The most recent assessment by a panel of independent international experts, convened by the United Nations Human Rights Council, has concluded that the pattern of state‑backed persecution of Muslims in India’s two most populous states now resembles the early stages of ethnic cleansing. The report, covering July 2022 through January 2026, cites credible evidence of extrajudicial killings, mass arrests, torture and large‑scale demolition of homes targeting Muslim communities in Uttar Pradesh and Assam. It further states that the conduct of state actors, including the chief ministers of both states, satisfies the legal criteria for crimes against humanity and, in the case of Assam, for direct and public incitement to genocide.
Stephen Rapp, a former chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Special Court for Sierra Leone, was one of three panel members who authored the findings. In an interview with The Diplomat, Rapp warned that the “normalisation of anti‑Muslim violence” in India has created a climate where everyday assaults and openly encouraged mob actions are no longer treated as aberrations but as routine. He drew parallels with the Balkans, noting that mass violence there began not with armed conflict but with a systematic narrative that rendered coexistence untenable. Rapp argued that India’s current trajectory mirrors those early warning signs, and that without decisive intervention the process could advance toward more systematic atrocities.
Uttar Pradesh, home to roughly 44 million Muslims – about 20 percent of its population and the largest Muslim constituency in any Indian state – has been governed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) since 2017. Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, a Hindu monk with a long record of incendiary rhetoric, has overseen a series of policies that critics say institutionalise discrimination. In Assam, where Muslims constitute roughly 35 percent of the 12 million‑strong population, the BJP’s Himanta Biswa Sarma has been in power since 2021. Both leaders have repeatedly framed Bengali‑speaking Muslims as “infiltrators” and existential threats, using language that the panel interprets as direct incitement. Their speeches, delivered at rallies, in press briefings and through state‑controlled media, have been documented alongside the issuance of arms licences to Hindu groups operating in Muslim‑majority districts.
The panel’s legal analysis draws on India’s treaty obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Although India is not a party to the Rome Statute, the experts applied its definitions of crimes against humanity and genocide to assess the gravity of the violations. They concluded that the systematic nature of the abuses – including forced evictions, demolition of businesses, and the use of draconian statutes such as the National Security Act, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act and the Armed Forces Special Powers Act – points to a policy of persecution that could amount to apartheid under international law.
The report recommends that the UN Human Rights Council, the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) mechanism, and other international bodies initiate formal investigations. It also calls for a preliminary examination by the International Criminal Court (ICC) into the forced deportations of Bengali‑speaking Muslims from Assam to Bangladesh, citing the same jurisdictional basis the ICC used in the arrest‑warrant request against Myanmar’s military chief for the Rohingya deportations. In addition, the panel urges states with universal‑jurisdiction statutes to consider prosecutions, echoing the approach taken in Syrian war‑crimes cases.
For a global audience, the implications extend beyond human‑rights concerns. India’s economy, the world’s fifth‑largest by nominal GDP, relies heavily on domestic stability to sustain foreign investment, supply‑chain continuity and its strategic role in the Indo‑Pacific. Persistent communal violence threatens social cohesion in regions that host critical infrastructure, including energy pipelines, manufacturing hubs and logistics corridors. The unrest also raises the risk of retaliatory attacks on Indian diaspora communities, potentially straining diplomatic ties with nations that host large numbers of Indian expatriates, such as the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Geopolitically, the findings arrive at a moment when India is seeking to deepen security and trade partnerships with the United States, Japan and Australia under the Quad framework, while also navigating a complex relationship with China. Persistent internal conflict could undermine India’s credibility as a reliable partner in regional initiatives, from maritime security to climate‑change cooperation. Moreover, the United Nations and European Union have signalled a willingness to scrutinise member‑state compliance with international human‑rights norms, suggesting that prolonged inaction could invite formal inquiries or sanctions that would reverberate through diplomatic channels.
The panel’s methodology combined testimony from victims, reports from civil‑society organisations, court documents and social‑media analysis. Researchers cross‑checked these sources against international legal standards, applying the threshold of “credible information” that typically justifies the opening of formal investigations. The experts deliberately did not seek a response from the Indian government, noting that the lack of domestic accountability reinforces the urgency of external oversight.
Rapp’s experience prosecuting hate‑speech‑driven genocide in Rwanda underscores the panel’s emphasis on narrative. He recalled that the International Criminal Tribunal secured the first convictions for direct incitement to genocide by targeting the broadcasters of RTLM radio. In the Indian context, the panel identifies a similar pattern: political leaders employing coded language that dehumanises a specific community, coupled with the tacit or overt support of Hindu nationalist organisations such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal. These groups, often described by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom as “militant” and recently recommended for sanctions, operate in concert with law‑enforcement agencies, blurring the line between state action and private vigilantism.
While the panel stops short of declaring a definitive intent to destroy the Muslim population, its assessment that the conditions for genocide incitement exist in Assam, and that systematic persecution rises to the level of crimes against humanity in both states, signals a stark warning. The international community faces a choice: to treat the situation as an internal law‑and‑order issue or to invoke the collective responsibility enshrined in the Genocide Convention and the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. As Rapp cautioned, early warning signs are most valuable when they prompt preventive action rather than retrospective condemnation.
The panel’s report, released on April 24 2026, therefore serves as both a legal document and a geopolitical alert. It underscores how domestic policies, when coupled with extremist mobilisation, can erode the rule of law in a nation that is central to global supply chains and regional security architecture. For policymakers, investors and analysts monitoring the Indo‑Pacific, the findings demand close attention to India’s internal dynamics, as they will shape the country’s capacity to fulfil its economic ambitions and strategic commitments in the years ahead.