashmir (IPTK) reported 214 human rights violation cases in December 2012, but nothing has been done to bring justice to victims (OHCHR 2018).

The peoples of Jammu and Kashmir are living in a prolonged threat to life, dignity, and property. The Public Safety Act (PSA) is in place to detain any individual without charge or trial for up to two years. This has often been invoked to book protestors, political dissidents, and other activists based on indefinite grounds for long terms. In 2018, Section 10 of the PSA has amended by the state government of Jammu & Kashmir to allow the detention of permanent residents of Jammu & Kashmir outside the state. At least, 40 separatist political leaders have been transferred to prisons outside the state in 2018. Yasin Malik, Chairman of JKLF has also been detained under PSA and transferred to Tihar Jail in New Delhi, where he kept in solitary confinement, denied the basic medical and food facilities (The Nation 2019).

August 5, 2019, is a black day in the history of Jammu & Kashmir. On this day, New Delhi abrogated the Article 370 and 35A, stepped down the special status of Jammu & Kashmir, and completely integrated the region into the Union territory. India has deployed the additional troops and imposed a curfew to curtail the protests against its illegal decision. Since then, Kashmir is under complete siege, Peoples are kept in a cage, internet and communication facilities have been terminated, and curfew has been put in place (Hussain 2019). The arrest of civilians, forced disappearances, and torture has become a common practice in the area. Security forces are free to use the indiscriminate power to curtail the anti-curfew sentiments. The food and medicine supply is in short in the area and peoples are denied to offer basic health facilities. In the meantime, the government rejected to allow human rights groups and civil society to monitor the situation and put stringent measures to camouflage the situation.

The abrogation of Article 370 and 35A exposed the evil designs of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to bring a demographic change in the region. The presidential decree stepped down the special status of the state permitting the non-state individuals to purchase property, and secure the government jobs in the region. The change could be disastrous for Jammu & Kashmir, as non-state settlers will largely transform the Muslim majority into a minority. The indigenous peoples bluntly rejected the Indian notion and urged the international community to take notice of nefarious Indian designs (BBC News 2019). Genocide Watch, a US-based pressure group has issued a genocide alert for the Indian occupied Kashmir. The alert called on the United Nations and the international community to warn India not to commit the genocide in the region, as the ruling BJP is on a campaign to make India a pure Hindu state. The prior genocidal massacres and continuing impunity has also increased the consciousness for a pre-planned genocide and ethnic cleansing in the Indian Occupied Jammu & Kashmir (Genocide Watch 2019).

4 Opportunities and Challenges for Pakistan

Pakistan is a country with a fragile economy, a weak political system, and an unstable social structure. The economic situation is not satisfactory due to overburdened foreign debt and military spending. The country often turned to the multilateral monetary institutions and friendly states for debt servicing. So, economic dependence and excessive military spending left minimum policy options for the country. It is a matter of fact that economically strong states hold the decision-making position in the international system and fragile states act as clients of capitalism. Their position in the international system makes no impact on the geopolitical and geostrategic endeavors of major powers. Pakistan is facing a similar dilemma. Islamabad always remain dependent on foreign powers for military and economic stability.

Political instability is another major challenge to Pakistan’s policy on the Kashmir dispute. Frequent military interventions and incompetent political leadership seriously damage the foreign policy of the country. During the military regimes, the foreign office turned idle in policy guidelines, and the military took control of the Kashmir’s policy and often used military maneuvers to liberate the region from the Indian occupation. Yet these adventures along with the aloofness of political leadership raised serious questions on Pakistani credibility at international forums. The muted and nascent diplomacy during the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PMLN) regime left unprecedented damage to the Kashmir cause. The post of foreign affairs minister remains vacant in the entire tenure of Nawaz Sharif (Jamil 2018). This unfortunate decision not only strengthens the Indian view, meanwhile it hampered the Pakistani perspective. The situation is not much different than 2013, as Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government is muddled in domestic political troika and offsetting the importance of the Kashmir dispute. Though, the government appointed a new head of the parliamentary committee on Kashmir, but its work remains pathetic. The new chairman is involved in party politics and largely ignoring his primary task to document and share the plights of Kashmiri peoples. In the meantime, the diplomatic team lacks vision and a policy framework over the Kashmir dispute. The foreign office and Pakistan’s permanent mission to the United Nations failed to counter the Indian diplomatic offensive (Hussain 2019).

