Religious Apartheid in Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir
Abstract
This paper examines whether the contemporary system of religious governance in Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IoJK) exhibits the structural characteristics of religious apartheid. It argues that the region’s religious-freedom crisis extends beyond isolated restrictions on worship and constitutes an interconnected pattern of institutionalized discrimination affecting the religious life and collective autonomy of its Muslim population.
The study examines five dimensions of this pattern: legal and administrative discrimination, surveillance of mosques and religious functionaries, institutional and financial control, restrictions on religious practice and differential treatment of Muslim and Hindu religious institutions. August 2019 is treated as a major turning point in the transformation of governance, while evidence from 2026 demonstrates that these processes remain contemporary and evolving. The study also examines discrimination faced by Kashmiri Muslims outside IoJK, particularly in educational institutions, to assess the wider relationship between religious and Kashmiri identity.
Using a qualitative case-study methodology, the research analyzes legislation, government documents, administrative orders, documented incidents, media reports and international human rights standards. The analysis applies the concept of religious apartheid as an analytical framework rather than a predetermined legal conclusion. It finds that the cumulative interaction of surveillance, institutional control, restrictions on religious expression and unequal governance raises serious concerns of systematic religious discrimination and warrants sustained examination under international human rights law. Keywords: Religious Apartheid; Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir; Religious Discrimination; Religious Governance; Muslims.
INTRODUCTION: FROM RELIGIOUS PLURALISM TO INSTITUTIONALIZED RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
India is among the world’s most religiously diverse societies. According to the 2011 Census, Hindus constituted 79.8 percent of the population, Muslims 14.2 percent, Christians 2.3 percent, Sikhs 1.7 percent, Buddhists 0.7 percent and Jains 0.4 percent. India is also home to approximately 95 percent of the world’s Hindu population, making its religious composition significant beyond its national borders. This demographic diversity, however, does not by itself establish religious equality. Pluralism requires not only the coexistence of different faiths but also equal protection of religious identity, institutions and practices.
The distinction between demographic diversity and institutional equality is central to this study. Religious freedom encompasses the right to worship, maintain religious institutions, organize religious affairs, preserve sacred spaces and participate in public life without discrimination. Where state policies or administrative practices impose unequal conditions on religious communities, demographic diversity can coexist with institutionalized discrimination. The question, therefore, is not simply whether different religions are present, but whether they enjoy comparable protection and institutional autonomy.
1.1. Background of Religious Diversity in India India’s religious composition reflects centuries of interaction among diverse religious and cultural traditions. The country’s Muslim population, recorded at 14.2 percent in the 2011 Census, represents one of the world’s largest Muslim populations in absolute terms. Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and smaller religious communities add further dimensions to India’s pluralistic social structure. Such diversity creates an important responsibility for state institutions. Religious communities require more than formal recognition. Their places of worship, educational institutions, charitable organizations and cultural practices require equal legal protection. Consequently, the assessment of religious freedom must consider both individual rights and the institutional conditions under which communities practice and preserve their faith. This distinction is particularly relevant in the contemporary Indian context, where concerns about religious discrimination increasingly focus on the relationship between majoritarian politics and state institutions. The issue is therefore not the existence of religious diversity but the extent to which political and administrative structures uphold equal citizenship across religious lines.
1.2. Rise of Hindutva and the Changing Religious-Political Environment The consolidation of Hindutva as a major political force has intensified debates over religion, national identity and minority rights in India. Critics argue that the growing influence of majoritarian ideology has contributed to an environment in which Muslims, Christians and other minorities face increasing political, social and institutional pressures. Concerns include anti-conversion laws, restrictions affecting religious organizations, communal hate campaigns and policies that critics contend disproportionately affect minority communities. These concerns have attracted increasing international scrutiny. On 7 May 2026, the U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom held a hearing titled Deteriorating Religious Freedom Conditions in India in Washington, D.C. The hearing examined conditions affecting Muslims, Christians and Sikhs, including concerns related to anticonversion laws, violence, harassment and restrictions on religious organizations. USCIRF’s continuing assessment of religious-freedom conditions in India indicates that the issue has become an established subject of international human rights concern. This broader political environment provides the context for examining Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IoJK). However, national-level concerns cannot by themselves establish a finding of religious apartheid in Kashmir. The present study therefore examines whether similar political tendencies have produced distinct institutional mechanisms of religious control within a Muslim-majority territory.
1.3. Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir as a Case Study
Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir as a Case Study IoJK provides a significant case for examining institutionalized religious discrimination because of its demographic composition and distinctive political history. The former state contained substantial Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh populations, with Muslims constituting the majority overall. According to the 2011 Census, Muslims accounted for approximately 68 percent of the population of the former state, while Hindus constituted approximately 28 percent. The regional distribution was uneven, with Muslims forming a clear majority in the Kashmir Valley.
The population of the present Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is projected to reach approximately 13,927,000, or 13.93 million, or 1.39 crore, by 1 July 2026. This makes the governance of religious and civil rights in the territory a significant human rights concern affecting a population of nearly 14 million people. IoJK is particularly relevant because religion is closely connected with community institutions and collective identity. Mosques, shrines, religious schools, charitable organizations and other institutions form an important part of social life. Their relationship with state authorities therefore provides an important indicator of the broader condition of religious freedom.
The period following 5 August 2019 constitutes the principal temporal focus of this research. The revocation of Article 370 and the subsequent reorganization of Jammu & Kashmir transformed its constitutional and administrative structure. The expansion of central authority created new conditions for governance, including greater intervention by state and central institutions in areas affecting political, social and community life. This study examines whether these changes have also altered the institutional conditions under which Muslim religious life is conducted.
