Village Defence Guards-Asad-MDS

The Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Hindu nationalist government in India has recently taken another step towards the suppression of Muslims in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu & Kashmir (IIOJK). The Indian government has revived the Village Defence Guards – hereinafter referred to as VDGs. Earlier, the VDGs justified their actions against the Muslim community in the region under the guise of upholding law and order. However, their interventions only exacerbated unrest. Following recent reports of recurring instances of violence, the idea of arming Hindu civilians re-emerged. 

The revival of civil militias in the IIOJK has raised serious concerns about the misuse of arms, and  human rights violations against the Muslim community in the region. The Indian government defended the move claiming that ‘it will wipe out a decades-old armed rebellion in the disputed region’, but the experience of similar decisions in the past suggests otherwise.

Historically, in many countries across the world, the idea of deploying civil militias has remained in practice. However, such initiatives often resulted in heinous unintended consequences. One pertinent example is the 1994 Rwandan genocide of the Tutsis. The Hutu-led government started calling locals to murder their neighbours and offered rewards. History then witnessed one of the darkest chapters in humanity, where 800,000 lost their lives in just three months. This serves as a reminder of the hazards of relying on state-sponsored militias to maintain law and order.

Coming back to the use of civil militias in occupied Jammu and Kashmir, in the 1990s, when militancy was at its all-time high, the then-Indian government created and nurtured local militias in the Valley for the very first time. With about 4000 members and about 27000 volunteers, the then-named Village Defence Committees (VDCs) were responsible for countering any militancy in the region. Their motives, however, soon changed, and the organisation increasingly started to settle personal vendettas. Members of the VDCs were accused of violence and assault against minorities, and more than 221 official cases were registered against them in different categories like rape, killings and rioting. Despite knowing the consequences of arming civilians in highly sensitive areas, now the current government has again decided to re-arm Hindu villagers.

The VDGs are led by a retired army officer and come under the direct command of the district police leadership. Security officials claim that they will take all necessary measures to ensure that no one abuses the power vested in them through the VDGs. The recruited would be paid about USD 50 per month and undergo a background check before getting recruited. 

India has already dug the pits of indignation by abolishing the special status of Kashmir under Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution. The BJP has stripped Kashmir’s sovereignty with the intention of changing its demographic status from a Muslim majority state to a Muslim minority one. Discriminatory efforts of the Indian government to reduce the representation of Muslims in the legislature and undermine their separate identity have ignited fierce resentment among the people. Hence, this act can be seen as an extension of the Indian government’s efforts to suppress the freedom of Kashmiris and a state-sponsored initiative to continue the atrocities.

Local Muslims see  revival of the VDGs as an effort to deliberately escalate state-sponsored violence. Jammu & Kashmir is the world’s most militarised zone, and yet the Indian government is now claiming to be controlling the violence as an excuse to further militarise the region. Deployment of Hindus as the VDGs has given them authority and abusive power over Muslims and has, thus, stirred religious tensions among the people. Convincing Hindus to take up arms would further polarise communities. Fuelling division on the basis of religion would exacerbate the chaotic situation in IIOJK.

Revival of the VDGs has also raised serious questions about the international support that India receives. The country is always projected as a secular state and a strong advocate of democracy, but ironically, the democratic approach it flaunts on all forums remains suspended in the IIOJK. With more than 200 registered FIRs and countless unregistered incidents, humanitarian groups ought to be wary of the ongoing atrocities being endured by the people of Kashmir. 

Hence, the revival of VDGs is bound to complicate matters even further. Such an unrealistic and discriminatory approach shows the callousness of the Indian government. The situation will only deteriorate if India, under its Hindutva extremist agenda, prioritises its own interests over the well-being of Kashmiri people and regional peace. 

Asad Ullah Khan is a Senior Research Associate at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. He can be reached at [email protected].

Design Credit: Mysha Dua Salman


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »