In the complex and often shadowy annals of India’s security operations against insurgency, certain names resonate with a potent mix of triumph, controversy, and unanswered questions. Operation Sindoor is one such chapter. Launched in the early 1990s in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh (now Uttarakhand), its stated objective was to dismantle the burgeoning network of Khalistani militants using the region’s rugged terrain as a hideout and transit route. While officially hailed as a success that crippled terrorism, Operation Sindoor remains permanently entangled with a grave and persistent allegation: that it was a campaign of extrajudicial killings, or what in India are colloquially known as “encounter killings.”
To understand the controversy, one must first step into the tense atmosphere of that era. The Khalistan movement, seeking a separate Sikh homeland, was at its violent peak. The Indian state, still reeling from the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and the anti-Sikh riots, was on high alert. The security forces were granted sweeping powers and operated under immense pressure to preempt attacks and neutralize threats. It was in this pressure cooker environment that a special task force, led by a decorated police officer, was formed. Their mission: Operation Sindoor.
The Official Narrative: A Tale of Valor and Success
The public-facing story of Operation Sindoor was one of sheer bravery and tactical brilliance. Police teams, acting on intelligence, would corner known militants in remote forest areas or safe houses. These confrontations, or “encounters,” would inevitably lead to fierce gun battles. The state police reported that dozens of top-ranking Khalistani militants were killed in these exchanges, while only a few officers were martyred.
The government and much of the media portrayed these operations as a necessary and successful counter-insurgency campaign. They argued that it prevented major terrorist attacks, broke the backbone of the Khalistani network in the region, and restored a sense of security for the public. The officers involved were decorated as heroes, their actions seen as a tough but justified response to an existential threat. In this narrative, every killing was a lawful engagement—a clear case of self-defense or the elimination of a combatant in a low-intensity conflict.
The Allegations: The Chilling Counter-Narrative
Almost parallel to this official story, a very different narrative began to emerge, primarily from human rights activists, certain journalists, and, most importantly, the families of the deceased. This counter-narrative alleged that many of these “encounters” were staged. The allegations were severe and specific:
- Fake Encounters: Critics claimed that many of those killed were not militants who died in a shootout but were often petty criminals, innocent individuals, or even low-level sympathizers who were arrested alive and later executed in cold blood. The scene was then staged to look like a genuine encounter, with weapons placed on the bodies.
- Lack of Evidence: It was pointed out that in numerous cases, there was a suspicious absence of corresponding injuries on police personnel or forensic evidence matching the official story of a prolonged firefight.
- Closed-Door Inquiries and Impunity: Allegations were made that any attempts to conduct independent inquiries were stonewalled. The police force, operating under the veil of national security, was accused of closing ranks and protecting its own, making it impossible for the truth to surface.
- The “Catch-and-Kill” Model: The operation was described by its detractors not as one of intelligence-led arrests and prosecutions, but of a “catch-and-kill” policy—a shortcut that bypassed the judicial system entirely, ensuring no trials, no evidence presented in court, and no acquittals.
The term “encounter” itself became a sinister euphemism, a widely understood code for an extrajudicial execution. For the families of the victims, Operation Sindoor was not a story of valor but a period of terror and injustice, where their loved ones were taken away and summarily executed without a trial.
The Legal and Human Rights Fallout
The allegations against Operation Sindoor did not remain mere whispers. They erupted into a significant legal and human rights issue that spanned decades.
- Petitions and PILs: Human rights organizations and families filed Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in the Allahabad High Court, demanding a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the numerous encounter deaths.
- The CBI Investigation: After much deliberation, the court did indeed order a CBI investigation. What the CBI uncovered was explosive. In several specific cases, their investigations concluded that the encounters were indeed staged. They filed chargesheets against several high-ranking police officials, including the celebrated officer who led the operation, accusing them of murder, conspiracy, and planting evidence.
- The Legal Battle: This triggered a long, drawn-out legal battle that continues in various forms to this day. The accused officers defended their actions as lawful, fought the charges, and the cases crawled through the slow Indian judicial system. The trials became a focal point for the debate on accountability versus national security.
The Unresolved Dilemma: National Security vs. Human Rights
At its core, the controversy surrounding Operation Sindoor is a manifestation of a classic, global dilemma: how does a democratic state balance its duty to protect its citizens from terrorism with its obligation to uphold the rule of law and human rights?
Proponents of the operation argue that in a war against terrorism, the rules are different. They contend that the judicial process is too slow, too leaky, and too risky, allowing hardened militants to secure bail or continue operating from within prisons. In their view, extraordinary threats require extraordinary measures, and the ends—saving countless innocent lives—justify the means.
Critics argue that this logic is dangerously flawed and ultimately self-defeating. They state that when the state itself breaks the law, it loses its moral authority and perpetuates a cycle of violence and grievance. Extrajudicial killings, they argue, erode the very foundation of democracy—the rule of law—and create a culture of impunity within security forces that can easily be abused.
Conclusion: A Stain That Lingers
So, were there extrajudicial killings in Operation Sindoor?
Based on the official investigations by India’s premier agency, the CBI, the answer for specific, documented cases is a definitive yes. The courts have acknowledged this through the ongoing trials.
However, the full scale remains unknown. How many encounters were genuine and how many were staged may never be fully uncovered. Operation Sindoor thus exists in a gray zone—a operation remembered both for its reported successes in combating terrorism and for the grave allegations of state-sponsored murder that forever tarnish its legacy.
It stands as a powerful, cautionary tale. It is a reminder that in a democracy, even the most urgent security operations must be conducted within the framework of law. The pursuit of security can never be allowed to completely eclipse the pursuit of justice, for when it does, the victory against terror becomes a pyrrhic one, leaving a stain on the nation’s conscience that lasts for generations. The ghosts of Operation Sindoor continue to haunt the hills of Uttarakhand, demanding answers that justice alone can provide.