Part 5: Torture as Strategy (2008 to 2018)

7. May 2025 Matthias Winter 8 min read

Part 5: Torture as Strategy (2008 to 2018)

Indian police officer fires a tear gas canister in Kashmir.

In 2008 and 2009, there were repeated instances of partly unexplained violence against Kashmiri civilians by Indian security forces, including the so-called “Machil fake encounter”: In 2010, three young men from the Baramulla district were killed by Indian soldiers at the Line of Control (LoC) under the pretense that they were Pakistani infiltrators. It was later revealed that they had been murdered in a staged encounter in order for the perpetrators to gain promotions and rewards. The incident sparked widespread outrage and became a symbol of the impunity of Indian security forces. [1]

On June 11, 2010, the situation escalated again when 17-year-old student Tufail Ahmad Mattoo was struck in the head and killed by a police tear gas grenade in Srinagar while returning home from tutoring. He was not participating in a protest.
His death became the catalyst for months of protest that spread throughout the valley. The protests, led primarily by youth, were directed against the pervasive militarization, systematic human rights violations, and excessive violence by Indian security forces. [2]

Leading separatist figures such as Syed Ali Shah Geelani (Hurriyat) and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq called for general strikes (“hartals”) and a complete demilitarization of the region.
During the protests in the summer and fall of 2010, at least 117 people were killed according to official figures, most of them teenagers and young adults—the youngest victim was an 11-year-old child.
Thousands more were injured, many of them seriously. Local human rights groups and organizations such as the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS) and Amnesty International reported at least eleven targeted killings by members of the paramilitary Central Reserve Police, including eight minors between the ages of 13 and 19. [3]

Indian security forces used not only tear gas and rubber bullets but also live ammunition against demonstrators.
International observers and NGOs documented arbitrary arrests, abuse in custody, and the targeting of protesters—often with deadly consequences. Human rights organizations accused the Indian government and its security apparatus of excessive violence, impunity, and systematic human rights violations.

The central government in New Delhi largely denied responsibility and, as in earlier phases of protest, blamed “Pakistani handlers” or the ISI (Pakistan’s intelligence service) for the escalation. This scapegoating is a recurring narrative used by the government to undermine efforts at political reckoning and to delegitimize public anger as “foreign-manipulated.”

Amid the ongoing protests, representatives of the Hindu minority, the Kashmiri Pandits, also met with then-Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee. They warned against softening the controversial special law, the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), which allows the Indian army to detain without warrant and, in exceptional cases, to kill.

Farooq Abdullah condemned the violence and, like his son, then-Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, advocated for reform or repeal of AFSPA in certain areas. The Hindu nationalist BJP, however, opposed any changes and reiterated its claim that Pakistan was responsible for the protests. [4]

Corruption and Escalation

On September 24, 2013, former Indian Army Chief V. K. Singh caused a stir when he publicly admitted that politicians in Jammu and Kashmir were regularly funded by India’s military intelligence. The aim of this practice was to ensure “stability” and deter the population from separatist activities. Singh stated that these payments fell under the so-called Sadbhavna (Goodwill) program and had a long tradition—going back to the time of British India’s partition:
“It served solely to maintain stability… to win the hearts and minds of the people.” (V. K. Singh)

Despite the tense security situation and repeated election boycott calls by groups such as the Hurriyat Conference, voter turnout in the regional elections in Jammu and Kashmir between November 25 and December 20, 2014, was over 65%—the highest since 1989 and above the national average.
The ruling Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (JKNC) suffered significant losses. The secular-autonomist People’s Democratic Party (PDP) became the strongest party, while the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) with newly elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi became the second strongest party for the first time, tripling its number of seats in the regional parliament.
Separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani stated:

“Voter turnout is not a referendum on the political status of Jammu and Kashmir. People are only participating to solve their everyday problems, not to legitimize Indian rule.” (Al Jazeera)

The already fragile political situation escalated dramatically in July 2016 when young Hizbul Mujahideen leader Burhan Wani was killed in a targeted operation by security forces.
Wani, known for his social media presence, became a symbol of a “new” Kashmiri resistance. His death triggered massive protests throughout the valley.
According to Amnesty International, over 100 civilians were killed and more than 17,000 injured by excessive violence from Indian security forces in the following months. [5]
There was particular international outrage over the mass use of pellet guns, aimed at protesters’ faces and eyes. Human Rights Watch called this an “unacceptable and dangerous tactic,” which caused over 600 documented eye injuries and left numerous people—children among them—permanently blind.
Pakistan’s government called the incidents the “first mass blinding in human history” at the United Nations. [6]

The Indian government responded with a sweeping telecommunications blackout. Internet, mobile networks, and press access were shut down for weeks.
Human Rights Watch called these measures “draconian, authoritarian, and an attempt to suppress legitimate protest.” [7] Amnesty International condemned the repeated restrictions on communication freedom as a clear violation of international human rights standards.

On September 18, 2016, the situation further deteriorated when four attackers from the Pakistan-based group Jaish-e-Mohammed attacked an Indian military base in Uri, killing 19 soldiers.
The Indian government blamed Pakistan and announced diplomatic and economic measures—including canceling the planned SAARC summit, boycotting joint Russian-Pakistani military exercises, and imposing a highly publicized embargo by the Indian film industry. Pakistan rejected all accusations and pointed instead to ongoing human rights violations by Indian security forces in Kashmir.

Between 2010 and 2018, repression against the Kashmiri civilian population intensified significantly. Amnesty International particularly criticized the systematic misuse of the Public Safety Act (PSA), which allows detention without charge or trial for up to two years.
Between 2012 and 2018, at least 210 documented cases of arbitrary detention were recorded, including many minors—such as 16-year-old Murtaza Manzoor, who was detained for months without trial in 2011.

Communication blackouts, such as the sweeping shutdown after Burhan Wani’s death, were deliberately employed to isolate protests and prevent international attention. According to Amnesty, they violated the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information and reflected a repressive policy against the Kashmiri population.

Torture as Strategy

The German Institute for International and Security Affairs sees the causes of increasing radicalization among Kashmiri youth in the “insufficient autonomy of the federal state, lack of economic prospects, and abuse by security forces who have special powers in Kashmir under anti-terrorism laws.” [8]

In 2019, the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS) and the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) published the report Torture: Indian State’s Instrument of Control in Indian administered Jammu and Kashmir. It was the first systematic documentation of torture practices by the Indian central government in the region.

Based on 432 case studies, the report analyzes the methods, mechanisms, and political background of this torture practice:

“In 326 of the cases, the victims were beaten; in 231 cases, they were tortured with electric shocks. Over a hundred victims were stripped naked, subjected to the so-called “roller treatment” (in which a heavy roller is used to apply pressure to the legs), held in stress positions, or hung upside down.
Rape is regularly used as a method of torture—against both men and women. (…)
In 252 cases, victims were subjected to repeated torture.”

Of the 432 documented cases, a disproportionate 301 involved civilians—including 20 political activists, 2 human rights defenders, 3 journalists, 6 students, and 12 individuals connected to Jamaat-e-Islami, a politico-religious organization.
The vast majority—258 individuals—were, according to the report, not involved in any political, militant, or civil society activity.

Only five of the documented victims were former militants who had demonstrably ended their involvement in armed resistance.

The report comes to a central conclusion:
“Torture is not used to obtain information. It is used to subjugate a people, to break their will, to detain them against their will. (…) In this context, torture is a form of collective punishment imposed on an entire population.” [9]