1.4. Research Problem and Central Argument
The central research problem is whether restrictions affecting Muslim religious life in IoJK represent isolated administrative measures or form part of a broader institutional structure. Individual restrictions may be justified by authorities through security or administrative considerations. However, when surveillance, administrative regulation, financial control, restrictions on religious gatherings and intervention in religious institutions occur as interconnected practices, their cumulative effect requires systematic examination.
The study therefore argues that religious discrimination in IoJK has moved beyond isolated restrictions on religious practice toward a broader structure involving surveillance, administrative control, financial regulation, restrictions on religious gatherings, institutional intervention and differential treatment of Muslim and Hindu religious institutions.
The cumulative nature of these practices raises the question of whether the governance of religious life in IoJK increasingly exhibits structural characteristics associated with religious apartheid. The term religious apartheid is used as an analytical concept rather than a predetermined legal conclusion. The study does not assume that every discriminatory measure constitutes apartheid. Instead, it examines whether the documented practices demonstrate systematic differentiation, institutional control and unequal treatment based on religious identity. The evidence is subsequently assessed against international human rights standards to determine the extent to which the concept is applicable.
1.5. Research Questions
The study addresses five principal questions:
• How has religious freedom in IoJK changed since August 2019?
• What institutional mechanisms are used to regulate and monitor Muslim religious life in IoJK?
• what extent does the situation correspond to the concept of religious apartheid under international human rights law?
• What are the long-term implications of institutionalized religious discrimination for Kashmir’s religious and social fabric?
1.6. 6 Methodology and Sources
The study employs a qualitative case-study methodology focused on IoJK. It combines documentary analysis, institutional analysis and selected case studies to identify patterns of religious discrimination. Individual incidents are used only where they demonstrate broader institutional trends. The research draws upon government legislation, policies, official notifications, administrative orders and institutional documents, supplemented by credible media reports and documentation from international human rights organizations. Particular attention is given to evidence concerning religious institutions, state regulation, religious practice and differential treatment. The legal analysis is based primarily on international human rights standards.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is central to the assessment, particularly Article 18 on freedom of religion or belief, Article 17 on protection from arbitrary interference, Article 26 on equality before the law and Article 27 on minority rights. Relevant provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and international standards concerning minority rights are also examined. The research consequently proceeds through three levels of analysis: empirical evidence, institutional comparison and international legal assessment. This framework enables the study to determine whether religious discrimination in IoJK represents a pattern of isolated violations or a systematic structure of institutionalized religious inequality.
1.7. Conceptual Framework: Understanding Religious Apartheid Religious apartheid is used in this study as an analytical concept describing a sustained system of institutionalized discrimination, domination and unequal treatment based on religious identity. The historical concept of apartheid developed from South Africa’s system of legally enforced racial separation and domination. Its essential characteristics were not merely prejudice or segregation, but systematic discrimination supported by state institutions. Applied analytically to religion, the concept refers to situations where religious identity becomes a basis for unequal legal protection, institutional autonomy, access to religious spaces or participation in religious and public life. It is therefore distinct from isolated incidents of religious intolerance. The focus is on whether discriminatory practices are systematic, institutionalized and cumulative.
For this study, religious apartheid is assessed through five indicators:
•Legal discrimination: laws or regulations that impose unequal obligations or protections on religious communities.
•Institutional discrimination: unequal state control over religious institutions, finances, appointments or property
. •Surveillance and coercive control: systematic monitoring, profiling or coercive measures targeting religious communities.
•Restrictions on religious practice: unequal limitations on worship, gatherings, religious education or access to sacred spaces.
•Differential treatment: demonstrably unequal treatment of different religious communities by state institutions. These five indicators provide the analytical framework for evaluating religious governance in IoJK in the subsequent sections.
1.8. Analytical Application of the Framework
The five indicators provide a cumulative framework for assessing religious discrimination in IoJK. No single indicator will be treated as conclusive. Instead, the study will examine whether evidence across the five areas demonstrates a consistent pattern. The analytical progression is therefore: Legal discrimination → Institutional discrimination → Surveillance and coercive control → Restrictions on religious practice → Differential treatment of communities.
This framework enables the research to move from individual rules and practices to their broader institutional consequences. It also prevents the concept of religious apartheid from being applied solely on the basis of isolated incidents.
HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT: THE TRANSFORMATION OF RELIGIOUS GOVERNANCE IN KASHMIR
2.1.Kashmir’s Muslim-Majority Demographic and Religious Character
Kashmir has historically developed as a predominantly Muslim society with a distinctive religious and cultural identity. According to the 2011 Census, Muslims constituted approximately 68.3 percent of the population of the former state of Jammu & Kashmir, while Hindus constituted about 28.4 percent. The Kashmir Valley had an even higher Muslim concentration. Religious institutions have long formed an important part of Kashmiri social life. Mosques and shrines have served not only as places of worship but also as centres of education, charity and community organization. Madrasas contributed to religious education, while waqf properties and charitable networks supported religious institutions and vulnerable sections of society. These institutions developed a degree of community-based autonomy and became closely connected with Kashmir’s social and cultural identity
2.2. Religious Freedom Before August 2019
Before 2019, religious life in IoJK operated within a distinct constitutional and administrative framework. The region had its own constitution and greater legislative autonomy under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Religious institutions remained subject to state regulation, but governance was shaped by the region’s separate political and legal arrangements. This period should not be presented as one of unrestricted religious freedom.
Kashmir experienced prolonged political conflict, security restrictions and periodic limitations on religious gatherings. Access to religious spaces and public religious activities was sometimes affected by so called security considerations. These conditions provide an important baseline for assessing subsequent developments. The critical question is therefore not whether restrictions existed before 2019, but whether the post-2019 transformation produced a qualitative expansion of state intervention into religious life.
