Global Human Rights Defence (GHRD), a non-governmental organization with special consultative status at the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), has long worked to spotlight the consequences of religious and ethnic violence in overlooked regions.

In this interview, conducted by one of its human rights officers, the organization discusses its latest advocacy work on Kashmir following the deadly attack in Reasi, Jammu and Kashmir, where Hindu pilgrims were deliberately targeted. Drawing from field reports and UN submissions, the officer outlines a pattern of extremist violence enabled by transnational jihadist networks—many with alleged ties to Pakistan.

GHRD emphasizes the urgent need for stronger accountability mechanisms within the United Nations framework, while also exposing the gendered tactics used to terrorize communities and dismantle their social fabric. With decades of advocacy behind them, they now warn that the threat is no longer contained within Kashmir’s borders—it’s metastasizing, with implications for global security. Through diplomatic engagement, documentation, and public awareness campaigns, GHRD seeks not only to honor the victims but to demand sustained international action.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What exactly is being presented here today?

Global Human Rights Defence: I am a human rights officer at Global Human Rights Defence, an NGO with special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

Jacobsen: In relation to the recent terror attack in the Reasi district of Jammu and Kashmir, what broader themes are being addressed beyond the specific incident and its victims?

Global Human Rights Defence: We are here to raise awareness about the broader human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir and, more importantly, to demand accountability at the international level. There is credible concern that terrorist groups operating with support from elements within Pakistan have carried out attacks like the one we saw in Reasi recently. We aim to bring these concerns to the attention of the international community and advocate for the establishment of accountability mechanisms through the United Nations and its various bodies and procedures.

Jacobsen: How has the response been so far—both from the public and within UN channels?

Global Human Rights Defence: The response has been modest—we have only been here for a few hours. This action is primarily focused on raising public awareness. In parallel, we have submitted detailed written reports and communications to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and other UN mechanisms. Unfortunately, the situation in Jammu and Kashmir often receives less attention due to the volume of global human rights crises. Our objective is to shift that attention and elevate the issue.

Jacobsen: Can you provide specifics about the victims of the Reasi attack? What made this incident stand out?

Global Human Rights Defence: In the Reasi attack, which occurred in June 2024, at least nine people were killed and over 30 were injured when militants ambushed a bus carrying Hindu pilgrims. What makes this incident especially disturbing is the apparent targeting of religious pilgrims. While investigations are ongoing, early reports suggest that the attackers may have had religious motives, given the nature of the victims and the context. This adds to a pattern of communal violence that raises grave human rights concerns.

Jacobsen: From your findings, what rationale or justification do the perpetrators offer for such attacks?

Global Human Rights Defence: Well, it is a very jihadist, nationalist kind of situation we are talking about. It is part of the jihad—part of eliminating non-believers or those who do not fit within their ideological system. From what we have observed, these are armed militant groups. According to our findings, they have been financially supported by Pakistan for some time. Pakistan has also provided shelter to ISIS and al-Qaeda members for decades. That is why we are calling on countries—particularly members of the Human Rights Council—to cease this type of funding. The European Union, for example, has a programme called the GSP+ (Generalized Scheme of Preferences Plus). It involves trade and financial support through association agreements. What we hope to achieve is a suspension or at least a thorough review of such support, based on human rights conditionality, so that terrorism like this can no longer receive financial backing.

Jacobsen: Given the support networks you’ve mentioned, is there credible concern that this kind of extremist violence could spread regionally or even globally?

Global Human Rights Defence: Absolutely. That is always the risk with terrorism—it does not respect borders. The network is already expanding. We are seeing evidence that different governments have ties to it. What began in Pakistan is now affecting India. Moreover, of course, with the proper financial and logistical support, it could expand anywhere. That is precisely what makes it so threatening in our view—it truly could be global.

Jacobsen: How are these killings typically carried out?

Global Human Rights Defence: I do not want to go into graphic detail, but virtually every form of violence you can imagine has been documented. Victims have been shot at point-blank range, execution-style. While not specific to these recent attacks, we have seen beheadings and stonings in past instances.

Jacobsen: Would you say there is a clear religious or ideological component to this violence?

Global Human Rights Defence: Exactly. These are jihadist methods—deeply rooted in an extremist religious ideology. The brutality is all too real and deliberate.

Jacobsen: Are there individuals who, out of fear or coercion, surrender or join the cause of these militant groups? Are there those who relent and join their cause to avoid being killed?

Global Human Rights Defence: I am not aware of any specific cases, but I can easily imagine that a deep sense of fear is instilled. The military in Pakistan wields considerable power, and we have seen many instances—not only related to terrorism but also involving the suppression of minorities, particularly in regions like Balochistan—where the crackdowns have been ruthless. This creates an atmosphere of fear across the country. I firmly believe that some individuals may turn to these organizations for a sense of security, something they are not receiving from their government, which is supposed to protect them.

Jacobsen: Besides military responses, what other entities—human rights organizations, policy actors, treaty bodies—are actively working to counter these networks?

Global Human Rights Defence: Sadly, not many organizations are currently working on this issue, which is precisely why we are here. However, this issue falls under several international mandates. For example, there is the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions. There is also the Committee Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Another relevant body is the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, which is especially important because enforced disappearances are a recurring issue in this context.

There are several international mechanisms available, but the key right now is advocacy. It is about ensuring that this issue stands out amid the many concerns these bodies face daily. These mandates also face limitations in terms of resources. What we are trying to do is amplify the voices of victims—many of whom can no longer speak for themselves—in the hope of achieving some measure of justice.

Jacobsen: Were any of the victims particularly prominent, or was this attack directed more broadly at ordinary civilians?

Global Human Rights Defence: I do not believe there were any prominent individuals among the victims, which, in a way, makes the situation even more disheartening. These were ordinary civilians. They were not politically active or involved in any movements. Most were simply family men—fathers.

Jacobsen: So the victims were primarily male?

Global Human Rights Defence: Regular working men, yes. They specifically selected the men from the group.

Jacobsen: Why do you think men were specifically targeted?

Global Human Rights Defence: I believe it is about striking the country where it hurts the most. They selected the men based on whether they identified as Hindu. Then they addressed the women and said, “You are going to have to watch this. We are going to execute your husband. Then you go back to your government and tell them what we have done.” It is a tactic of intimidation. At the same time, it is about stripping the country of its human capital—its men—and traumatizing the women to inflict maximum psychological damage.

Jacobsen: Are there other details or patterns in this case that are important to highlight?

Global Human Rights Defence: Generally speaking, this was not an isolated incident. While this particular event gained media attention—especially with the brief escalation between India and Pakistan that followed—it is essential to recognize that such acts of terror happen almost daily, though often on a smaller scale. This conflict has been building for decades. What we saw is only the tip of the iceberg. There is far more to this than what meets the eye. That is why a simple ceasefire agreement, such as the one currently in place, is insufficient. We need a comprehensive investigation. We need stronger accountability mechanisms. That is the only way to prevent such atrocities from occurring again in the future.

Jacobsen: Thank you for taking the time to speak with me.