Pakistan’s Vanishing Minorities: Maria Shahbaz Case

Rohan Giri In March 2026, a court in Pakistan closed the file on a thirteen-year-old girl from Lahore and, in doing so, opened a much older wound that the country has never quite managed to heal. Maria Shahbaz, a Christian by birth, had been abducted, coerced into converting to Islam, and married off to the man who took her. Her family brought documents to prove her age. They pointed to marriage papers that did not match the facts of her life. None of it moved the Federal Constitutional Court, which ruled that her later statements, given after weeks in the custody of her abductor, were enough to validate the marriage and send her back to him. It is the kind of verdict that, on paper, looks like the end of one girl’s story. In practice, it reads like the latest entry in a ledger that Pakistan’s minorities have been keeping, reluctantly and at great cost, for decades. The European Parliament noticed. On 8 July 2026, it adopted a joint resolution on the case, built from four separate drafts submitted by the European People’s Party (EPP), the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe (Renew) and the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). What made the resolution worth reading closely was not simply its condemnation of a single court ruling, but the company that ruling was suddenly forced to keep. Buried in the recitals was a figure that ought to have made headlines of its own. In 2025 alone, roughly three-quarters of the documented victims of forced conversion and marriage in Pakistan were Hindu, a quarter were Christian, and nearly eighty percent of all such cases occurred in a single province, Sindh. A single ruling can be an aberration. A demographic skew repeated year after year, concentrated in one province, against the same two communities, is something else entirely. Anyone who has followed Sindh’s Hindu community for more than a news cycle will recognise the shape of this story before it is even told. In February 2012, a nineteen-year-old named Rinkle Kumari was taken at gunpoint from her home in Ghotki district. What followed was almost a template for everything that came after: a sudden disappearance, a claim of voluntary conversion, a court appearance in which the girl, by then weeks removed from her family and in the custody of the man accused of taking her, said what was required of her. Pakistan’s Supreme Court sent her back to her abductor. She told the court, in words that were reported at the time, that there was no justice for Hindus in Pakistan and that she would rather be killed there than returned to the shelter home. She was never seen by her family again. In the years since, the names have changed, Sunita Kumari, Neena Kumari, Lata Kumari, Reena and Raveena, but the sequence rarely does: abduction, a hurried conversion, a marriage certificate produced after the fact, and a court willing to accept a coerced confirmation as proof of consent. Independent research conducted by the NGO South Asia Partnership Pakistan, together with the Aurat Foundation, has estimated that at least a thousand girls, overwhelmingly Hindu, are forcibly converted in Pakistan every year. That is not the residue of an unfortunate exception. It is a functioning system. It is worth asking why this system has been allowed to function for so long, and the answer has as much to do with numbers as with law. Sindh remains home to the largest surviving Hindu population in Pakistan, a community that made up close to fourteen percent of the region’s population at the time of Partition and has since fallen to somewhere between three and four percent. That decline is usually explained away as the ordinary consequence of migration. But researchers who have studied the pattern closely, in India and elsewhere, argue that migration alone cannot account for a fall of that magnitude, and that a slow, decentralised mechanism of attrition, operating family by family through coerced conversion, has done at least as much to hollow out the community as any single wave of departures. No government needs to announce a policy of demographic erasure if its courts will quietly ratify the results of one anyway. There is a second thread in this story that the final joint resolution touched only lightly, though an earlier draft from the S&D group was willing to say it more plainly. That draft connected the pattern of forced conversions to the wider use of blasphemy laws, anti-terrorism statutes and cybercrime provisions against government critics, naming the convictions of Imaan Mazari, Hadi Ali Chattha, Mahrang Baloch and Sibghatullah Shahji, and the continued detention of Baloch and Pashtun rights figures including Ali Wazir. The final text softened this into a general call for judicial reform. But the connection, once drawn, is hard to unsee. A judiciary willing to accept a coerced statement from a frightened thirteen-year-old as evidence of free will is not a separate institution from the one that has, in parallel, been used to jail the lawyers, journalists and activists who try to speak for people like her. Both failures come from the same place: a legal system that treats the powerless, whether a minority child or a dissident adult, as someone whose stated wishes can be safely disregarded once the right procedural box has been ticked. The most telling part of the resolution, in the end, is not what it says about Pakistan’s judiciary but what it says about Europe’s own leverage. Pakistan has held Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+) status for years, a trade arrangement that grants its exports near-zero tariff access to European markets in return for implementing twenty-seven international conventions, among them the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The S&D’s original draft said, without much ambiguity, that continued failure to honour these commitments should result in the withdrawal of that status. By the time the four groups had merged their texts into one, that line had softened into a