2.3. August 2019 and the Transformation of Governance
On 5 August 2019, the Government of India revoked Jammu and Kashmir’s special constitutional status under Article 370 and reorganized the former state into two Union Territories, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. The change significantly altered the region’s governance structure. Legislative and administrative authority was reconfigured, while central institutions acquired a greater role in policymaking and administration. The immediate period was accompanied by extensive security deployment, communication restrictions, political detentions and limitations on public assembly. These measures affected the wider civic environment in which religious communities functioned. The contraction of political and civic space also reduced opportunities for communities and institutions to independently challenge administrative decisions affecting their affairs
2.4. From Political Control to Religious Governance
The post-2019 transformation gradually extended beyond constitutional and political structures into areas affecting community and religious life. State intervention increasingly intersected with religious institutions, gatherings, charitable activities and the activities of religious functionaries. This shift is significant because religious governance cannot be examined separately from broader political structures.
When state authority extends into religious spaces, it can influence institutional autonomy and shape the conditions under which communities practise and transmit their religion. The issue therefore extends beyond individual restrictions to the wider relationship between state authority and collective religious rights. The post-2019 period therefore represents an important turning point for examining religious governance in Kashmir. The following sections assess how this transformation operates through specific mechanisms of legal regulation, institutional control, surveillance, restrictions on religious practice and differential treatment.
THE ARCHITECTURE OF SURVEILLANCE: MAPPING KASHMIR’S MUSLIM RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY
3.1. Territory-Wide Surveillance of Mosques
In January 2026, Jammu and Kashmir Police initiated a large-scale exercise to collect information on mosques across the Kashmir Valley and the individuals responsible for their management. A four-page questionnaire was circulated through local administrative channels, with one page dedicated to the mosque and three pages to individuals associated with it. Reports described the exercise as the first known attempt to collect information on mosques and their members at such a detailed scale.
The mosque section sought information on its ideological or sectarian affiliation, year of establishment, seating capacity, number of floors, approximate construction cost, source of construction funds, monthly budget, bank accounts, management structure and land ownership. The sectarian categories reportedly included Barelvi, Hanafi, Deobandi and Ahle-Hadith. Information on land was also divided into categories such as state, milkiyat and shamilaat land. The exercise therefore went beyond establishing the existence or location of places of worship. It created a detailed administrative profile of their physical, financial, sectarian and organizational characteristics. This distinction is important because ordinary institutional registration generally establishes legal or administrative status, whereas the questionnaire combined institutional information with extensive personal intelligence.
3.2. Profiling of Imams and Religious Functionaries
The surveillance framework extended from mosque infrastructure to the individuals associated with religious institutions. The questionnaire covered imams, muezzins, khateebs, mosque management committee members and Bait-ul-Maal representatives. The personal-information sections reportedly sought mobile numbers, mobile-phone models and IMEI numbers, email addresses, social-media accounts, ATM and credit-card details, bank information, passport details, ration-card information and family records.
Some reporting also identified questions concerning relatives living abroad and affiliations with organizations. The inclusion of the IMEI number is particularly significant. An IMEI is a unique identifier associated with a mobile device. Its collection links an individual religious functionary to a specific digital device rather than merely recording his name or institutional position. Similarly, collecting social-media accounts, financial details and family information creates a profile extending well beyond the person’s religious duties.
This transforms the exercise from institutional identification into individualized profiling of religious functionaries. Religious leaders are consequently documented through their professional roles as well as their digital, financial and family connections.
3.3. From Religious Registration to Intelligence Architecture
The significance of the exercise lies in the combination of data categories. A mosque is mapped through its sect, capacity, physical structure, finances, land and management, while individuals connected with it are mapped through their digital identifiers, financial information, family relationships and organizational affiliations
The questionnaire was reportedly distributed in several areas through village numberdars, linking the collection process to local administrative networks. This creates a multilayered information structure in which local religious institutions become identifiable through both physical and human networks. The analytical concern is therefore not simply that information is being collected. It is the possibility that religious institutions can function as information nodes within a wider security architecture.
Once mosque locations, management structures, sectarian identities and individual networks are documented together, authorities possess a framework capable of mapping relationships within religious communities. Such data could potentially facilitate the identification of institutional connections, community networks and patterns of association. The implications become more serious if information collected for administrative purposes is subsequently integrated with broader digital or security databases. At that point, religious registration could move toward continuous intelligence-based monitoring. The distinction between legitimate security investigation and generalized religious profiling is therefore essential. Security agencies may lawfully investigate specific threats, but the systematic collection of sensitive information concerning an entire religious institutional network raises questions of necessity, proportionality, privacy and equal treatment.
3.4. Intergenerational and Collective Surveillance
The collection of family information introduces a further dimension. Surveillance is not confined to the individual imam, muezzin, khateeb or committee member. By documenting family relationships, property, employment and other personal connections, the exercise can potentially extend the administrative profile beyond the immediate religious functionary. This creates the possibility of intergenerational profiling, in which information concerning one religious actor establishes connections with relatives and wider social networks. The inclusion of sectarian classification adds another collective dimension. Mosques are not merely identified by location but also categorized according to their religious orientation. Such classification can facilitate community mapping at two levels.
The first identifies the institutional network, including mosques, management committees and charitable bodies. The second identifies the social network, including religious functionaries, relatives and associated individuals. The resulting concern is therefore broader than individual privacy. It concerns the transformation of religious affiliation and association into administratively identifiable categories. Where association with a mosque becomes linked with personal, financial, digital and family information, an entire religious network can become subject to collective scrutiny. From the perspective of the religious-apartheid framework developed in this study, this is significant because surveillance becomes identity-based rather than incident-specific.
