The demand by organisations representing the Kashmiri Pandit community for official recognition of their displacement from Kashmir as genocide has gathered considerable momentum in recent years. The demand was reiterated last week at a conference held by Non-Resident Kashmiri Pandits at Sher-e-Kashmir International Convention Centre (SKICC), Srinagar.
The demand is understandable. The departure of an entire community from its ancestral homeland remains one of the most painful and enduring tragedies in the modern history of Kashmir. No fair-minded observer can remain indifferent to the suffering, insecurity, humiliation, and displacement experienced by thousands of Pandit families.
Yet history cannot be written on the basis of emotion alone. Historical truth must rest upon evidence, context, and accepted legal definitions. The question is not whether Kashmiri Pandits suffered - they unquestionably did - but whether their suffering falls within the internationally recognised definition of genocide.
The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) defines genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy, wholly or partially, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. The operative phrase is "intent to destroy." It is this element that distinguishes genocide from persecution, ethnic cleansing, forced migration, displacement, or even large-scale violence.
When examined through this legal lens, the claim that the Kashmiri Pandit exodus constituted genocide encounters serious difficulties. No court of law, international body, judicial commission, or authoritative inquiry has, thus, far concluded that there existed a systematic plan to physically exterminate the Kashmiri Pandits as a community.
Even Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul of the Supreme Court of India, himself a Kashmiri Pandit, consistently described the episode as a tragic exodus and displacement rather than genocide. This distinction is neither semantic nor trivial; it goes to the heart of historical accuracy.
Genesis of Insurgency & Displacement
To understand the tragedy, one must first understand the circumstances that produced the insurgency. The armed rebellion that erupted in Kashmir in 1989 did not emerge from a political vacuum. It was preceded by decades of uncertainty arising from the unresolved Kashmir dispute, widespread alienation, and growing frustration with institutions that often functioned dictatorially in the name of democracy. The allegations of electoral manipulation during the 1987 Assembly elections convinced many young Kashmiris that constitutional politics had ceased to provide meaningful avenues for change. This disillusionment, coupled with developments in Afghanistan and Pakistan, contributed significantly to the rise of militancy.
The displacement of Kashmiri Pandits, therefore, cannot be viewed in isolation. It was directly linked to the broader Kashmir Question, whose unresolved political dimensions created the conditions in which militancy, counterinsurgency, fear, and mass migration became possible. As the insurgency gathered momentum with Pakistan's active support, Kashmir entered a period of unprecedented turbulence. Militants, political actors, security forces, and ordinary civilians all became participants, victims, or spectators in a rapidly escalating conflict. It was within this environment of fear and uncertainty that the migration of Kashmiri Pandits took place.
The conventional narrative attributes the exodus entirely to militant threats and targeted killings. While these undoubtedly played a major role, they do not fully explain either the scale or the speed of the migration. Over the years, numerous journalists, retired officials, political observers, and Kashmiri leaders have suggested that sections of the administration facilitated, encouraged, or even organised the departure of Pandits.
This debate received renewed attention when senior CPI(M) leader Yusuf Tarigami publicly stated that he personally witnessed the evacuation of Kashmiri Pandits by the highest authorities of the time. Recalling those traumatic days, he observed that when the migrants reached Jammu there was hardly anyone to receive them and that "only flies and mosquitoes welcomed them."
His testimony does not conclusively settle the debate, but it revives important questions. If the migration was entirely spontaneous, how was such a large-scale movement organized so swiftly? Why were transportation arrangements available for departure while adequate facilities were absent upon arrival?
These questions cannot simply be brushed aside by serious historians. A widely held belief in Kashmir has long been that sections of the state apparatus facilitated the evacuation of Pandits in order to enable an unhindered and ruthless counterinsurgency campaign without risking harm to the Hindu minority. Whether this perception is entirely correct or only partially so remains a matter for further investigation, but its persistence underscores the complexity of the episode.
Why KPs were Targeted
Equally important is the question of why Pandits became targets. To argue that they were targeted solely because they were Hindus oversimplifies a far more complex reality. Many militants perceived sections of the Pandit community as closely associated with the Indian state and its administrative apparatus. Because Pandits were disproportionately represented in government service, education, and administration, they were often viewed as symbols of state authority. Some militants also suspected certain individuals of acting as informers or intelligence assets.
This explanation does not justify the killings. Murder can never be justified. But understanding the motives behind violence is not the same as excusing it. Historical inquiry seeks explanation rather than simplification.
It is equally important to remember that Muslims who were perceived as informers, collaborators, political opponents, or obstacles to militant objectives were also targeted and killed. Thousands of Muslims lost their lives during the conflict, and a huge number migrated to safer areas. The violence was, therefore, not directed exclusively at one community, although minorities understandably experienced it with a heightened sense of vulnerability and fear.
At the same time, it would be intellectually dishonest to deny the growing influence of Islamist rhetoric within sections of the militant movement. What began largely as a political revolt increasingly absorbed ideological influences from the Afghan jihad and transnational Islamist currents. This ideological transformation deepened minority insecurities and contributed significantly to the atmosphere that culminated in migration.
However, fear, intimidation, selective killings, and displacement do not automatically constitute genocide. The legal threshold remains considerably higher.
Genocide as a Prism?