Bharat Bangladesh Hindus Human Rights Terrorism

106

Unimplemented Bangladesh Guarantees

Ram Statue Row, unsettling minority question point to decay in societal plurality ideals with radicals holding the sway! Diganta Chakraborty History often throws up some unsettling questions. Partition of Bengal in 1947 was one such moment. A land enriched by freedom fighter Masterda Surya Sen, spiritual leader Dr. Mahanambrata Brahmachari and ancestors of Rabindranath Tagore was divided forever. Creation of East Pakistan today’s Bangladesh was presented as a political solution but it left millions of religious minorities facing an uncertain future even after six decades. During partition, Hindus constituted approximately 22–23 percent of East Bengal’s population. Today, they account for less than one-tenth of Bangladesh’s population. Demographic shifts can occur for various reasons, including migration, fertility patterns and economic opportunities. The magnitude and persistence of this decline have prompted scholars, activists and minority rights groups to ask whether it also reflects decades of communal violence, discrimination, land dispossession, insecurity and repeated episodes of forced migration. Regardless of differing interpretations, one reality is undeniable: the question of minorities’ security in Bangladesh remains unresolved. Recent events have yet again brought the issue into sharp focus. Thousands of Hindus gathered on streets of Dhaka and several other districts following allegations that an image of Lord Ram was desecrated during a demonstration in Gaibandha. Protesters marched with torches through Shahbagh and other parts of the capital chanting ‘Jai Shri Ram’ demanding arrest of those responsible and protect religious minorities. Community organisations warned that if justice was not delivered, larger demonstrations would follow. Reports also suggest that the controversy has been linked to opposition surrounding installation of a nearly completed statue of Lord Ram in Gaibandha which reportedly faced threats from radical Islamist groups. For many observers, these demonstrations were not simply about one incident. They reflected accumulated anxieties within a community that increasingly feels that even peaceful expressions of faith have become vulnerable to intimidation. The concerns expressed by Bangladeshi Hindus themselves reveal the emotional weight behind these protests. Brotaty Roy, a student at Indraprastha College for Women, University of Delhi and a Bangladeshi national, articulated the sense of uncertainty felt by many members of the minority community: “As a Bangladeshi Hindu, I see suspension of Lord Ram statue project as more than just a delay in construction. The statue was almost completed yet threats from radical Islamist groups were enough to stop the work. To many Hindus this is not simply about a monument, it is about the shrinking space for minorities to openly practice and celebrate their faith. When threats can stop a religious project that is near completion, it creates the feeling that minority rights can be overridden by intimidation. Many Hindus believe that this incident reflects a broader pattern of increasing religious pressure in society. In recent years, concerns have grown about the influence of Islamist groups in public life and politics. From this perspective, opposition to Ram statue is not only about religious disagreement but also about an attempt to limit the public visibility of Hindu identity.” Whether or not every observer agrees with this interpretation, Roy’s testimony illustrates