If Pakistan wants to liberate Kashmir, it must end the economic dependency and follow the path of self-resilience. It can achieve economic freedom through cutting unnecessary non-development expenditures, upsurge the export of services and goods, and a major cut in imports. Meanwhile, a transparent and investment-friendly industrial policy can help Pakistan to attract the foreign direct investment and a boost in exports. An economically strong Pakistan will be able to contribute more to international economic stability and induce the international community to play an active role in the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. Economic and investment potential not only sustain Pakistan’s standing in international politics, meanwhile the accrued economic benefits will also encourage the major capitals to listen and endorse the Pakistani perspective. Domestic political differences must be settled down and a collective policy framework on Kashmir should be drawn. A major diplomatic offensive is a dire need of the hour to counter the Indian diplomatic influence in major capitals across the globe. A cognizance and trained diplomatic cadre along with documented facts of human rights violations in the Jammu & Kashmir can induce the United Nations and the international leadership to condemn the Indian atrocities. Proactive diplomacy and foreign policy can win the diplomatic war of Kashmir.

Additionally, the two decades of India–United States strategic partnership cost unprecedented damage to Pakistan. The United States not only refused to endorse the Pakistani position on Kashmir, but it has also used multiple forums to pressure Pakistan. The United States and India used their influence in the FATF to include Pakistan in a gray list on allegations of terror financing and money laundering (Karim and Hayat 2019). To counter the India–United States nexus, Pakistan needs to explore the new avenues of relationship based on converged interests. China, Russia, and Turkey can play a more sustained role in the illumination of Pakistan’s perspective on Kashmir. The common interest of these countries to contain the United States influence in the global and regional politics can be beneficial for Islamabad to achieve its policy objectives. The Veto power of China and Russia can be instrumental for Pakistan to challenge any unfavorable decision in the UN Security Council and beyond.

5 Conclusion

The R2P concept has developed by the UN to save citizens from the persecution of state and non-state actors. The concept is based on three pillars; i.e. states assume sole responsibility to protect citizens, the international community help states to build capacity for protection, and the international community should take timely and decisive action in case of state-sponsored persecution. The Indian massacres in the Jammu & Kashmir require the cognizant attention of the international community, as the Indian security forces are systematically and deliberately involved in the gross human rights abuses. The atrocities have been documented by the UN Commission on Human Rights and other credible groups working in the domain of human rights, yet the inability of the UN to take effective action is questionable. The analysis exposes that the domestic and systemic variables largely influence the UN reluctance to invoke R2P. At the system level, the high politics of economic and military interests of major powers in India and the UN dependence overruled the concerns of human rights abuses in the Jammu & Kashmir. Equally, ascertains that the geography of Jammu & Kashmir largely ignores in the new geopolitical great game of major powers, and India’s rise as a regional hegemon further augment its position in regional political and security architecture. On the other hand, Pakistan’s limited capacity and domestic instability inhibit it to internationalize the crimes of India. The Indian growing power in the international system and Pakistan’s limited capacity to present Kashmir on the international forum making headways for UN failure.

Since 1947, Kashmir experienced various episodes of crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. The tragedy of November 1947 is most vehement when the Dogra forces with the aide of Sikhs and RSS extremists slaughtered some 230,000 Muslims in Jammu region alone. The second wave of slaughter started from 1989 to 2019 with the killing of around 100,000 innocent peoples in the protracted conflict. Since August 5, 2019, the third episode of massacres is in full swing, as India repealed the special status of Jammu & Kashmir. The New Delhi put eight million civilians in the cage and planning to undertake the massive ethnic cleansing and demographic change. On March 31, 2020, the ruling BJP quietly amended the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act 2019 and redefined the permanent residents by introducing a policy of issuing domicile certificates (Ahmar 2020). The amended Act serves the agenda of extremist BJP to settle the Hindu extremists and BJP cadres in the Kashmir. The Act is a blueprint of the Modi government’s plan to persecute the Muslim population and change the demography of Kashmir. The large scale assassination will turn the Muslim majority into a minority and will pave the way for a greater India. Before it is too late, the international community and the UN seriously consider the issue and take decisive and timely action to save the Kashmiri’s from the large scale genocide and ethnic cleansing.