South Asia remains one of the world’s most volatile regions, where armed conflicts persist across borders and within nations. From the insurgencies in Kashmir to the internal strife in Myanmar, from Pakistan’s ongoing struggle with militant groups to India’s northeastern states grappling with ethnic tensions, the region faces a persistent cycle of violence. With over 2.4 million military and paramilitary personnel deployed across India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh alone, South Asia’s armed forces are deeply entangled in internal security operations. This reality makes understanding and implementing International Humanitarian Law not just important, but urgent.
Table of Contents
The landscape of conflict in South Asia
The conflicts tearing through South Asia are neither new nor simple. Research by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute identifies three major armed conflicts in South Asia: Afghanistan’s internationalized civil war, India’s combined interstate border and subnational conflicts, and Pakistan’s high-intensity border and internal struggles. These classifications barely scratch the surface of the region’s complexity.
In Kashmir, the conflict has claimed more than 50,000 lives since 1989, according to monitoring groups. The year 2018 alone witnessed 586 conflict-related deaths, marking the highest casualty count since 2008. India’s northeastern states face their own battles with ethnic insurgencies and separatist movements, while the Maoist insurgency continues to simmer in central India. Myanmar descended into major armed conflict following the 2021 military coup, with casualties exceeding 11,000 in the first year alone.
What makes South Asia’s conflicts particularly troubling is their entrenchment. They stem from colonial legacies, unresolved boundaries, and the undefined status of ethnic and religious groups. External interventions have compounded these problems, from the decades-long war on terrorism in Afghanistan to ongoing proxy conflicts.
Armed forces in internal security operations
Across South Asia, military forces designed to defend against external threats increasingly find themselves deployed against their own populations. India maintains approximately 1.47 million active military personnel, while Pakistan fields around 660,000 troops. Bangladesh’s armed forces number 163,000 personnel. These massive deployments create conditions ripe for violations when forces trained for conventional warfare engage in counterinsurgency operations.
The prolonged use of armed forces in internal security roles corrupts their primary mission. Soldiers meant to protect national borders instead patrol civilian neighborhoods, conduct searches, and manage protests. This shift erodes the traditional respect for military forces and places them in situations where human rights violations become more likely.
Documented allegations of human rights abuses
The evidence of systematic human rights violations by armed forces across South Asia is extensive and disturbing. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has documented serious concerns about abuses by state security forces in Kashmir, including excessive use of force, enforced disappearances, alleged sexual violence, and torture in custody.
In Kashmir, security forces have deployed pellet-firing shotguns as crowd-control weapons despite causing numerous civilian deaths and injuries. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act provides effective immunity from prosecution, creating an environment where accountability is virtually nonexistent. Since the law’s implementation in Kashmir in 1990, the Indian government has not granted permission to prosecute any security force personnel in civilian courts.
In Myanmar, research has shown that human rights violations are systematic rather than isolated incidents. An investigation found that 64 percent of senior army commanders had allegations of disappearances, killings, rape, or torture committed by units under their command since 2011. The military’s brutal response to the 2021 coup has included arbitrary arrests, torture, extrajudicial killings, and indiscriminate attacks on civilians.
Pakistan faces similar allegations. Security operations in Karachi and Baluchistan have perpetuated arbitrary arrests, torture, ill-treatment, and extrajudicial executions. The pattern repeats across the region: armed forces conducting internal security operations with inadequate training, minimal oversight, and near-total impunity.
Why international humanitarian law matters now
International Humanitarian Law provides a framework for limiting the effects of armed conflict. At its core, IHL establishes that persons not participating in hostilities must be protected, and that parties to conflicts cannot use unlimited means and methods of warfare. The law requires combatants to distinguish between military targets and civilians at all times, and prohibits attacks that would cause excessive civilian harm relative to military advantage.
For South Asia, where armed forces operate extensively among civilian populations, these principles are not academic exercises. They represent the difference between legitimate security operations and systematic abuse. IHL demands that security forces take precautions to spare civilians, prohibits torture and cruel treatment, and ensures that detained persons receive humane treatment.
The scale of military deployment in South Asia makes IHL compliance essential. When millions of armed personnel interact daily with civilian populations in conflict zones, the potential for violations multiplies exponentially. Without adherence to humanitarian law principles, conflicts that might be contained instead spiral into cycles of abuse and retaliation.
The accountability gap
The most troubling aspect of human rights violations in South Asia is the persistent lack of accountability. Laws like India’s Armed Forces Special Powers Act create legal shields that prevent prosecution. Military courts prove inadequate for addressing serious human rights abuses. Administrative detention laws allow authorities to hold individuals for extended periods without charge or trial.
This immunity extends beyond individual cases. Senior officials have publicly defended actions that constitute clear violations of humanitarian law. When a major used a civilian as a human shield in Kashmir, government officials including the attorney general publicly supported the action rather than condemning it. Such responses send unmistakable signals that violations will be tolerated, if not encouraged.
Without accountability, there can be no deterrence. Soldiers and officers learn that abuses carry no consequences. Victims and their communities lose faith in justice systems. The cycle continues unabated.
Breaking the cycle through IHL
Implementing International Humanitarian Law in South Asia requires fundamental changes. Armed forces need comprehensive training in IHL principles before deployment in conflict zones. Rules of engagement must align with humanitarian law requirements. Independent oversight mechanisms must replace systems designed to shield violators from consequences.
States bear the primary responsibility for ensuring IHL compliance. This includes investigating allegations thoroughly, prosecuting violations through fair judicial processes, and providing remedies to victims. Laws that grant blanket immunity must be repealed or reformed. Administrative detention powers must be brought within acceptable legal frameworks.
The international community also has obligations. All states must ensure respect for humanitarian law, not just those directly involved in conflicts. This means diplomatic pressure, conditioning military assistance on compliance, and supporting independent monitoring and documentation efforts.
Most importantly, South Asian nations must recognize that adherence to IHL serves their own long-term interests. Conflicts cannot be won through indiscriminate force and systematic abuse. Such approaches only deepen grievances, radicalize populations, and perpetuate cycles of violence. IHL compliance, by contrast, can help de-escalate tensions and create conditions for sustainable peace.
What do you think? Given the massive military deployments and persistent conflicts in South Asia, what concrete steps could governments take immediately to strengthen IHL compliance? How can civil society and international organizations effectively pressure states to prioritize humanitarian law when national security concerns dominate political discourse?
References
- https://power.lowyinstitute.org/data/military-capability/armed-forces/military-and-paramilitary-forces/
- https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2022/04
- https://www.defstrat.com/magazine_articles/conflict-dynamics-in-south-asia/
- https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/factbox-in-numbers-military-might-of-india-and-pakistan/3554303
- https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/07/10/kashmir-un-reports-serious-abuses
- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/1/myanmar-militarys-human-rights-abuses-a-system-exercised-from-the-top
- https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/02/human-rights-violations-endemic-in-south-asia/
- https://www.icrc.org/en/document/what-international-humanitarian-law
Leave a Reply