fears and insecurities experienced by sections of Bangladesh’s Hindu community. Public confidence in equal citizenship depends not only on constitutional guarantees but on whether minorities feel safe enough to practise and express their faith without fear of intimidation. Every democracy is ultimately judged not by how comfortably its majority lives but by how securely its minorities can exercise their rights. Bangladesh’s Constitution appears to acknowledge this principle. Article 23A, introduced through Fifteenth Amendment in 2011, directs the State to protect and promote unique local culture and traditions of the tribes, minor races, ethnic sects and communities of Bangladesh. The provision reflects the country’s constitutional commitment to pluralism and cultural diversity. Yet constitutional promises acquire meaning only through implementation. Minority organisations and human rights advocates have repeatedly argued that these protections have not consistently translated into effective institutional safeguards. Reports of attacks on temples, vandalism of religious symbols, disputes over minority-owned land, and sporadic communal violence have periodically surfaced over the years. While Bangladeshi government has often condemned such incidents and initiated investigations, critics argue that response has not always been sufficient to reassure vulnerable communities. This is not merely a legal question. It is fundamentally a question of trust. Bangladesh emerged in 1971 through a struggle that championed linguistic identity, democracy, secularism and cultural pluralism. These ideals distinguished the country’s liberation movement and inspired admiration across South Asia. Preserving that legacy requires ensuring that every citizen Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, or indigenous enjoys equal protection before the law. Importantly, many Bangladeshis themselves reject communal hatred and recognise that attacks on minorities undermine the nation’s founding ideals. Tasdik Ahmed, a student of English Language and Literature at Bangladesh University of Professionals reflects this sentiment: “As a citizen of Bangladesh, I believe that respecting all religions and their sacred symbols is essential for maintaining communal harmony. The alleged insult to Lord Ram’s image is unfortunate and has hurt the sentiments of many people. Bangladesh has a long tradition of religious coexistence, and such incidents should be addressed through proper legal measures while upholding mutual respect among all communities.” His remarks represent an important perspective. The demand for minority rights is not simply an issue raised internationally or by neighbouring India; it is also a concern shared by many conscientious Bangladeshi citizens who wish to preserve their country’s pluralistic traditions. This distinction deserves emphasis. Raising concerns about the safety of Bangladesh’s Hindu minority should never become an indictment of Bangladesh as a nation or of its people. Across the country, journalists, academics, students, lawyers, civil society organisations and ordinary citizens continue to speak in favour of religious harmony and equal citizenship. Their voices demonstrate that the struggle against communalism is also an internal Bangladeshi conversation. The responsibility now rests with the State. Investigations into incidents of religious desecration or communal intimidation must be impartial, transparent, and swift. Those responsible for inciting hatred or violence should face legal consequences irrespective of their political