The selective application of the term genocide becomes even more problematic when viewed against other tragedies in the history of Jammu and Kashmir. The massacres of Muslims in Jammu in 1947 remain among the most horrific episodes associated with the Partition of the subcontinent. The available evidence points not merely to large-scale killings and expulsions but also to an evident official intent to eliminate or drive out Muslims from substantial parts of Jammu.
Among the most credible eyewitnesses to those events were the late Ved Bhasin, founder-editor of Kashmir Times, and the late Kishan Dev Sethi, a respected member of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly. Their testimonies continue to constitute some of the most reliable accounts of what transpired during that period.
Yet despite the scale of the killings, demographic transformation, and the apparent official intent behind the violence, neither the Government of India nor any international institution has formally recognised the Jammu massacres as genocide. This raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: should historical categories be determined by legal standards or by political convenience?
The question becomes even more relevant when viewed in the context of contemporary India. Various scholars, human rights observers, and civil society groups have expressed concern over public rhetoric emanating from extremist proponents of Hindutva politics. Calls for the exclusion, marginalization, and subordination of Muslims have increasingly entered public discourse. More troubling is the fact that certain ideological currents have openly articulated visions that many critics interpret as seeking the political, social, and cultural liquidation of Muslims as a distinct and influential presence in public life.
‘Ten Stages of Genocide’
History teaches us that genocides rarely begin with mass killings. They are often preceded by sustained campaigns of dehumanisation, demonisation, exclusion, and stigmatisation. Recent developments in different parts of India have only intensified these concerns. In Arunachal Pradesh, several Muslim religious structures, including nearly fifteen mosques in the Itanagar Capital Region, have reportedly been sealed.
Similar actions involving mosque demolitions or closures have occurred in parts of Uttarakhand, including Dehradun, and in districts of Uttar Pradesh bordering Nepal, often under the banner of anti-encroachment drives. Simultaneously, incidents of mob violence and lynching directed against Muslims have attracted national and international attention.
Significantly, Genocide Watch has warned that India exhibits characteristics associated with the advanced stages of its "Ten Stages of Genocide" framework. Likewise, a 2022 report by Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative observed that examples corresponding to the first eight stages of genocide are present in India. Whether one agrees with these assessments or not, they deserve serious scrutiny rather than dismissal.
None of this automatically establishes that genocide is taking place. That determination belongs to competent judicial and international bodies. Yet the warning signs cannot be ignored. If repeated campaigns of exclusion, stigmatisation, intimidation, lynching, and demolition directed against a religious minority do not warrant public concern, then at what point should society begin to recognise the danger?
The lessons of the twentieth century leave little room for complacency. Genocide rarely arrives without warning. More often, it emerges gradually through the normalisation of hatred, discrimination, exclusion, and violence.
Return and Justice Imperative
If the objective is justice rather than political point-scoring, then the focus should shift from debating labels to addressing the unresolved consequences of the exodus. More than three decades have passed since Kashmiri Pandits left the Valley. Entire generations have grown up outside Kashmir. Homes have been abandoned, neighbourhoods transformed, and memories preserved largely through nostalgia. Their continued absence represents not merely a loss for the community itself but also a profound loss for Kashmir's composite cultural heritage.
At the same time, any serious discussion of return must confront present realities. There is considerable skepticism regarding the prospects of a large-scale return of Kashmiri Pandits to the Valley. Three decades of displacement have fundamentally altered the social and economic circumstances of the community. A new generation has grown up in environments vastly different from those of Kashmir, pursuing education, employment, and careers elsewhere in India and abroad. For many among them, Kashmir remains an ancestral memory rather than a lived social reality.
It is difficult to expect these younger generations to abandon the places where they have established livelihoods and professional networks in order to settle in a region that itself continues to face significant economic challenges. Even those presently living in Kashmir confront persistent problems of unemployment, limited opportunities, and economic uncertainty.
Return, therefore, cannot be viewed merely as a question of security or sentiment. It must also be examined in terms of economic viability, professional opportunities, educational prospects, and quality of life. Rehabilitation requires much more than political declarations.
The question that should concern us today is not merely why the Pandits left but how meaningful conditions can be created for those who genuinely wish to reconnect with their homeland. Security guarantees must inspire confidence without creating segregated enclaves that institutionalise communal separation. Property disputes must be resolved fairly. Economic opportunities must be expanded. Educational institutions, civil society organizations, religious leaders, and cultural bodies must work actively to rebuild trust between communities.
Most importantly, the return of Kashmiri Pandits must not become a partisan political project. It should be treated as a humanitarian and civilisational imperative shared by all Kashmiris. History does not belong to one community alone. The suffering of Kashmiri Pandits is real and deserves recognition.
Equally real is the suffering of Kashmiri Muslims who endured decades of killings, disappearances, imprisonment, torture, displacement, and death. Neither tragedy diminishes the other. The task of the historian is not to manufacture exclusive victims but to illuminate the complexities that produced collective suffering.
Only by confronting those complexities honestly can Kashmir move beyond competing narratives of pain towards a future rooted in justice, reconciliation, and coexistence. The tragedy of the Kashmiri Pandits deserves remembrance. It deserves accountability. It deserves restitution. But whether it constitutes genocide is a question that must ultimately be answered by evidence and law, not by sentiment, political expediency, or competing communal narratives.
Have you liked the news article?