The relevant question is not whether every person identified through the exercise is suspected of wrongdoing. It is whether belonging to or managing a Muslim religious institution itself becomes sufficient to generate extensive state monitoring. The surveillance architecture therefore establishes the first layer of institutional penetration into Muslim religious life. Once the community and its religious networks are mapped, the next stage concerns control over the institutions through which those networks organize property, finances, education and welfare.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL: THE STATE’S PENETRATION OF MUSLIM RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
4.1 Government Control of the Muslim Waqf System
The Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Waqf Board administers a large network of Muslim religious and charitable properties across the territory. Available figures indicate that the Waqf system covers approximately 3,500 mosques, 200 shrines and more than 700 other religious properties. These assets generate substantial resources for religious, educational and charitable activities. Waqf institutions are therefore not simply property-management bodies. They support worship, religious education, maintenance of shrines and community welfare. Control over their administration consequently provides significant influence over the institutional foundations of Muslim religious life.
4.2 Appointment and Administrative Control
The structure of the Waqf system gives the government substantial influence over its administration. Waqf Board members are government-appointed, while district-level administration exercises supervisory and regulatory functions. Administrative authorities can scrutinize Waqf accounts, oversee property management and intervene in the appointment or removal of mutawallis, who are responsible for managing individual religious endowments. Expenditure and property decisions are also subject to statutory oversight.
This arrangement raises questions about institutional autonomy. Regulation may be necessary for accountability, but extensive administrative control can reduce the ability of religious communities to independently manage their own institutions.
4.3 Economic Control of Religious Institutions
Financial control represents another mechanism through which institutional autonomy can be constrained. Waqf properties generate income through rents, leases and other sources. Control over these assets determines how resources are allocated between religious maintenance, education and community welfare.
The economic significance is considerable because religious institutions often depend on their own endowments rather than direct public funding. Restrictions on property management, revenue collection or expenditure can therefore weaken their operational independence.The issue becomes particularly significant when compared with the administrative and financial autonomy available to other religious institutions. Such comparison is necessary to determine whether regulation is uniform or religiously differentiated.
4.4 Control of Religious Education
Religious education has increasingly come under security scrutiny. On 25 May 2026, the National Investigation Agency conducted searches at Jamia Sirajul Uloom in Shopian, Jamia al-Bannat in Lal Bazaar, Srinagar and the residence of former Jamaat-e-Islami chief Shahzad Aurangzeb. The searches formed part of an investigation linked by authorities to Jamaat-e-Islami.
Jamia Sirajul Uloom had already been declared an unlawful entity in April 2026 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The involvement of national security agencies in religious educational institutions demonstrates how madrasas and religious schools can become subject to intensive state scrutiny. Such measures must be assessed against their stated security grounds. However, their broader impact on religious education and institutional autonomy requires examination.
4.5 Religious Charity as a Site of Control
Religious charity provides another channel through which Muslim community life can be affected. Bait-ul-Maal committees operating through mosques collect and distribute charitable funds, including zakat, to vulnerable families. The January 2026 police profiling exercise specifically sought information concerning Bait-ul-Maal operations, bringing charitable structures within the broader mapping of Muslim religious institutions. This is significant because zakat-based assistance functions as an important informal welfare mechanism.
The cumulative effect of Waqf regulation, financial oversight, scrutiny of religious education and monitoring of charitable networks extends state involvement beyond property administration. It reaches the institutional structures through which Muslim communities organize religious, educational and welfare activities.
RESTRICTING THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION: WORSHIP, CONGREGATIONS AND RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION
The restriction of religious practice represents a direct form of interference with freedom of religion. In IoJK, these restrictions have affected congregational prayers, religious processions and the participation of prominent religious figures in worship. The pattern is particularly significant because the measures affect both ordinary worshippers and established religious leadership.
5.1 Restrictions on Religious Gatherings
In March 2026, authorities imposed restrictions on religious gatherings in two Baramulla villages during Youm-e-Ali, observed on the 21st of Ramadan. An order issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) prohibited gatherings of more than four persons and restricted processions and the use of loudspeakers in Mirgund and Mirchimar.
Authorities cited concerns over a local dispute concerning the jurisdiction of an Imam Bargah and mosque. However, the restrictions also affected a scheduled Shia religious procession associated with Youm-e-Ali. The case demonstrates how public-order provisions can directly affect collective religious observance.
5.1 Restrictions on Muharram
Shia religious processions have also faced restrictions in Kashmir. The issue extends beyond individual processions because restrictions on organizations can limit the institutional capacity to organize religious observances. The issue became particularly visible during Youm-e-Ashura on 26 June 2026, when thousands of mourners were expected to participate in the principal procession from Bota Kadal to Imam Bara Zadibal in Srinagar. Authorities imposed extensive security arrangements around the observance. Although the 2026 procession was permitted, the scale of these measures demonstrates the degree of administrative oversight surrounding major Shia religious gatherings.
This distinction is important when assessing religious freedom. The presence of police or other authorities does not, by itself, constitute a restriction. The relevant question is whether state measures primarily facilitate safe religious observance or impose disproportionate conditions on collective religious expression. The treatment of Muharram processions must therefore be assessed alongside restrictions imposed on other Muslim gatherings to determine whether administrative measures operate consistently or produce unequal conditions for religious practice.
5.2 Restrictions on Friday Prayers
The Jamia Masjid Srinagar occupies a central position in Kashmir’s religious life. Restrictions on access to the mosque have therefore affected not only individual worship but also the traditional institution of congregational Friday prayer. A significant dimension of this restriction has involved Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, the chief cleric of Kashmir and traditionally the principal religious figure associated with the mosque’s pulpit. He was placed under house arrest in August 2019 and remained confined for approximately four years, before being released in September 2023. His confinement prevented him from regularly delivering Friday sermons at Jamia Masjid during that period. On 2 January 2026, he reported being restricted to his residence and prevented from leading Friday prayers at Jamia Masjid.