Bharat Disinformation Hindus Misinformation Security

187

Why Spew Venom Against RSS & Hindus?

Self-styled Christian lobbyists’ campaign against Hindus outreach in US & Europe has not worked even with scaremongering and demonization tactics. Aniket Pingley There is a genre of writing immune to journalistic standards in gathering evidence, retaining balance and complete disclosure. It is the opinion piece. In its honest form, it declares a position and argues it. In its dishonest form, it uses the opinion format as legal exemption, a space where alarming assertions are made, dehumanising imagery deployed and contested allegations stated as settled fact, all under the protective cover of “these are merely my views.” John Dayal’s piece in UCA News, headlined, “The Indian paramilitary organization’s tentacles in the US,” is a distinguished specimen of the dishonest form. It is tactical scaremongering – calibrated to produce a specific emotional and political effect amongst a specific audience at a chosen moment in Washington lobbying calendar. The article makes claims about the RSS, Gujarat, lobbying firms, FCRA and about Indian-origin officials in the US government. I will not engage those claims here. They are matters of public record, available to any reader willing to search. Readers are capable of forming their own opinions about Gujarat 2002, Modi visa episode, Squire Patton Boggs and India’s FCRA regime. They do not need me to defend the RSS against Dayal’s version of events. What I will do is more useful: identify what this article actually is, what it is attempting at and why its final sentence, the most revealing sentence in the piece, tells the reader everything they need to know. Confession in last sentence Dayal ends his article with, “The RSS has money, access, a friendly executive environment, and the weight of geopolitics on its side, and for the moment seems able to counter the evangelical campaign.” Read it slowly. Counter the evangelical campaign. Not “respond to criticism.” Not “defend itself against allegations.” Counter the evangelical campaign. Dayal told his readers, in his own words, what this is actually about. There is an evangelical campaign, organised, funded and directed, targeting RSS in Washington DC. And, what is Dayal lamenting is that this campaign is not working. RSS is successfully countering it. This is the most important fact in the entire article and it appears in the last line, almost as an afterthought. Everything before it, the alarming language, assembled allegations, USCIRF references, lobbying firm drama, is the infrastructure in that evangelical campaign. The article is a dispatch from one side of an active lobbying contest, written by one of its participants, lamenting that the other side is holding ground. And, RSS has every right to hold its ground. USCIRF’s annual report is not scripture. It is not axiomatic truth. It is not a judicial finding. It is the output of an advisory commission whose India recommendations the US State Department has declined to act upon for six consecutive years, a fact Dayal buries in his final paragraph as if it were a footnote, rather than the most consequential sentence in his piece. American foreign policy operates on classified intelligence, diplomatic relationships and a comprehensive picture of the world that an advisory commission does not possess. What’s this Evangelical Campaign? The campaign Dayal laments, RSS is successfully countering, is a coordinated effort to have United States designate India as a Country of Particular Concern on religious freedom, impose targeted sanctions on RSS and restrict its members from entering the US. It runs through USCIRF, Congressional testimony, UN Special Rapporteur submissions and in coordination with International Christian Concern, National Association of Evangelicals and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Its substance: Christian organisations in India are being persecuted, FCRA restrictions choke Christian churches and anti-conversion laws are religious oppression. Each of these claims deserves a question Dayal never asks: why are there so many foreign-funded Christian organisations operating in India and what precisely are they doing? The answer is not theoretical. It is on the record. Compassion International (CI), a major US-based Christian child sponsorship charity that operated in India for 48 years, provides the most precise forensic answer available. In 2017, Indian Government placed CI on “prior permission” list under FCRA, requiring explicit case-by-case approval for every financial transaction, effectively halting flow of approximately $50 million annually. The government’s case rested on CBI First Information Report and Income Tax investigation into CI’s primary Indian affiliate, Chennai-based Caruna Bal Vikas (CBV). CBV was registered under FCRA with its legally declared nature of association as “economic, educational and social.” The CBI found it had, in its own documents, “invariably indulged in religious activities.” More precisely, in CBV’s own stated long-term organisational objective, the goal was “converting poor children into fulfilled Christian adults.” That is not a characterisation by the Indian government. It is what the organisation wrote about itself. Furthermore, CI was identified as part of an organised international missionary industry focused on what its own practitioners call “10-40 Window”, a geographic band encompassing majority of the world’s Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists, deliberately targeted as a conversion frontier. This is what the FCRA regime was responding to. Not the practice of Christianity, the Saint Thomas Christians of Kerala have worshipped in this land since the first century, and nobody has targeted them. What was being regulated is a specific, documented, foreign-funded, institutionally organised project of converting economically vulnerable children using charitable cover. When an organisation tells CBI investigators, through its own documents, that its goal is to convert poor children, it is not a policy concern. That is evidence. India’s state governments have enacted anti-conversion laws through elected legislative assemblies using constitutional procedures with clear majorities. These laws do not prohibit practice of Christianity. They regulate coercive, fraudulent or inducement-based conversions. Twelve states have enacted such legislation. That is Indian democratic federalism functioning as designed. Whether those laws are sound policy is a matter for Indian courts and voters, not for an American advisory commission whose mandate derives from US domestic legislation with no jurisdiction over a sovereign parliament. FCRA regime applies

Geopolitics International United States USA

654

Will Religion Limit Talent Hiring in US?

