Letter to United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

United Nations

Mr. Volker Türk
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
United Nations

Mr. Vladimir Voronkov
Under-Secretary-General for Counter-Terrorism

United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism

Dear High Commissioner Türk and Under-Secretary General Voronkov,

We are writing to you as you hold key positions in the United Nations to protect human rights and its counter-terrorism efforts [1].

On April 22, 2025, Islamist terrorists ruthlessly massacred 26 tourists in Kashmir, India. Those killed were targeted solely because they were Hindus or non-Muslim. According to harrowing eyewitness reports, in identifying their targets, the killers asked them to recite the Kalma (a declaration of faith central to Islam), checked the IDs ^[2]of the victims, or pulled down their trousers to check if they were circumcised. Then, those people determined to be Hindu or non-Muslims were shot dead in front of their wives and children. This was a vile religiously motivated attack that left India and Hindus everywhere in shock.

This attack is only the latest example of such religiously motivated brutality inflicted upon Hindus by Islamists: a “‘drip-drip genocide”^[3] in Pakistan, ethnic cleansing ^[4] in Bangladesh, as well as attacks upon them reported by the United Nations ^[5] (UN) and a wipeout in Afghanistan. In 1989-90 Hindus in the Indian union territory of Jammu and Kashmir were given the option “convert, flee or die.” Of those who fled, most have yet to return home.

There is a worldwide pattern of Islamist terrorists deliberately separating and killing non-Muslims.

Despite our sorrow and rage, we Hindus cast our gaze beyond our community and see we are not alone in our losses. What happened in Kashmir is reminiscent of other incidents in countries and milieus far different from our own. Consider the following:

In January 2022 in Nigeria, a man recounted ^[6] that Fulani jihadis stopped him and started beating him. Then they asked him if he was Muslim or Christian. When he said he was Christian, they intensified the beating.
In Burkina Faso ^[7] in November 2021, Islamist terrorists asked villagers if they were Christian or Muslim, then killed the Christians.
In Mozambique in June 2021,^[8]Islamist terrorists were hunting for Christians door-to-door.
In the Philippines ^[9]in February 2019, Islamist terrorists murdered a man for failing to recite Qur’an verses while releasing six others who could recite them.
In September 2018, in Kenya,^[10] Islamist terrorists murdered two non-Muslims for failing to recite the Qur’an.
In July 2017 in Kenya,^[11] Islamist terrorists asked Christians to “recite Islamic dogmas” and murdered them when they couldn’t do so.
In an attack on a Bangladesh restaurant in July 2016, jihadis tortured those who could not recite from the Qur’an.
An Islamist terrorist in Minnesota ^[12]in 2016 asked mall shoppers if they were Muslim and then stabbed non-Muslims.
In 2015 Mali,^[13] Islamist terrorists screaming “Allahu Akbar” took hostages, freeing those who could recite the Qur’an and killing others.
In September 2013, at Nairobi’s Westgate Mall, Islamist terrorists murdered people who couldn’t answer ^[14]questions about Islam.

Reporting to the Security Council on the massacre of 26 civilians in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2017, a group of experts stated,^[15] “They [the attackers] also recorded information about each person, including their name and religion. They asked them why they had not converted to Islam and showed the Qur’an to one of them. Photos of the dead show that they had been bound and some had been tied together. After the killings, they shot in the air twice, saying that they had killed all the “kafir ” (“infidels” in Arabic).

The fact that such massacres took place in widely differing countries demonstrates that the same motivating ideology is at work.

The deliberate killing of non-Muslims is only one aspect of the much larger problem of Islamist terrorism haunting the world.

The figures are stark. It has been quantitatively established that between 1979 and May 2021, at least 48,035 Islamist terrorist ^[16]attacks took place worldwide. They caused the deaths of at least 210,138 people. One hundred percent of the entities sanctioned by the Security Council ISIL (Daesh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee are Islamist terrorists.

An analysis of UN records show that from August 2007 to May 2022, the Security Council condemned acts of terrorism 115 times. In all these cases except one, the entities committing the terrorism were self-identified Muslims or were done in circumstances or places that suggest their Muslim identity. The only exception was the Christchurch Mosque attack in New Zealand by a white supremacist ^[17]in March 2019. The victims of Islamist terrorism include persons of all faiths, including a vast number of Muslims.

The worldwide problem demands a reality-based response.

The UN Security Council considers that “terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security.” Additionally, it states, “acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever, and by whomsoever committed.” The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy Plan of action includes taking ‘urgent action to prevent and combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.’ The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights ^[18](OHCHR) claims it “speaks out objectively in the face of human rights violations worldwide.”

The roots of the problem are known but unnamed.

The European Commission has stated ^[19] “The fight against countering terrorism and violent extremism starts with tackling its root causes.” The first sentence of the Arab Human Development Report 2002 ^[20] states, “An accurate diagnosis of a problem is an important part of the solution.”

We agree. But what is the root cause of Islamist terrorism?

A European Union (EU) research paper on “The root causes of violent terrorism”^[21] specifically mentions “a Salafi-jihadi interpretation of Islam.” It makes clear terrorists or potential terrorists are motivated both by political and religious factors, stating ‘Political seekers are usually seeking support and are driven by political engagement. They tend to view themselves as saviours defending the people of “the nation” or “the umma”. They are motivated by a sense ‘that Islam is under siege’ and a desire to ‘protect ummah under assault.’ Europol defines Jihadism ^[22] as “a violent ideology exploiting traditional Islamic concepts. Jihadists legitimize the use of violence with a reference to the classical Islamic doctrine on jihad, [which in] Islamic law is treated as religiously sanctioned warfare”.

