The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is an international norm designed to prevent mass atrocities, such as genocide and war crimes. Its inception stemmed from the global failures to respond effectively during the crises in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. While R2P is grounded in noble intentions, its implementation has largely faltered, particularly amid escalating global conflicts and humanitarian crises. First articulated in Kofi Annan's 2000 Millennium Report and formally adopted at the 2005 UN World Summit, R2P aims to hold governments accountable for the protection of their citizens. However, its application remains inconsistent, marred by accusations of double standards and political bias that undermine its efficacy.
Concerns regarding R2P's selective enforcement are well-founded. The contrasting responses to interventions in Libya versus the inaction in Syria and ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) exemplify the norm's shortcomings. In many instances, the interests of powerful nations take precedence over humanitarian imperatives, evidenced by the lack of intervention in regions like IIOJK and Gaza, where clear human rights violations are evident. The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect has called for a reevaluation of R2P, urging reforms that include clearer criteria for intervention, stronger international consensus, and enhanced local capacities to prevent mass atrocities. As we approach the 20th anniversary of R2P in 2025, it presents an opportunity for critical reflection on its future efficacy.
A parallel concern arises from the Hinduization of India's legal system, which has profound implications for the Kashmir region. Recent legal and political decisions by the Indian government signal a push to integrate Hindu nationalist ideals into governance, particularly through the controversial revocation of Article 370 in August 2019. This action stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its special autonomous status, undermining the region's autonomy and granting the central government greater control. The removal of this provision has sparked fears among Kashmiris about the erosion of their rights and cultural identity, aligning with broader concerns about demographic engineering.
The legal changes affecting Kashmir, such as modifications to residency rules permitting non-Kashmiris, including Hindus, to acquire property, further exacerbate fears of altering the region's demographic balance. These actions resonate with the Hindutva vision of promoting Hindu dominance in areas with substantial Muslim populations, thereby intensifying the strain on the relationship between the government and the people of Kashmir.
The implications of these legal shifts extend beyond Kashmir, revealing a broader trend that threatens minority rights throughout India. The policies advanced by the central government, supported by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), have been criticized for fostering an exclusionary form of nationalism that marginalizes the Muslim population of Kashmir and overlooks the region's intricate history.
In conclusion, the Hinduization of law in India has not only impacted its legal landscape but has also extended to Kashmir, where policies undermine the region's autonomy, alter its demographic structure, and further marginalize its Muslim population. This situation exacerbates the ongoing crisis and jeopardizes peace in South Asia. As the international community contemplates the efficacy of R2P, it must also consider the implications of national policies that disregard the rights and identities of vulnerable populations, particularly in regions like IIOJK. Only through genuine commitment to both local autonomy and global humanitarian norms can we hope to forge a path toward lasting peace and justice.

Maria Khalid
Email: [email protected]