JD Vance prodding that businesses hiring personnel from other communities and countries were ‘anti-Christian’ is simply gross. CIHS Desk For first time in recent history of United States of America (USA), faith and religion have been introduced to run businesses, economy, make investments and hiring of personnel. Valuing diverse culture of America may not be against basic ethos or tenets of that country. But to suggest that as a ‘Christian nation,’ US companies and businesses have to rethink employing talented people at cost-effective wages from third world is gross. US Vice President JD Vance described America as a “Christian nation” and said we need to protect American jobs from cheaper workers of other countries. Speaking at Turning Point’s America First conference 2025, Vance prodded that employing people of other origins at competitive terms was not part of ‘true Christian politics’. Well, Vance may have to be shown the mirror. Not many would complain about ‘America First’ policy of President Donald Trump or his Vice President. But to give a religious or faith related twist to hiring, employment, running businesses is seriously untenable. The Republican eager to launch his presidential campaign in 2028 may have overstepped ideologically and pursued a sectarian, politically volatile agenda. While Christians of different denominations form US majority polity today, US itself came into being on the graves of Red Indians. In a globalized economy, flexibility in running businesses and recruitment of personnel based on their education, training, talent, value-addition, deliverables and costs must be the basis. Businesses and industry in US may not like to take J D Vance too seriously and reject a large number of their personnel just because they are not Christian or do not subscribe to his political agenda of exclusivity. In case businesses do limit their choice in talent hunt to American Christians as suggested by Vance, what about the large mass of atheists, agnostics and other minorities? While pandering to 162 million Christians of Protestants, Catholics is rather tempting, but to reject others from within and outside irrespective of talent and their contribution in terms of economic value is unsustainable even in short term. Is J D Vance making out a case against those coming for jobs, valued contribution to American economy? Does Vance not understand as to how many universities and institutions run just due to students and professionals from different countries? Is Vance laying the roadmap for Christian and ‘others’ kind of political campaigns that’s pugnacious? American cultural and civilizational evolution has subscribed to making it the ‘land of high value workers’ irrespective of their origin or pay packets they take home. Does Vance not appreciate contribution of religious minorities that include Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains or people of colour? From the days of George Washington, Church has had a big say in governing United States though there was huge resistance to religious interference in state’s affairs. Now, extending it to private sector is something that the Catholic turned Vance proposes to do. This will have serious implications for American businesses as liberal access to talent globally sustained them till now. And, non-availability or limited choice would translate into gaps in high value chains across industrial and services sectors of American economy. Big question therefore several analysts posed was governing America by the country’s constitution or Apostles? Will ‘Ten Commandments have upper hand over Bill of Rights? Several policymakers within Trump administration think that JD Vance postulation of a Christian nation may not allow for hiring the brightest and most talented human resources to compete with China. Exclusive or restrictive policies may not only restrict opportunities for other communities but force top technology giants to shift their investments to more competitive, flexible and open markets.

