India, the world’s largest democracy, has long been hailed for its constitutional guarantees of fundamental rights, a robust legal system, and a vibrant civil society. Yet, beneath the veneer of democratic principles lies a complex and often troubling reality: persistent allegations of state violence, suppression of dissent, and violations of human rights. From counterinsurgency operations in Kashmir and the Northeast to crackdowns on civil protest and the treatment of marginalized communities, multiple regions and communities have experienced the sharp edge of state power. This article explores the multifaceted dimensions of alleged state violence in India, analyzing its patterns, causes, consequences, and the response from institutions and civil society.



Historical Context of State Violence

State violence in India has roots in its colonial past. Under British rule, repression was institutionalized through laws such as the Rowlatt Act and acts of brutal suppression like the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. Post-independence, the Indian state retained and even expanded many coercive structures. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), introduced in 1958 in the Northeast and later extended to Jammu and Kashmir, gave extraordinary powers to the military in “disturbed areas,” leading to decades of allegations of abuse and impunity.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, India saw increased use of force in dealing with insurgencies in Punjab, Kashmir, and the Northeast. The Emergency period (1975–77), during which civil liberties were suspended, marked a significant moment of state overreach, with thousands of political opponents jailed and allegations of custodial torture and forced sterilizations.

Contemporary Allegations: A Regional Overview

Kashmir

The region of Jammu and Kashmir has been a focal point for allegations of state violence. Since the insurgency began in the late 1980s, thousands of civilians, militants, and security personnel have died. Human rights organizations have documented widespread abuses: enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, extrajudicial killings, and sexual violence.

The revocation of Article 370 in August 2019, which ended Kashmir’s special status, was followed by an unprecedented security lockdown, communication blackout, and mass detentions. Reports from local and international media, along with NGOs like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, described arbitrary arrests, especially of minors, and the use of torture in custody. Journalistic freedom was severely curtailed, making independent verification challenging.

Northeast India

In states like Manipur, Nagaland, and Assam, the presence of AFSPA has led to similar allegations of excessive use of force. A landmark case involved 1,528 alleged extrajudicial killings in Manipur, documented by the Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association Manipur (EEVFAM). The Supreme Court of India ordered investigations into many of these cases, underlining the need for accountability.

While some argue that the armed forces are necessary to combat insurgency, critics assert that the blanket immunity provided by AFSPA perpetuates a culture of impunity. In 2021, the killing of 14 civilians in Nagaland by Indian forces during a botched operation reignited calls for repealing the act.

Central India and the Maoist Insurgency

The “Red Corridor,” stretching across several central Indian states, has been the epicenter of conflict between Maoist insurgents and security forces. Operation Green Hunt, launched in 2009, mobilized tens of thousands of paramilitary personnel. Tribals and Dalits, who form the majority of the local population, have often been caught in the crossfire.

Reports of fake encounters, arbitrary arrests, and custodial deaths are common. In Bastar, Chhattisgarh, human rights activists and journalists have faced harassment and intimidation for reporting on state excesses. The arrest of tribal rights activist Soni Sori, who was allegedly tortured in custody, remains a powerful symbol of the state’s harsh approach.

Crackdown on Protest Movements

State violence is not confined to conflict zones. In recent years, peaceful protests across India have witnessed disproportionate use of force. The anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests saw widespread police violence, especially in Uttar Pradesh and Delhi. Dozens were killed or injured in police firing, and there were numerous allegations of arbitrary detention and custodial torture, particularly targeting Muslim protesters.

During the 2020–2021 farmers’ protests, several protest sites were barricaded, water cannons and tear gas were deployed, and journalists were detained or charged with sedition for coverage deemed unfavorable by authorities. The approach reflected an increasingly confrontational stance toward dissent.

Legal and Institutional Responses

India’s legal framework provides robust protections against state overreach. The Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), freedom of speech and assembly (Articles 19 and 22), and prohibits torture or cruel treatment. However, implementation often falls short due to weak enforcement mechanisms, political interference, and slow judicial processes.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and State Human Rights Commissions are tasked with investigating complaints of abuse, but they are often criticized for limited powers and lack of enforcement capabilities. The judiciary has occasionally stepped in, as in the Manipur extrajudicial killings case, but systemic change remains elusive.

The Role of Media and Civil Society

Independent media and civil society have been vital in bringing cases of state violence to light. Investigative journalism has exposed fake encounters, illegal detentions, and custodial deaths. Organizations like People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), and Amnesty International India have documented abuses and provided legal aid to victims.

However, the operating space for civil society has shrunk significantly. The Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) has been used to restrict funding for NGOs. Amnesty International was forced to halt its operations in India in 2020 due to government pressure, citing a "witch hunt" against human rights organizations.

Patterns of Impunity

A consistent pattern in allegations of state violence is the lack of accountability. Despite well-documented cases, prosecutions are rare. Security personnel are shielded by laws like AFSPA, while political will to pursue justice is often absent. Victims, especially from marginalized communities, face intimidation, social stigma, and bureaucratic hurdles.

A report by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative noted that out of thousands of custodial deaths reported over a decade, only a handful led to convictions. Police reforms recommended by commissions such as the National Police Commission remain largely unimplemented.

Political Narrative and Public Perception

Government narratives often justify use of force as necessary for national security and public order. This has found resonance among sections of the public, especially in a polarized media environment where dissent is often labeled as “anti-national.” The rise of majoritarian politics has further complicated the landscape, with certain communities, especially Muslims and Dalits, disproportionately targeted.

At the same time, there is growing public awareness and resistance. Movements like Shaheen Bagh, farmers’ protests, and local protests in tribal areas highlight a continued commitment to democratic resistance, even in the face of repression.

International Reactions

India’s global image as a democratic power has come under scrutiny due to reports of state violence and declining press freedom. Several UN Special Rapporteurs have expressed concern over the misuse of counterterrorism laws, police brutality, and restrictions on civil society. U.S. State Department human rights reports and the EU Parliament have also flagged concerns.

Yet, India’s strategic importance often tempers international criticism. Economic and security partnerships often overshadow human rights concerns in diplomatic engagements.

Conclusion: The Struggle for Justice and Reform

Allegations of state violence in India reflect a deeper tension between the imperatives of security and the principles of democracy. While the Indian state faces genuine security challenges, the response has often undermined the very constitutional values it claims to protect. The persistence of impunity, erosion of civil liberties, and suppression of dissent point to an urgent need for institutional reform and democratic renewal.

Addressing state violence requires a multifaceted approach: repealing draconian laws like AFSPA, instituting independent oversight of security forces, protecting civil society, and ensuring judicial accountability. Most importantly, it demands a societal commitment to uphold human rights and the dignity of all citizens, regardless of their region, religion, or political beliefs.

As India moves forward, the question remains: Can the world’s largest democracy live up to its constitutional promise, or will the shadows behind the borders continue to grow darker.