A UN handbook on the management of violent extremist prisoners ^[23] lists the motivations to resort to violent extremist acts, which include “extreme interpretations of religious ideologies and beliefs that advocate the use of violence.”

During the UN High-Level Conference on Counter-Terrorism held in New York on 28 and 29 June 2018 (organized by the Permanent Mission of France to the UN, the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Crime and Radicalization Prevention, with the support of the Delegation of the European Union, la Francophonie, UNESCO and the Permanent Missions of Belgium, Morocco, and Tunisia) one speaker, a Muslim academic named Rachid Benzine, was featured as “a part of the new generation of intellectuals who advocate open and critical work on the Qur’an.”

To the best of our knowledge, this has not happened. Despite all the work these organizations are doing, they are failing in one fundamental respect: they are neither naming the problem nor probing its roots. This requires that the religious motivation of the Islamist terrorists be explicitly understood.

International law prohibits incitement to hatred.

In the US, ^[24]owing to the First Amendment, the state “may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” However, incitement to hatred is prohibited under international law. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has stated, “There is an international obligation of prohibition of incitement to hatred.” Specifically, Article 20, paragraph 2 ^[25] of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”

Furthermore, according to OHCHR^,[26] under international human rights standards, expression labeled as “hate speech” can be restricted under articles 18 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on different grounds, including respect for the rights of others, public order, or sometimes national security.

The UN definition ^[27]of hate speech is “any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.”

Addressing the root causes of Islamist terrorism is not Islamophobia.

In April 2021, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Ahmed Shaheed — himself a Muslim and a former foreign minister of the Maldives — admitted to the UN Human Rights Council ^[28] the term Islamophobia is “contested because charges of Islamophobia have been inappropriately and dangerously leveled at persons who challenge majoritarian interpretations of Islam, such as human rights activists and women’s rights advocates; members of minority Muslim communities within majority Muslim contexts; non-Muslims, including atheists and other religious minorities; and dissidents in authoritarian States.” He also stated ^[29] “international human rights law protects individuals, not religions” adding that “Nothing in [his] present report suggests that criticism of the ideas, leaders, symbols or practices of Islam is something that should be prohibited or criminally sanctioned.”

OHCHR has stated,^[30] “the right to freedom of religion or belief, as enshrined in relevant international legal standards, does not include the right to have a religion or a belief that is free from criticism or ridicule” and that “the right to freedom of expression implies that it should be possible to scrutinize, openly debate and criticize belief systems, opinions, and institutions, including religious ones.”

The problem can be addressed comprehensively only when it is accurately named and its root causes established and action taken according to international law.

With such murder and mayhem caused by Islamist terrorism, the question arises: how should international organizations and national and local law enforcement react? It is evident that Islamist terrorists consider themselves in a religious war based on their words and the names of their organizations. If they consider themselves as such, then there is no alternative to objectively studying the religious texts that animate Islamist terrorists.

Islamist terrorism constitutes among the most serious threats to international peace and security. As such, it is necessary to address and defeat it with all the tools available to the international community including venturing in “taboo” areas.

We note OHCHR had organized a series of expert workshops to examine the legislation, jurisprudence, and national policies with regard to the prohibition of national, racial or religious hatred as reflected in international human rights law. In October 2012, OHCHR convened a wrap-up expert meeting in Rabat, Morocco, resulting in the adoption of the Rabat Plan of Action. Furthermore, OHCHR ^[31] has stated:

“International expert bodies have a crucial role to play in guiding States in their implementation of provisions of human rights law on incitement to hatred thereby contributing to the progressive development of international law and defusing political tensions”
“International human rights standards on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred still need to be integrated into domestic legislation and policies in many parts of the world.”
“The right to freedom of expression implies that it should be possible to scrutinize, openly debate and criticize belief systems, opinions and institutions, including religious ones.”
“Indeed, free and critical thinking in open debate is the soundest way to probe whether religious interpretations adhere to or distort the original values that underpin religious belief.”

Recommendation for the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR)

OHCHR should urgently organize a series of high-level expert workshops, in different regions of the world, to examine the extent to which national legislation, jurisprudence, and policies consider whether the religio-political ideology motivating Islamist terrorists arouses hatred, hostility, intense and irrational emotions of opprobrium, enmity and detestation towards non-believers (the kuffar) and whether they can be restricted under articles 18 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Recommendation for the UN Office of Counter Terrorism

To reorient the UN counter-terrorism programme to include Islamist terrorism specifically.
To explicitly acknowledge the religio-political roots and motivations of Islamist terrorism.
To retire the term ‘Violent Extremism’ and replace it with ‘Violent Islamist Extremism’ when an Islamist terrorist attack occurs.
Reconvene Member States to revise and sign the Comprehensive Convention on Terrorism, pending for the last thirty years that specifically takes Islamist terrorism into account.

If you have any questions about this request, please do not hesitate to contact us at (email address). We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Deepti Mahajan

President,
Hindu Policy Research and Advocacy Collective – HinduPACT [32]

Signatories coordinated by Hindus Advancing Human Rights (HAHRI),[33] an initiative of HinduPACT

Rajiv Malhotra
Author

Geeta Sika,
Vice President Communications
American4Hindus [34]

Nikunj TRIVEDI,
President
Coalition of Hindus of North America [35]

Dharmansh USA Board
Dharmansh USA[36]

Prakasarao V Velagapudi, PhD.
Global Hindu Heritage Foundation[37]

Mohinder Gulati,
President
Global Hindu Temple Network [38]

Samir Kalra, Esq,
Hindu American Foundation, Director, Policy and Programs
Hindu American Foundation [39]