Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR) and its UK lead, Rajiv Sinha, present themselves as defenders of democracy, human rights and free speech. However, their responses to two recent protest movements in 2026 continue to raise serious questions about whether those principles are applied consistently.
India: Immediate mobilisation
When protests took place in India, HfHR UK and Rajiv Sinha reacted swiftly – as expected, we may add. They organised demonstrations outside the High Commission of India in London, held public discussions, issued statements, and repeatedly portrayed India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his administration as authoritarian.
These London-based campaigns continued even though India allowed the protests to proceed, engaged with public concerns through democratic processes, and, in fact, introduced legislative measures 1 in response to the issues raised, including reforms addressing examination paper leaks.
Pakistan Occupied Kashmir: Silence amid deadly crackdown
In stark contrast, HfHR UK and Rajiv Sinha remained silent when protests erupted in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
The demonstrations, led by the Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC), were triggered by opposition to the reservation of 12 legislative seats for refugees from Kashmir living elsewhere in Pakistan. The protests also reflected broader concerns over governance, political representation, accountability and regional autonomy. 2
The Pakistani authorities banned the JAAC under anti-terror legislation, imposed internet restrictions, and security forces used lethal force during clashes, resulting in multiple deaths and injuries. As per the last available reports, the overall death toll was nearly 40 3, while the JAAC alleges that more than 30 protesters were killed by Pakistani security forces; the Pakistani government disputes the figures, and independent verification has been severely hampered by communications blackouts and restrictions on media access. Several media outlets were banned, including Al Jazeera, and the media ban was further broadened to local staff working for foreign media outlets4.
Despite these developments, HfHR UK and Rajiv Sinha are yet to organise protests, issue public statements, or express solidarity with those affected. No, not a single word of condemnation of actual human rights violations, the very same principle they claim their activism is based on.
A clear contrast
| Issue | India | Pakistan Occupied Kashmir |
| Nature of protests | Protest over Examination paper leaks and demand for resignation of the Education Minister | Protests over political representation, governance and reserved legislative seats |
| State response | Protests permitted; government engaged with grievances and introduced legislative reforms | JAAC banned, internet restrictions imposed, Foreign media curbs, and security forces used lethal force during clashes |
| HfHR UK & Rajiv Sinha | Immediate protests, public campaigns and sustained criticism of India | No comparable public campaign, statement or protest |
Hypocrisy on Steroids: Serious questions about consistency and intentions
Human rights advocacy carries greater credibility when applied consistently, regardless of the country involved.
The contrast between HfHR UK and Rajiv Sinha’s rapid mobilisation over events in India and their apparent silence during the deadly unrest in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir invites legitimate questions about whether their activism reflects a universal commitment to human rights or a selective focus on particular governments.
The hypocrisy they show continues to expose them – this is not the first and certainly won’t be the last, judging by their actions (and inactions in certain cases).
For organisations that claim to defend democracy, free speech and human rights, consistency is not optional; it is the standard by which their credibility is judged.
We will continue to expose HfHR and Rajiv Sinha for their duplicity and malicious intent and call them out for what they actually are.
References
1. Links below
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2290080&lang=1®=48&utm
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/20100/1/A2024-01.pdf?utm
Quick brief below:
When protests followed the 2026 NEET controversy, alongside allowing public debate and protest, the Indian government responded through the legislative process. Building on the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, which had already criminalised paper leaks and examination malpractice, Parliament enacted the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2026, following widespread concerns arising from the NEET 2026 examination.
The amendment significantly strengthened the existing law by:
- increasing penalties for organised paper leak syndicates;
- providing for imprisonment of up to 10 years for serious offences;
- imposing fines of up to INR 10 crore;
- extending accountability to examination authorities, service providers and examination centres; and
- introducing time-bound investigations and fast-track trials.
The legislation was passed by both Houses of Parliament and received Presidential assent, demonstrating the use of democratic institutions to address public concerns and strengthen safeguards for millions of students.
2. (Although the title and the articles incorrectly refer to ‘Pakistan-administered-Kashmir’ instead of ‘Pakistan Occupied Kashmir’, references are provided here for the coverage of the event in PoK)
- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/8/at-least-11-killed-in-pakistan-administered-kashmir-clashes-before-rally
- https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/pakistan-administered-kashmir-vote-marred-by-deadly-clashes-2026-07-29
- https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/nine-killed-pakistan-administered-kashmir-clashes-2026-07-14