The restrictions continued during Ramadan. On 3 February 2026, Mirwaiz reported that he had been placed under house arrest when he intended to lead prayers for Shab-e-Barat at Jamia Masjid. The mosque was also closed for the occasion. Reports noted that he had already been prevented from leading Friday prayers on three Fridays in January, although he was permitted to address the congregation on 30 January. On 6 March 2026, authorities again prevented Mirwaiz from leaving his residence to lead Friday prayers during Ramadan. Roads and lanes leading to Jamia Masjid were barricaded.
The restrictions culminated in the closure of Jamia Masjid for Jumat-ul-Vida on 13 March 2026, the final Friday of Ramadan. According to reporting by The Indian Express, this was the seventh consecutive year in which prayers on that occasion were not permitted at the historic mosque. The incidents and restriction on the Mirwaiz consequently had both religious and institutional consequences. It interrupted the traditional link between Kashmir’s chief cleric, the historic mosque and its congregation.
5.3 Restrictions on Eid Prayers
Restrictions on Eid prayers provide an especially significant example because Eid congregations are among the largest collective religious observances in Islam. On 27 May 2026, authorities again prevented Eid-ul-Adha prayers at Jamia Masjid and Eidgah Srinagar.
The restriction continued for the eighth consecutive year, dating back to 2019. On the same occasion, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq was placed under house arrest, preventing him from leading the Eid prayers. The combination of restricting access to the principal religious venues and confining the area’s chief cleric demonstrates how restrictions can operate simultaneously at the level of worshippers, religious spaces and religious leadership.
The significance extends beyond the denial of a particular prayer. Eid congregations are collective expressions of religious identity and community solidarity. Repeated restrictions therefore affect the public and communal dimensions of religious practice, not merely individual worship.
5.4 Restrictions on Religious Education
Restrictions affecting religious education form another dimension of religious expression. Religious learning is closely connected with the transmission of faith, religious knowledge and community traditions. Consequently, measures affecting religious educational activities can have effects beyond the immediate institution involved.
The issue must nevertheless be distinguished from the institutional and financial controls examined in Section 5. Here, the focus is on the ability to transmit and practise religion through collective religious learning. Where religious educational activities are repeatedly subjected to closure, prohibition, or state intervention, the space available for the intergenerational transmission of religious knowledge may gradually narrow.
Taken together, restrictions on congregational gatherings, Shia observances, Friday worship and Eid prayers demonstrate that religious control in IoJK operates not only through institutional regulation but also through the physical conditions under which religion can be publicly practised. The restrictions affecting Jamia Masjid and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq are particularly significant because they combine control over a sacred space with restrictions on religious leadership.
TWO SYSTEMS OF RELIGIOUS GOVERNANCE: MUSLIM CONTROL VS. HINDU FACILITATION
The evidence presented in the preceding sections reveals a significant asymmetry in the governance of religious life in IoJK. Muslim religious institutions have increasingly encountered surveillance, administrative intervention and restrictions on collective worship. In contrast, major Hindu religious institutions benefit from extensive state-supported arrangements designed to facilitate pilgrimage, security and religious access. The comparison is therefore not simply between two religious communities. It concerns two different modes of state engagement with religious life.
6.1 State Control of Muslim Religious Institutions
Muslim religious institutions operate within an increasingly regulated environment. The Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Board provides a statutory mechanism for state involvement in Muslim religious endowments, while mosque-level surveillance has expanded the collection of information on religious institutions and their functionaries.
The preceding sections have demonstrated three distinct forms of intervention. First, religious institutions and their functionaries have been subjected to detailed monitoring. Second, religious gatherings have faced administrative restrictions. Third, religious leadership and public religious expression have been subject to state intervention.
These measures are important when considered collectively. Security restrictions may be justified in specific circumstances and religious endowments may legitimately require regulation. The concern arises when such measures disproportionately shape the institutional and public life of one religious community.
6.2 State Facilitation of Hindu Religious Institutions
Major Hindu shrines in IoJK operate through statutory shrine boards that receive substantial administrative support. The Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board (SASB) was established under the Jammu and Kashmir Shri Amarnathji Shrine Act, 2000. Its mandate includes management of the shrine, improvement of pilgrim facilities and arrangements connected with the annual pilgrimage. The Lieutenant Governor of Jammu and Kashmir serves as its Chairman.
Similarly, the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board administers the Vaishno Devi shrine and its endowments under the Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988. The Board manages the shrine, its funds and associated facilities. The Lieutenant Governor serves as ex-officio Chairman and nominates the other members.
Thus, the comparison should not be framed as complete Hindu institutional independence versus Muslim state control. Both systems involve statutory governance. The distinction lies in the function of state involvement. Shrine boards are structured primarily around management, infrastructure, pilgrim welfare and facilitation, whereas the measures examined in relation to Muslim institutions include extensive monitoring and restrictions on religious activity.
The Amarnath Yatra and Unequal Religious Governance
The 2026 Amarnath Yatra provides the clearest contemporary example of state-supported religious facilitation. The 57-day pilgrimage was scheduled from 3 July to 28 August 2026, using the Baltal and Pahalgam routes. More than
6.3 lakh pilgrims had registered before its commencement.
The logistical arrangements for the pilgrimage were extensive. Authorities planned the deployment of 140 Central Armed Police Force companies along the routes, supported by the Jammu and Kashmir Police and other agencies. Preparations included expanded CCTV coverage, fire-safety audits, QR-based identification for guides and pony operators, healthcare facilities, and disaster-management measures.
The pilgrimage also received high-level administrative attention. On 12 June 2026, Union Home Minister Amit Shah chaired a review meeting involving the Lieutenant Governor, National Security Adviser, Army leadership, intelligence officials, Central Armed Police Forces, and senior Jammu and Kashmir authorities.
Such arrangements do not, in themselves, establish religious discrimination. The state has a legitimate responsibility to ensure the safety and orderly management of large religious gatherings. The analytical issue lies in the contrasting application of state authority. For the Amarnath Yatra, extensive state resources were directed toward facilitating religious participation, whereas similar concerns have been invoked to restrict Muslim congregational worship and religious processions. The distinction therefore concerns not the state’s involvement in religious activity itself, but the unequal manner in which that involvement is exercised across religious communities.
