In many Global South countries, where democracy faces significant challenges, governments have resorted to enforced disappearances to suppress dissent. To cloak these illegal acts in a veneer of legality, they often enact draconian laws, frequently passed by elected legislatures, to give them a democratic facade.
Enforced disappearances, pioneered by Nazi Germany, became a widespread tactic in the post-World War II era across Latin America, Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia to counter insurgencies. A University of California Law Clinic study estimates that between 1970 and 2000, 300,000 to 500,000 people disappeared globally.
The study notes that states use enforced disappearances to instill terror, deter insurgency, seize land, and target vulnerable populations.
Enforced disappearances were a part of counterinsurgency operations in Sri Lanka in the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) insurrections in 1971 and 1989 and during the Tamil militant movement through the 1980s up to 2009. However, estimates of the number of persons killed or disappeared varied widely though they ran into thousands.
In her study entitled “A Sociological exploration of disappearances in Sri Lanka” published by the Hong Kong-based Asia Human Rights Commission in 2014, Jane Thomson-Senanayake says: “Given the strategy of repression employed by the government which permitted the disposal of dead bodies without any form of official documentation, the actual figure of those who disappeared and were killed in State custody will never be known.”
State repression in Sri Lanka actually dates back to 1947, when the State Council passed the Public Security Ordinance No. 25, 1947 (PSO) in response to a massive but peaceful demonstration of the country’s working class. In response to the 1971 JVP insurrection, the United Front (UF) government imposed a State of Emergency. The Emergency Regulations (ERs) provided the police and security forces wide powers of arrest and detention without normal checks.
On August 9, 1970 the then Secretary of the Ministry of Defence A.R. Ratnavale declared that the JVP was “the government’s public enemy No.1 and one which has to be relentlessly pursued and eradicated.”
When the JVP launched its revolution on 5 April 1971, attacking 93 police stations, the Security forces “abducted, tortured and extra-judicially executed suspected JVP members while also engaging in helicopter bombing and mortar shell attacks,” Thomson-Senanayake writes.
The ERs empowered the police to arrest without a warrant and detain on suspicion for up to 15 days at any location designated by the Inspector General of Police (IGP) without having to bring the detainee before a magistrate. Statements made in police custody could be given as evidence in court. The writ of habeas corpus was suspended.
The ERs removed the power of the courts to grant bail, which could only be granted by order of the Executive. The legality of a detention order issued by the Defence Minister could not be challenged in court. The ERs gave the Assistant Superintendent or Officer- in-Charge or any personnel authorised by them the authority to dispose of bodies without adhering to any requirements under normal law including the issuance of a death certificate.
There was also no requirement under the ERs to retain a record of the identity of the person who died. In fact, when somebody died in state custody, the only legal requirement under the ERs was to dispose of the body, Thomson-Senanayake points out.
Any person who made a complaint against a police officer faced the risk of arrest for making a false allegation. To cover up such an arrest, the police could resort to killing the complainant and disposing of their body without the knowledge of any other party, according to Thomson-Senanayake.
The leader of the JVP was killed supposedly when he tried to escape from custody.
Under mounting pressure from the international human rights community, the government enacted the Criminal Justice Commission Act of 1972. But it was one of the most controversial pieces of legislation introduced by the government because it compromised the internationally accepted standards of criminal justice.
Sri Lanka obtained foreign expertise to quell insurgencies. In 1971 and 1989, the Sri Lankan security forces had no experience in armed combat, let alone counter-insurgency tactics. According to Thomson-Senanayake, the army’s head, Major-General Attygalle, had undergone military training in Yugoslavia where Marshal Tito was running a police state.
Senior army officers were sent to Malaya to undergo training with General Sir Gerald Templer whose counter-insurgency tactics against communist insurgents had included the public display of corpses.
In 1970 agents from Israel’s intelligence organisations, Mossad and Shin Bet, assisted the Sri Lankan security forces in undercover and intelligence operations.
With democracy under stress in the countries of the Global South, rulers have preferred to take short cuts like enforced disappearances to have their way and draft laws to give patent illegalities a veneer of legality.
India has a long history of enforced disappearances, particularly in regions facing separatist movements. In Punjab, from 1984 to 1995, thousands disappeared during counterinsurgency operations against Sikh militants. In Jammu and Kashmir, similar tactics targeted pro-independence activists.
The Indian government acknowledged 3,744 disappearances nationwide from 2000 to 2003, often met with "uneasy silences" from authorities, including the judiciary, in violation of international law.
The Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) in Kashmir estimates 8,000–10,000 disappearances between 1989 and 2006, primarily attributed to government forces and militants. A 2019 Supreme Court filing cited over 8,000 cases of disappearances and illegal cremations in Punjab.
The UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) recorded 530 cases from India between 1980 and May 2024, though this reflects only formally submitted cases. Conservative estimates suggest 10,000 to 20,000 disappearances across India since the 1980s, concentrated in Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab.
Many disappearances are labelled as “encounters” with armed militants, often masking extrajudicial killings. India has employed laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in Kashmir, Punjab, and North Eastern states such as Nagaland and Mizoram to grant security forces broad powers, facilitating these abuses.
Enforced disappearances were a hallmark of Sheikh Hasina’s rule in Bangladesh. The human rights organization Odhikar documented 708 cases during her tenure, with nearly 100 individuals still missing. While some were released or appeared in court, others were reported dead in alleged armed exchanges with security forces.
The interim government under Muhammad Yunus pledged to sign the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, a significant step after years of denial by the previous regime. However, the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), implicated in these abuses and sanctioned by the US, remains operational despite UNHRC calls for its disbandment.
Since 2000, enforced disappearances have surged in Pakistan, targeting diverse groups, particularly the Baloch and Pashtun communities. The Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances (COIOED) reported 8,696 missing persons in 2022, with 2,219 still untraced. The Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM) estimates over 5,000 Pashtuns remain missing, while the Voice for Baloch Missing Persons (VBMP) reports 6,500 registered cases.
Former senator Afrasiab Khattak, in a Deutsche Welle interview, revealed that a Senate committee found Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) implicated in these disappearances. Momin bin Mohsin, writing in the Journal of Human Rights, highlights the military’s dominance in Pakistan, noting that the ISI and army’s unchecked power undermines accountability.
The government often aligns with military interests to ensure political stability, perpetuating a system where state institutions are subordinate to military control.
With democracy under stress in the countries of the Global South, rulers have preferred to take short cuts like enforced disappearances to have their way and draft laws to give patent illegalities a veneer of legality.