USCIRF 2025 - Distorting India’s Reality

Disinformation Misinformation Security United States USA

966

USCIRF 2025: Distorting India’s Reality

The USCIRF time and again spins a one-sided tale cherry-picking facts, sidelining India’s constitutional pluralism, and pushing a loaded narrative that fits their playbook more than ground realities. Pummy M. Pandita The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom’s (USCIRF) 2025 India report has once again revealed the commission’s fundamentally flawed methodology, dependence on biased data sources & selection, lack of transparency in evaluating religious freedom, and a one-sided narrative that misrepresents India’s thriving democracy and plural society. By selectively choosing incidents, depending on questionable sources, and willfully avoiding India’s constitutional framework, USCIRF has created a report that is neither objective nor credible. In selectively pointing out incidents in a vacuum and ignoring the broader framework of India’s constitutional protections for all religions, USCIRF goes against its own credibility. Not only does this report misrepresent the situation on the ground, but it also unfairly defames a nation that enshrines the rights of all its citizens. USCIRF has repeatedly refused to provide its sources of data in a manner that meets rigorous journalistic or academic transparency standards. Much of the incidents quoted in the report rely on politically driven NGOs, lobby groups, and reports from organisations that have a recorded history of ideological bias against India. Reports tend to be based on media reports instead of official government statistics, police records, or independent judicial evaluations. This selective information distorts the actual picture of religious freedom in India. Most of these sources have already been identified as previously misreporting or manipulating facts to fit a specific agenda. The lack of primary research, government interaction, or varied local opinions in the report questions its credibility. India is targeted for scrutiny, yet the USCIRF overlooks or disparages such incidents or worse in other democracies, showing a distinct double standard. The report ignores the emergence of religious extremism among some minority communities, such as instances where religious radicalization put national security at risk or affected communal harmony. It disregards the constitutional protection afforded to minorities in countries like India’s strong judicial protections, affirmative action measures, and full participation of minorities in public life. USCIRF selectively reports on local incidents without context, repeatedly leaving out legal proceedings, counter-reports, and government action taken to respond to grievances. USCIRF consistently misinterprets India’s legal structure, labeling good governance actions like anti-conversion laws and policies regarding citizenship as discriminatory, although they are founded on constitutional provisions. The report also underplays violent extremism, secessionist forces, and foreign interference in Indian internal affairs, selectively labeling state reactions as “persecution” without drawing attention to threats to national security. USCIRF’s record of going after India has followed a general geopolitics design wherein reports have been used to lever diplomatic engagements. The USCIRF has specifically targeted the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 (“2019 CAA”) passed by the Indian Parliament in 2019 and its continued criticism since then reveals an inaccurate understanding of the genesis of the law and the disrespect towards sovereign Indian democratic institutions. CAA is designed to offer refuge to persecuted religious minorities—Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians—from neighboring Islamic states like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh. These minorities have long faced systemic oppression in their home countries. CAA does not affect Indian Muslims, who are in no way disadvantaged by the law. Yet USCIRF frames it as a discriminatory tool, conveniently ignoring that it aims to address religious persecution in neighboring Islamic nations. For good order sake, United States too has a similar Citizenship Act in the form of the Lautenberg Amendment, led by US Senator Frank Lautenberg in 1989-90, which facilitates citizenship to recognized persecuted religious minorities in the former Soviet Union. Iran was added subsequently through the Specter Amendment, that provided refugee status and ultimately citizenship to a group of minorities from three nations. Why is USCIRF silent on that and not condemned this act also? The commission has also been accused of disproportionately targeting on some nations and ignoring serious religious freedom abuses in many other nations, which puts its motives and geopolitical agendas in question. Its inability to speak out against growing cases of persecution of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and other minority groups in the neighboring countries where blasphemy laws and institutional discrimination are prevalent. This inconsistency erodes the credibility of the USCIRF and raises questions about whether its reports are motivated by facts or political goals. Suggesting India as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) is not only factually wrong but also smells of a conscious effort to mislead about India’s religious scenario. India is still one of the most religiously plural and diverse countries, where individuals from all religions are involved in government, business, and public life. However, USCIRF’s failure to recognize this diversity and continued legal protections for religious communities reveals its biased agenda. The report also criticises India’s anti-conversion laws, which are in place to prevent coerced religious conversions, often under the guise of marriage or social coercion. These laws, intended to protect vulnerable individuals from exploitation, have become a focal point of controversy. USCIRF dismisses this as Hindu nationalist propaganda, sidestepping the genuine concerns that prompted these laws. By recommending punitive measures like sanctions and diplomatic pressure against India, USCIRF has gone beyond its mandate and attempts to intrude into the sovereign decisions of a democratic country. These suggestions are not only counterproductive but also demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of India’s democracy and devotion to pluralism. USCIRF Report 2025 is an extremely defective, ideologically charged document that fails objective scrutiny. Its selective ire, methodological shortcomings, and transparency deficiencies make it unsuitable for serious policy discussion. It is an instrument of geopolitical politics, not an objective evaluation of religious freedom. India’s commitment to religious freedom is classified in its Constitution and defended by its democratic institutions. It is essential that any honest evaluation of India is provided based on verifiable data, integrated analysis, and a recognition of India’s pluralistic fabric USCIRF 2025: Distorting India’s Realitysomething the USCIRF report utterly fails to accomplish. USCIRF’s biased reports are not an isolated phenomenon. They fit into a larger pattern

