The name “Operation Sindoor” evokes a complex tapestry of national security, covert action, and raw emotion within Pakistan. It refers to a series of mysterious, violent events—targeted killings, bombings, and shootings—primarily between 2015 and 2019 that targeted individuals deemed “enemies of the state.” These included activists and posters of anti-Pakistan terrorist organizations, as well as individuals labeled as Indian spies. The Pakistani state has consistently attributed these actions to a shadowy “third force” or internal gang wars, vehemently denying any official involvement.
This official policy of ambiguity and denial creates a profound and deeply troubling paradox: How can a government it does not acknowledge existing compensate for the victims of an operation it claims never happened?
The short, stark answer is that there is no evidence to suggest the Government of Pakistan has implemented any formal program to compensate the victims or their families affected by the events labeled under Operation Sindoor. To understand why this is the case, one must delve into the intricate web of national security policy, state sovereignty, and the painful human cost of covert warfare.
The Nature of the Operation: Denial and Obfuscation
The first and most significant barrier to compensation is the state’s foundational position. From the perspective of the Pakistani government and its military establishment, Operation Sindoor, as a state-sanctioned campaign, is a fiction. Officially, the killings were the result of:
- Internal Rivalries: Infighting between different militant factions or criminal gangs.
- Personal Vendettas: Settling of scores unrelated to state policy.
- The “Third Force”: A deliberately vague term often implying foreign intelligence agencies, particularly India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), were conducting false-flag operations to destabilize Pakistan.
Admitting to a coordinated, state-run targeted killing campaign would have catastrophic implications. It would:
- Violate International Law: It would be an open admission of extrajudicial killings, a clear violation of international human rights law and a state’s duty to uphold the right to life and due process.
- Damage Diplomatic Relations: It would severely strain relations with other countries and attract condemnation from international bodies like the United Nations.
- Create Legal Precedent: Acknowledgement would open the state to a flood of lawsuits from victims’ families, demanding justice, transparency, and financial compensation.
Therefore, the state’s strategy is one of implacable denial. Compensating victims would be a de facto admission of responsibility, shattering this carefully constructed narrative and exposing the state to immense legal and political liability.
The Legal and Ethical Quagmire of Compensating for Covert Actions
Even if there were a will within the deepest echelons of power to provide some form of discreet support, the mechanism for doing so is fraught with difficulty.
- No Official Record: If the state does not acknowledge the operation, there can be no official list of its operatives or its victims. Identifying whom to compensate would require an official audit of an unofficial operation—a logical impossibility.
- Defining the “Victim”: The term “victim” in the context of Operation Sindoor is intensely contested. From the state’s perspective, many of those targeted were not innocent civilians but hardened terrorists with blood on their hands, responsible for atrocities like the Army Public School massacre in Peshawar. Compensating the families of individuals officially designated as terrorists would be politically incendiary, seen as rewarding evil and betraying the victims of their attacks.
- The Secrecy Doctrine: Covert operations are, by definition, secret. Creating a formal or even informal compensation program would require involving finance ministry officials, bureaucrats, and bankers, exponentially increasing the risk of leaks. Secrecy is paramount, and this would irrevocably compromise it.
This creates a heartbreaking impasse. For families who lost members—whether they were alleged criminals, militants, or in some cases, potentially innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire—there is no path to official recognition of their loss, let alone financial solace from the state they believe is responsible.
Contrast with Recognized State Actions
The difference in the state’s approach becomes clear when compared to acknowledged military operations. For instance, during the military campaigns in the Swat Valley and North Waziristan (Operation Zarb-e-Azb), the government publicly acknowledged the collateral damage and displacement of civilians. This led to established, though often flawed, mechanisms for compensation:
- The Survivor Benefits Fund: Managed by the Army, this fund provides financial support to families of soldiers martyred in combat.
- Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) Support: The government, often with international aid, launched programs to provide cash, food, and shelter to civilians displaced by the fighting.
These actions are public, acknowledged, and exist within a framework of a declared war on terror. The victims are recognized as victims of a known conflict. The victims of Operation Sindoor have no such privilege. Their suffering is erased from the official record, their tragedies buried under layers of secrecy and denial.
The Human Cost: The Unacknowledged Grief
Beyond the legal and political arguments lies the profound human cost. Families are left in a torturous limbo:
- No Closure: Without an official explanation or acknowledgment, families cannot find closure. They are left with unanswered questions and a lifetime of “what ifs.”
- Social Stigma: In some cases, families bear the stigma of their relative’s alleged actions, isolated by their community while also grieving their loss.
- Economic Hardship: The loss of a breadwinner, regardless of the reason, plunges families into economic uncertainty. With no state support, this hardship is compounded.
For these families, the question of compensation is not about politics; it is about survival, dignity, and the basic human need for their loss to be seen and acknowledged.
Conclusion: The Silence is the Statement
The absence of compensation for Operation Sindoor’s victims is not an oversight; it is an integral part of the operation itself. The silence, the denial, and the refusal to engage with the narrative are the tools used to maintain the policy’s plausible deniability.
Compensation is a function of accountability. In the case of Operation Sindoor, the Pakistani state has chosen a path of strategic ambiguity over accountability, justifying it as a necessary evil in a brutal war against terrorism. This approach, while potentially effective from a cold, realpolitik security perspective, comes at a deep moral cost. It leaves a trail of unacknowledged grief and perpetuates a cycle of violence without reconciliation.
The question of compensation, therefore, answers itself. Until the state is willing to break its silence and confront the full consequences of its actions, the victims of Operation Sindoor will remain casualties not just of violence, but of a policy that cannot afford to say their name.