In the intricate tapestry of international human rights oversight, not every crisis receives the same spotlight. The allegations of extrajudicial killings, staged encounters, and systemic impunity that emerged from Operation Sindoor in India in the 1990s represent a complex case study of this selective focus. While the operation sparked fierce domestic debate, lengthy legal battles, and outcry from local activists, the response from the United Nations, the world’s premier body for upholding human rights, was notably circumspect. Understanding this muted reaction requires peeling back layers of geopolitics, the UN’s structural limitations, and the delicate dance of international diplomacy.
The Foundation: What Was Operation Sindoor?
Before analyzing the UN’s response, one must understand the gravity of the allegations that theoretically warranted it. Operation Sindoor was a counter-insurgency campaign launched by the Uttar Pradesh Police in the early 1990s to combat Khalistani militants operating in the Terai region. While officially hailed as a successful security operation, a powerful counter-narrative, later substantiated by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probes, alleged that many of the reported “encounters” were in fact extrajudicial killings—staged events where individuals were allegedly executed without trial.
The allegations, brought forth by human rights organizations like the Punjab Human Rights Organisation and families of the victims, included:
- Arbitrary Deprivation of Life: The core accusation that security forces executed individuals in custody, bypassing all judicial due process.
- Lack of Transparency and Impunity: A systematic cover-up within the police force, preventing independent investigations and protecting perpetrators.
- Violation of International Human Rights Law: Specifically, the right to life (Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – ICCPR) and the right to a fair trial.
These are precisely the kinds of grave violations the UN’s human rights machinery is designed to address.
The UN Architecture for Human Rights: Why Wasn’t It Triggered?
The UN’s response to any human rights situation is not automatic; it depends on a confluence of factors, many of which worked against a robust public response to Operation Sindoor.
1. The Principle of State Sovereignty and “Naming and Shaming”:
The UN, particularly in the 1990s, operated heavily on the principle of state sovereignty. Public condemnation, or “naming and shaming,” is a tool used cautiously. For a large, influential, and democratic member state like India, the approach is typically more diplomatic. Public rebukes are reserved for situations where quiet diplomacy has failed or where violations are so egregious and widespread that they demand public international pressure (e.g., apartheid South Africa or ongoing conflicts like Syria). While serious, the allegations of Operation Sindoor were seen as a domestic legal and political issue, one that India’s own institutions were theoretically equipped to handle.
2. The Lack of a Specific Mandate-Holder Focus:
In the 1990s, the UN’s human rights landscape was different. Today, there is a Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions who actively seeks information and can issue public statements and country-specific reports. While this mandate existed then, the flow of information was less immediate. Without a dedicated, persistent advocacy campaign from major international NGOs (like Amnesty or Human Rights Watch) bringing continuous, verified evidence to the Rapporteur’s attention, the case likely remained under the radar compared to other global crises.
3. The “India Paradox”:
India has long been a paradox for international human rights monitors. It is a vibrant democracy with a free press, an independent judiciary, and a strong cohort of domestic human rights activists—all institutions that are meant to self-correct. The international community often adopts a “wait-and-see” approach, expecting domestic mechanisms to address problems. The fact that the Indian judiciary did eventually order CBI investigations into Operation Sindoor validated this approach from the UN’s perspective. It showed the system was working, albeit slowly and under immense domestic pressure.
4. Geopolitical and Strategic Considerations:
The 1990s were a period of significant geopolitical shift. India was emerging as a major economic power and a crucial strategic partner in a volatile region. Levelling sharp public criticism at the government of such a key member state over a past operation (as the UN response would have come years after the facts) was seen as counterproductive to broader diplomatic engagements. Dialogue and cooperation were prioritized over public confrontation.
The Probable Form of the UN’s “Response”: Quiet Diplomacy
It would be inaccurate to say the UN was completely unaware or silent. The response likely existed but in the form of quiet diplomacy, which is often the first and preferred course of action. This can include:
- Inclusion in Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Recommendations: The UPR, a process where the human rights records of all UN member states are reviewed by other states, did not exist in the 1990s. However, in later UPR cycles for India (the first was in 2008), broader issues of police reform, impurity, and accountability for past abuses have been raised by other countries. While not mentioning Operation Sindoor by name, it falls under the umbrella of these systemic concerns.
- Dialogue with Special Procedures: It is plausible that UN human rights experts communicated with the Indian government through confidential channels, seeking information on the steps taken to investigate the allegations and prosecute those responsible.
- Working with Domestic NGOs: UN agencies in India likely engaged with and supported the work of local human rights defenders who were tracking the case, offering a platform for international advocacy and sharing best practices on transitional justice and police accountability.
Conclusion: Justice Delayed, Internationally Overlooked?
The UN’s muted public response to Operation Sindoor is not an exoneration of the operation nor an indication that the allegations lacked merit. Rather, it is a testament to the realpolitik that governs international institutions. The UN’s human rights mechanisms are powerful, but they are also political, overstretched, and heavily dependent on member state cooperation.
The primary battle for justice for the victims of Operation Sindoor was always destined to be fought in Indian courtrooms and in the Indian public sphere, not in the halls of the UN in Geneva. The relentless pursuit of truth by activists, journalists, and families ultimately forced the Indian state to confront its past through its own institutions.
The UN’s role in such scenarios is often that of a background supporter, a keeper of international norms, and a potential amplifier for domestic voices when needed. For Operation Sindoor, the international spotlight never fully ignited. The struggle for accountability became a profound domestic drama, highlighting a sobering reality: for victims of human rights violations, even in our interconnected world, the most crucial fight for justice almost always begins at home.