Human Rights

917

Biden’s Summit for Democracy and Human Rights around the World

Prachi Mishra / New Delhi The United States of America under the leadership of President Biden launched the first Summit for Democracy, held virtually on 9th and 10th of December 2021. This Summit lays the foundation for deliberation and discussion on the preservation of democracy and human rights in the coming decade. A week before the Summit, the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) released a paper on total democracy under one party rule as a strong assertion to the Summit. In a white paper released by the CPC, titled, “China: Democracy That Works”, China stated that it is the ‘largest democracy’ in the world. This is the first time that both the PRC and the CPC have claimed that China’s governance structures and policies run on democratic principles. U.S. President Joe Biden’s Summit and CPC’s white paper provide a fitting context to this analysis on human rights in various forms of governance systems around the world. In the last few years, there have been unprecedented challenges that have plagued most democracies. Be it the widening digital divide or the issue of gender-based crime, the nature of socio-economic challenges seemed to have weakened the democratic systems around the world. Similarly, over the course of the last decade, human rights violations around the world have also increased manifold. Non-democratic regimes, like China and Qatar, witness growing number of such cases but owing to their system of governance and media reportage, human rights violations in these countries are underreported or not reported at all. In this context, there is a pressing need to strengthen democratic systems and ensure that violation of people’s basic rights is addressed. In this brief, we draw a comparative analysis of human rights violations in different forms of governance systems. We present – Communist regimes, with a focus on China Theocratic regimes, with a focus on Pakistan Absolute monarchies, with a focus on Qatar Democracies, with a focus on India; and Totalitarian regimes, with a focus on North Korea The analysis is based on several indicators, viz., the nature of rights that are most often violated in a regime. These include women’s rights, rights to freedom of religion, children’s rights, freedom of expression and privacy, minority rights inter alia. Be it the suppression of Uyghur Muslims in China or the unlawful persecution of religious minorities in Pakistan’s Gilgit-Baltistan or the inequality faced by women in Qatar, human rights are violated in each of these regimes but are sparsely covered in the media. In totalitarian regimes, like North Korea, violations are seldom reported, and data is unavailable for most of these indicators. In a functioning democracy, reasonably India, where the four pillars of democracy work independent of each other, human rights violations are duly reported, and the judiciary has been playing a crucial role in providing justice to the aggrieved. The independence of media has led to greater reportage of violations which is often misconceived as failure of democratic systems. This calls for a balanced view of all governance systems and how reporting of violations are suppressed in many of them. Based on the interventions provided during the Summit, this brief lays down a few recommendations on upholding the human rights in democratic systems. Violations based on the nature of governance system Qatar Qatar’s political system is a de facto absolute monarchy, with the Emir of Qatar serving as the country’s head of state and administration. Qatari legislation is primarily based on Sharia law. According to the 2003 Qatari constitutional referendum, it was decided that the state of Qatar will be a constitutional monarchy with an elected legislature, yet elections were repeatedly postponed since 2013. Finally, in November 2020, Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani announced that the elections will take place in October 2021. Following an announcement by the Emir of Qatar on August 22, 2021, general elections were held for the first time on October 2, 2021. Men and women over the age of 18 years were eligible to vote for thirty (30) of the fourty-five (45) seats in the Consultative Assembly, with the remaining fifteen (15) selected by the Emir. The thirty 30 seats were contested by two hundred eighty-four (284) individuals, including 29 women aspiring leaders. All candidates ran as independents as political parties are prohibited by constitution. No female candidates were elected and according to various non-governmental organisations, thousands of Qataris were denied the right to vote. Thereby, casting shadows on the Qatari constitutional monarchy claims. Freedom of Expression Qatar’s hereditary emir is in charge of all executive and legislative powers, as well as the judiciary. There are no political parties allowed, and while Qatari citizens are among the world’s wealthiest, the vast bulk of the population is made up of non-citizens who lack political rights, civil liberties, curtailed freedom of expression, freedom of religion and economic opportunities. In Qatar both print and broadcast media are influenced by powerful families and censored by the government. The international television network Al-Jazeera is showcased and branded to be exhibited as privately owned, however, the government is said to have compensated for its operating costs since 1996. In Qatar, all journalists practice some form of self-censorship and may risk jail time for defamation and other press violations. Access to the independent English-language website Doha News was restored in May 2020, after it had been prohibited in late 2016 due to a lack of an operating authorization. In 2017, and 2020, the outlet once more changed hands before resuming full operations. A change to the penal code in January 2020 makes spreading or publishing “fake news” punishable by up to five years in prison or a fine of 100,000 riyals ($27,500). The new ambiguously written rule that criminalises a wide variety of speech and publication activities threatens to severely curtail Qatar’s freedom of expression in Qatar. Religious Freedom Islam is the official religion in the State of Qatar. There is no constitutional protection for freedom of religion. However, the constitution