The comparison does not establish that Hindu religious institutions receive no regulation or that every restriction imposed on Muslims is religiously motivated. Rather, it identifies a difference in institutional treatment and administrative purpose.
6.5 From Unequal Treatment to Structural Discrimination
The central question is whether these differences represent isolated administrative decisions or a systematic pattern. The evidence suggests that the disparity cannot be assessed through individual incidents alone. It emerges from the cumulative relationship between surveillance, restrictions on Muslim religious practice and extensive state facilitation of major Hindu pilgrimage institutions. The distinction is particularly important under the religious-apartheid framework. Structural discrimination does not require every administrative action to be explicitly religious in wording. It can emerge when policies and institutions consistently produce unequal conditions for religious communities.
In IoJK, the contrast is evident in the direction and nature of state intervention. Muslim religious life is increasingly subjected to monitoring, administrative regulation and restrictions, while major Hindu pilgrimages receive extensive state support through infrastructure, registration, healthcare and administrative coordination. This difference does not, by itself, establish apartheid in the strict legal sense. It does, however, provide significant evidence of differential religious governance.
The cumulative pattern therefore warrants assessment against the principles of equality, non-discrimination and freedom of religion. Where comparable administrative concerns result in restrictions for one religious community but extensive facilitation for another, the difference extends beyond ordinary administrative variation. It raises serious questions about institutionalized religious preference and structural discrimination in the governance of religious life.
RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION BEYOND KASHMIR: THE KASHMIRI MUSLIM EXPERIENCE IN INDIA
Religious discrimination affecting Kashmiris is not confined to IoJK. Cases involving Kashmiri Muslim students elsewhere in India indicate that religious and regional identities can intersect with political suspicion and negative stereotypes, particularly in educational settings. The Government College of Nursing in Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, provides a recent example.
7.1 Kashmiri Students and Religious Harassment
In February 2026, Kashmiri Muslim students enrolled in the Government College of Nursing in Kurnool reported discriminatory treatment during Ramadan. The students were enrolled through the Indian government’s Special Scholarship Scheme and were regular fee-paying residents of the institution.
According to complaints submitted by the IoJK Students Association, students were denied reasonable arrangements for Sehri and Iftar. They also reported being prevented from bringing food from outside the institution for fasting purposes. Female students said that they were pressured to remove their hijab and were discouraged from observing visible religious practices.
The reported restrictions were particularly significant because they concerned ordinary religious obligations rather than participation in political activity. Students seeking accommodation for fasting were reportedly questioned about why they had chosen the institution if Ramadan was important to them.
7.2 Criminalization and Stereotyping of Kashmiri Muslims
The students also reported verbal harassment and derogatory treatment. According to their complaints, some Kashmiri students were called “terrorists,” “dumb,” “useless” and “idiots.” They further said that they were threatened with suspension if they continued raising concerns. Such incidents demonstrate how Kashmiri identity can become associated with political suspicion and negative stereotypes outside the territory. The significance lies in the intersection of religious and regional identity. Students were reportedly treated not only as Muslims observing Ramadan but also as Kashmiris whose identity carried additional political stigma. This distinction is important because discrimination can operate through the combined effect of religious and regional identity.
In such cases, Kashmiri Muslim students may face prejudice not solely because of their faith, but also because their regional identity is viewed through a politically charged narrative. A Kashmiri Muslim may therefore encounter discrimination based on both religious practice and perceived political identity.
7.3 Religious Identity and Educational Exclusion
The case also exposes a contradiction within India’s educational inclusion framework. The students had entered the institution through the Special Scholarship Scheme, which is intended to expand educational opportunities for students from IoJK.
Yet access to higher education does not necessarily ensure equal treatment after admission. If students receiving educational support face restrictions on fasting, hijab or religious observance, formal inclusion can coexist with practical exclusion. The reported case therefore demonstrates that religious discrimination can operate within institutions that are otherwise presented as mechanisms of integration and opportunity.
7.4 What These Cases Reveal
The Kurnool case expands the analysis beyond religious institutions and places of worship. It shows how discrimination may also emerge in educational and everyday institutional environments. The reported treatment of Kashmiri Muslim students suggests that religious identity can become intertwined with regional and security perceptions. This creates a broader form of vulnerability in which ordinary religious practices may be interpreted through political assumptions. For the present study, this distinction is important. Religious discrimination in the Kashmiri context cannot be examined solely through mosque closures, restrictions on congregations or regulation of religious institutions. It also requires attention to how Kashmiri Muslim identity is treated outside IoJK.
The evidence from Kurnool therefore strengthens the argument that the problem has both a territorial and identity-based dimension. Within IoJK, religious life is subjected to institutional regulation and restrictions. Outside the territory, Kashmiri Muslims may encounter discrimination through stereotyping, restrictions on religious expression and unequal treatment in educational settings. Together, these patterns indicate that the intersection of religion, Kashmiri identity and securitization requires broader examination.
SYMBOLIC CONTROL AND THE POLITICIZATION OF SACRED SPACES
Control over religious life can also operate through symbols, monuments and sacred spaces. In Kashmir, this dimension is particularly significant because major shrines carry both religious and historical meanings. Intervention in such spaces can therefore affect not only worship but also collective identity and perceptions of political authority.
8.1 Hazratbal Dargah as a Symbol of Kashmiri Muslim Identity
The Hazratbal Dargah in Srinagar is one of Kashmir’s most important Muslim shrines. It houses the Moi-e-Muqqadas, a relic traditionally believed to be a strand of the hair of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The relic was brought to Kashmir in the 17th century and has since become closely associated with Kashmiri Muslim religious life.
