India, the world’s largest democracy, has long prided itself on the rule of law and a constitutional framework that promises justice and equality. Yet, beneath this democratic veneer lies a darker reality — one marked by recurring allegations of war crimes, human rights abuses, and a culture of impunity surrounding the country’s security forces. From the insurgency-ridden valleys of Kashmir to the conflict-torn hills of the Northeast and the Maoist-affected central heartland, India’s military and paramilitary forces have frequently been accused of unlawful killings, enforced disappearances, torture, sexual violence, and extrajudicial executions.
These allegations are not confined to isolated incidents. They span decades, regions, and operations — and are often met not with accountability, but with silence, denial, or legal immunity. As civil society, international watchdogs, and victims’ families call for justice, a troubling question persists: Are India’s security forces above the law?
A History of Allegations
Kashmir: The Epicenter of Abuses
Nowhere are accusations against Indian security forces more persistent or well-documented than in Jammu and Kashmir. Since the outbreak of militancy in 1989, the region has seen more than 70,000 deaths, thousands of disappearances, and allegations of systemic abuse by Indian troops.
Reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the UN Human Rights Office have catalogued grave abuses — custodial deaths, mass rapes (such as the infamous Kunan-Poshpora case of 1991), torture chambers, and staged encounters. In 2008, the discovery of over 2,700 unmarked graves in border districts sparked international outrage, yet the Indian government resisted calls for independent investigations.
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, or AFSPA — which grants soldiers sweeping powers and virtual immunity from prosecution — has been repeatedly criticized as a legal shield for atrocities in Kashmir. As of 2025, not a single soldier has been prosecuted in a civilian court for crimes committed under AFSPA in Kashmir.
Northeast India: Forgotten Conflicts
States like Manipur, Nagaland, and Assam have long faced secessionist movements, prompting heavy military deployment and frequent clashes between insurgents and the Indian Army. As in Kashmir, AFSPA remains in effect in large parts of the region, emboldening forces to act with little fear of accountability.
In 2004, the extrajudicial killing of Manorama Devi, a young woman allegedly raped and murdered by soldiers in Manipur, ignited mass protests. Women famously disrobed in front of the Kangla Fort holding banners that read, “Indian Army Rape Us.” Despite public outrage, justice remains elusive.
A watershed moment came in 2017 when the Supreme Court ordered investigations into 1,528 alleged extrajudicial killings in Manipur. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was tasked with probing only a fraction of these cases, and progress has been glacial. Many believe the investigations are symbolic rather than sincere.
Central India: The Red Corridor
In Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Odisha — home to India’s Maoist insurgency — both Maoists and security forces have committed acts of violence against civilians. Villagers are caught in a brutal crossfire. Security forces are accused of executing civilians during anti-Naxal operations and labeling them as “Maoists” posthumously.
The 2012 Sarkeguda incident, where 17 villagers — including children — were gunned down by CRPF personnel during a midnight raid, was passed off as a successful anti-Naxal operation. It took years of advocacy and a judicial commission for the truth to surface. Yet, prosecutions remain nonexistent.
Culture of Impunity
AFSPA: The Legal Shield
AFSPA, enacted in 1958, allows soldiers to kill on mere suspicion and protects them from prosecution unless sanctioned by the central government — a permission that is rarely granted. The law has been dubbed a "license to kill" by critics and condemned by international bodies, including the UN.
Despite numerous recommendations from India’s own human rights commissions and law reform committees, AFSPA remains largely untouched. Governments, regardless of party affiliation, have defended it on grounds of national security.
Weak Investigative Mechanisms
Internal investigations by the army or police often lead to the same conclusion: “no wrongdoing.” These inquiries lack transparency and rarely involve civilian oversight. Families of victims, particularly in remote areas, face insurmountable hurdles in accessing justice — from police refusal to register FIRs to threats and intimidation.
India’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), while well-intentioned, has limited powers and jurisdiction. It cannot investigate cases involving armed forces without central government permission, further insulating the military from scrutiny.
Judicial Apathy and Delays
Even when courts intervene, the wheels of justice turn slowly. Victims’ families endure decades-long legal battles. The lack of witness protection and forensic support further weakens cases. Meanwhile, soldiers accused of grave crimes continue to serve or retire honorably.
Silencing the Whistleblowers
In the rare instances when insiders or journalists expose military wrongdoing, they face backlash. In Kashmir, journalists like Aasif Sultan and Sajad Gul have been jailed under terrorism laws for their work. The recent crackdown on digital media platforms critical of state policy signals a broader trend of stifling dissent.
Military veterans who raise questions — like former Major General S.G. Vombatkere or Lt. Gen. H.S. Panag — are often labeled “anti-national” or ignored entirely.
International Reaction
While global human rights organizations have documented abuses extensively, India has largely dismissed these reports as biased or politically motivated. The country’s growing strategic and economic ties with the West — particularly the United States and European Union — have led to muted criticism.
India has refused to ratify the UN Convention Against Enforced Disappearances and has not invited UN Special Rapporteurs to conflict areas. Its periodic review at the UN Human Rights Council in 2022 included strong calls to repeal AFSPA and investigate military abuses, but the Indian government remained defiant.
Human Cost
Beyond legal and political analysis lies the raw human suffering. The mothers of disappeared sons in Kashmir, the wives of slain tribal men in Bastar, the children orphaned by “encounters” in Manipur — these are the faces behind statistics. Many continue to demand justice decades after the crimes, clinging to hope in the face of an indifferent system.
Organizations like the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) in Kashmir and Human Rights Alert in Manipur have documented cases meticulously, but their efforts are stymied by official apathy and bureaucratic stonewalling.
Calls for Reform
Repeal or Reform AFSPA
Legal scholars and rights groups have long called for the repeal of AFSPA or, at the very least, amending it to allow civilian oversight and independent prosecution of military personnel. The Justice Verma Committee (2013), set up after the Delhi gang rape case, recommended removing AFSPA's protection in cases of sexual violence — a recommendation that was ignored.
Independent Oversight Mechanisms
Creating independent, civilian-led commissions to investigate military abuses could go a long way in restoring public trust. Fast-track courts, witness protection, and time-bound trials must become part of the legal framework.
Training and Accountability
Security personnel must receive training in human rights law and international humanitarian standards. Units found guilty of abuses should face suspension, and their commanders held accountable.
Reparations and Recognition
Victims and their families must receive compensation, public acknowledgment, and state apologies. Healing can only begin when truth is recognized and responsibility accepted.
Conclusion: Justice Delayed is Justice Denied
India's national security challenges are real — from cross-border terrorism to insurgency. But these challenges cannot justify blanket impunity for war crimes. A democracy that seeks to lead the world stage must first uphold the rule of law within its borders.
As long as justice is denied to the victims of military abuse — and as long as laws like AFSPA shield perpetrators — India’s claim to moral leadership and democratic values remains hollow. Accountability is not a threat to national security; it is its foundation. It is time India confronts its uncomfortable truths, not with silence or denial, but with courage, compassion, and change.
Comments
Post a Comment