Mass detentions in Kashmir spark outrage over collective punishment

KASHMIR (MNTV) – A sweeping crackdown by Jammu and Kashmir Police on February 5 has led to the detention of over 500 individuals across the valley in overnight raids following a rebel attack. 

The detentions, described by authorities as a “counterterrorism” measure, have sparked widespread fear and criticism, with many calling it a violation of human rights and a form of collective punishment against the Kashmiri population.

The raids came in response to a rebel attack in the Behibagh area of Kulgam, where unidentified gunmen carried out an attack, resulting in the death of a former Territorial Indian Army soldier, Manzoor Ahmad Wagay.

A large number of those detained were relatives of Kashmiri rebels and pro-freedom activists based in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

Many have been detained simply because they have taken part in pro-freedom activism in the past. 

The large-scale detentions that followed have raised alarms about due process and civil liberties. A senior police official stated that the operation was aimed at identifying individuals with links to rebel networks and preventing future attacks.

However, families of those detained describe the arrests as arbitrary and indiscriminate, with security forces rounding up individuals in sweeping nocturnal raids without clear evidence or legal recourse.

One father of a detained individual described the terrifying ordeal to MNTV, “They came in the dead of night, broke down our door, and took my son without a word. When we pleaded for an explanation, they threatened to take his younger brother too.” 

Another relative, an uncle of a detainee, recounted, “They broke our main door and took him away without explanation, shoving him into a vehicle as we watched helplessly. This is not the first time they have detained him like that.”

The draconian nature of these detentions has been enabled by the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which grants extraordinary powers to security forces operating in what the government terms “disturbed areas.” Under this law, authorities can declare any region as disturbed based on their own assessment, without any objective criteria.

Once an area is designated as such, security forces have sweeping powers, including the authority to use force—even lethal—on mere suspicion that a person is violating a law, to conduct warrantless searches, and to arrest individuals without clear justification.

Critics argue that the vague language of the Act, which provides no clear definition of a ‘disturbed’ or ‘dangerous’ condition, allows security forces to operate with near-total impunity. Section 4 of AFSPA authorized personnel to fire upon individuals at their discretion, while Section 5 allows for invasive searches, including breaking into private property.

Section 6 provides absolute immunity to armed forces personnel from criminal prosecution unless explicitly sanctioned by the Union government—a provision that human rights groups have consistently condemned as a shield for abuses.

In Jammu and Kashmir, an additional provision, specific to the region, grants security forces even greater latitude in breaking into private spaces under the pretext of recovering weapons or apprehending suspects.

A Kashmiri parliamentarian, Ruhullah Mehdi, in a strong statement, criticized the crackdown, saying, “I fail to imagine the terror of a family whose loved ones now lie in the abyss of an opaque security system. This is not security.”

The politician condemned the rebel attack on the Territorial Army soldier but called the response a case of “collective retribution.” He highlighted the problematic use of vague terms such as “Over Ground Workers” (OGWs) and “Hybrid Militants” to justify detentions without accountability, stating that such terminology enables human rights violations under the pretext of security measures.

The mass detentions have once again underscored the deepening climate of fear and suppression in the region. Families of the detainees remain in distress, with little to no information about their loved ones’ whereabouts or legal rights.

Critics warn that using state repression as a means of control is unsustainable. “If you must rule by repression, then you have already lost your legitimacy,” the parliamentarian asserted, calling for an end to mass detentions and for authorities to engage in meaningful dialogue rather than resort to fear tactics.

As Kashmir remains under an intensified security clampdown, the voices of families affected by these detentions grow louder, demanding justice, transparency, and an end to what they see as state-sponsored persecution.