Hazratbal also carries wider historical significance. The shrine has traditionally served as a major site for collective prayers and religious gatherings, particularly on important Islamic occasions. Its significance therefore extends beyond its physical structure. It represents an important component of Kashmiri Muslim religious and cultural identity.
The shrine’s symbolic importance became particularly visible during the 1963 Hazratbal relic crisis, when the disappearance of the sacred relic triggered mass protests across Kashmir. Its recovery later that year reinforced the shrine’s exceptional position in Kashmiri society.
8.2 State Intervention in Sacred Spaces
Concerns over state intervention intensified following the installation of an Ashoka Chakra at Hazratbal in December 2024. The Ashoka Chakra is the central symbol of India’s national flag and is therefore closely associated with the Indian state. The placement of the national symbol within the shrine complex generated controversy because Hazratbal is not simply a public site. It is a sacred Muslim space whose religious significance predates the modern Indian state. Critics questioned whether the installation was undertaken following meaningful consultation with the shrine’s traditional custodians or relevant Waqf authorities.
The controversy was significant because the intervention did not concern ordinary infrastructure. It introduced an explicitly national symbol into one of Kashmir’s most important Islamic sacred spaces. This gives the act a symbolic dimension that cannot be separated from the broader political context of Kashmir.
8.3 Symbolism, Sovereignty and Religious Authority
The placement of state symbols in sacred spaces can communicate several overlapping messages. First, it can project political authority over a site traditionally governed through religious institutions and community practices. Second, it can reinforce claims of territorial sovereignty by placing national symbolism within a space strongly associated with Kashmiri Muslim identity. Third, such interventions can alter the relationship between religious authority and state authority. When state symbols occupy prominent positions within sacred spaces without the meaningful participation of religious custodians, the symbolic hierarchy may shift from community authority toward state authority.
The issue is therefore not whether a national symbol is inherently incompatible with a religious site. The question is whether its placement is consultative, culturally sensitive and institutionally consensual, particularly in a politically contested territory.
Hazratbal demonstrates how religious governance can operate at a symbolic level. Surveillance regulates information, administrative control regulates institutions and restrictions regulate religious practice. Symbolic intervention operates differently by reshaping the meaning and visual identity of sacred spaces. In this sense, the politicization of Hazratbal represents a potential form of symbolic domination in which the state seeks not merely to administer territory but also to assert its authority within spaces central to Kashmiri Muslim identity.
'
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF MAJORITARIAN GOVERNANCE
The developments in IoJK should be examined within India’s wider religious and political environment. Evidence from other parts of India indicates that restrictions affecting religious minorities extend beyond IoJK. The pattern includes legislation, administrative measures, violence, institutional pressure and securitization of minority communities. USCIRF reported in 2026 that religious freedom in India remained on a downward trajectory and identified Muslims, Christians and other minorities as facing serious violations.
9.1 Anti-Conversion Laws
State-level anti-conversion legislation has expanded significantly. USCIRF identifies 12 Indian states with such laws. These laws commonly require government notification of conversion, restrict conversions deemed fraudulent or coercive and, in some cases, shift the evidentiary burden onto the accused. USCIRF argues that these provisions can interfere with the freedom to adopt or change religion and have been used against religious leaders, particularly Christians and Muslims. The concern is therefore not conversion itself but the use of administrative and criminal law to regulate individual religious choice.
9.2 CAA/NRC and Muslim Exclusion
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) introduced a fast-track citizenship route for specified non-Muslim migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Its interaction with a proposed nationwide National Register of Citizens (NRC) generated concerns about documentation and possible exclusion of Muslims. Assam provides a particularly important case because the NRC process produced a large-scale citizenship documentation exercise.
USCIRF has described the CAA and NRC as part of a broader legal framework that can disproportionately affect religious minorities. The issue extends beyond citizenship status. For Rohingya Muslims and other vulnerable Muslim populations, immigration and security measures can intersect with religious identity, creating additional risks of detention, deportation and exclusion.
9.3 Pressure on Christian Institutions
Christian communities have also faced regulatory pressure. The Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) has been used to regulate foreign funding received by religious and civil-society organizations. USCIRF’s 2026 reporting identifies FCRA alongside other laws as part of the regulatory environment affecting religious minorities.
Anti-conversion laws create an additional pressure point. In Uttar Pradesh, for example, Pastor Jose Pappachan and his wife Sheerja were convicted in January 2025 under anti-conversion legislation after incidents concerning religious conversion. USCIRF has cited the case as an example of the wider consequences of such laws.
9.4 Violence, Hate Speech and Vigilantism
Legal restrictions operate alongside social and physical violence. USCIRF documented killings, beatings, lynchings, arbitrary arrests and demolitions of homes and places of worship during 2024. It also reported the use of hate speech and misinformation by public officials in connection with attacks against religious minorities.
This creates a reinforcing environment. Discriminatory legislation can restrict institutional space, while hate campaigns and vigilante violence can produce social pressure outside formal state structures.
9.5 Transnational Repression
The pattern increasingly extends beyond India’s borders. USCIRF’s 2026 India hearing examined the use of transnational repression against religious minorities, activists and critics abroad. Concerns include surveillance, pressure on diaspora communities and actions directed at individuals perceived as political or religious opponents.
The broader pattern is therefore relevant to Kashmir. IoJK represents a particularly concentrated environment in which religious regulation, security governance and political control intersect. The Kashmir case should consequently be understood within a wider architecture of majoritarian governance rather than as an entirely isolated phenomenon.
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND THE QUESTION OF RELIGIOUS APARTHEID
The preceding evidence requires assessment against international human rights standards. India acceded to both the ICCPR and ICESCR on 10 April 1979. The legal assessment therefore focuses on freedom of religion, privacy, equality and minority rights.
10.1 Freedom of Religion
Article 18 of the ICCPR protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to manifest religion through worship, observance, practice and teaching. Restrictions are permissible only when legally prescribed and necessary for specified purposes such as public safety or order. Restrictions on congregational prayers, religious processions, religious education and other collective practices must therefore satisfy these requirements. Security cannot automatically justify restrictions that disproportionately affect one religious community.
10.2 Protection from Arbitrary Interference
Article 17 prohibits arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, home and correspondence. This provision is particularly relevant to the surveillance architecture identified in Kashmir. The reported collection of family relationships, digital identifiers, financial information and personal records raises questions about proportionality and necessity. When such information is collected because of association with religious institutions, privacy concerns acquire a religious dimension.
10.3 Equality Before the Law
Article 26 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection without discrimination, including discrimination based on religion. The comparison between Muslim and Hindu religious institutions is therefore legally significant. The issue is not whether different institutions may have different administrative structures. The question is whether comparable religious activities are subjected to materially different levels of restriction, surveillance or facilitation because of religious identity.
10.4 Minority Rights
Article 27 protects the right of religious minorities to enjoy their culture and profess and practise their religion collectively. This is relevant to Kashmir because religious identity is expressed through mosques, shrines, educational institutions, charitable networks and collective worship. Restrictions affecting these structures can therefore affect the community dimension of religious freedom.
10.5 Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Religious freedom also has an economic and social dimension. Religious charities provide food, education and assistance to vulnerable families. Religious schools transmit cultural and religious knowledge. Interference with charitable funds or religious education can therefore affect rights beyond worship itself. The ICESCR, to which India acceded in 1979, provides the broader framework for assessing these socioeconomic dimensions.
10.6 UN Declaration on Minority Rights
The 1992 UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities recognizes the right of minorities to profess and practise their religion freely and without discrimination. It also protects participation in religious and public life and the establishment of minority associations. These principles strengthen the assessment of institutional autonomy. Religious communities should not merely be permitted to worship. They should also be able to maintain their religious identity and institutions without discriminatory interference.
10.7 Does the Kashmir Model Meet the Indicators of Religious Apartheid?
The evidence can now be tested against the indicators developed in the conceptual framework:
The evidence indicates that the problem extends across several independent dimensions. Surveillance, institutional regulation, restrictions on worship and differential administrative treatment do not operate in isolation. Their cumulative effect is more significant than any single measure. However, academic precision requires an important qualification. International law formally defines apartheid as a system involving racial domination and systematic oppression. The 1973 Apartheid Convention does not establish a separate legal crime of religious apartheid. Therefore, this study uses “religious apartheid” as an analytical concept to examine whether a comparable structure of systematic differentiation, institutional control and domination exists along religious lines.
Measured against the ICCPR, ICESCR and minority-rights standards, the evidence raises substantial concerns regarding freedom of religion, privacy, equality and collective religious rights. The strongest finding is therefore not that every restriction constitutes apartheid, but that the cumulative structure warrants serious examination as institutionalized religious discrimination with characteristics that resemble apartheid governance.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study finds that the erosion of religious freedom in IoJK is not limited to isolated incidents or temporary security measures. It reflects a broader institutional pattern involving surveillance, administrative intervention, financial regulation, restrictions on religious practice and differential treatment of religious institutions.
The evidence examined across the study shows that Muslim religious life is increasingly regulated through multiple, interconnected mechanisms. Mosques and religious functionaries are subject to extensive information collection. Religious institutions face administrative and financial oversight. Congregational prayers and processions have been restricted in several instances. Religious education and charitable networks have also encountered state intervention.
The comparison with major Hindu religious institutions raises an additional concern. Large Hindu pilgrimages receive extensive administrative, security and logistical facilitation, while comparable Muslim religious activities have frequently been approached through restrictions and security controls. The issue is therefore not state involvement in religion itself, but the unequal character and consequences of that involvement.
Taken collectively, these developments raise serious concerns under international standards of freedom of religion, equality, privacy and minority rights. The evidence does not establish a separate legal category of “religious apartheid” under existing international law. However, as an analytical concept, religious apartheid helps examine whether systematic religious differentiation, institutional control and unequal governance have become embedded in the administration of Kashmir.
The central finding is therefore that Kashmir’s religious-freedom crisis should be understood as structural rather than episodic. Its significance lies in the cumulative effect of policies that increasingly place Muslim religious life within a distinct and more restrictive regulatory framework.
Recommendations
To the Government of India
End discriminatory restrictions on religious gatherings and ensure that limitations on prayers, processions and religious observances are lawful, necessary and proportionate. Ensure independent administration of religious endowments by reducing excessive administrative interference and allowing meaningful participation of religious communities. End intrusive profiling of religious functionaries. Collection of family, financial and digital information should be strictly necessary, legally authorized and subject to independent oversight.
Protect religious education by ensuring that madrasas and religious schools are not subjected to arbitrary closures, raids or criminalization.
Guarantee equal treatment of religious institutions. Security, infrastructure, administrative support and regulatory requirements should be applied without religious discrimination.
To International Human Rights Mechanisms
The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief should examine restrictions affecting religious institutions, worship and religious leadership in IoJK.
The UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues should assess the impact of institutional policies on Kashmir’s Muslim community and its collective religious identity.
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention should examine cases involving detention linked to religious or political expression.
The OHCHR should strengthen independent monitoring and reporting concerning freedom of religion, minority rights and discriminatory governance in IoJK.
To Civil Society and Human Rights Organizations
Establish independent mechanisms for documenting restrictions on religious institutions and practices.
Monitor the treatment of mosques, shrines, religious schools and charitable organizations.
Maintain systematic records of restrictions on prayers, processions, religious education and religious leadership.
Support the protection of religious and educational organizations against arbitrary administrative action.
Promote independent research and comparative documentation to assess whether religious governance in IoJK complies with international human rights standards.
Related Reports
