THE CONTEXT: Since May 3, 2023, Manipur has witnessed ethnic violence between the tribal Kuki-Zo people in the hills and the Meiteis in the valley, resulting in at least 237 deaths and displacing over 60,000 people. The violence has led to heightened security concerns, necessitating the armed forces’ involvement to maintain law and order.
THE BACKGROUND:
AFSPA IMPLEMENTATION HISTORY IN MANIPUR
- Initial Imposition: AFSPA has been applicable in Manipur since 1981, following its statehood in 1972. The Act was initially applied in the Naga-dominated areas of the former Union Territory of Manipur in 1958.
- Gradual Withdrawal: The Act was withdrawn from the Imphal Municipality area in 2004. In April 2022, AFSPA was removed from 15 police station areas in six districts, and from April 2023, it was withdrawn from four additional police stations.
RECENT ETHNIC VIOLENCE CONTEXT
- Ethnic Conflict:
- Security Concerns: CURRENT EXTENSION
- Extension Period: The Manipur government extended AFSPA for another six months starting October 1, 2024.
- Coverage: The Act remains applicable throughout the state except for areas under the jurisdiction of 19 police stations in seven valley districts.
- Exempted Areas: These include Imphal East, Imphal West, and other significant localities predominantly inhabited by the Meitei community.
KEY POINTS OF THE EXTENSION
- Governor’s Rationale: The Governor believes that violent activities by extremist groups warrant the use of armed forces across Manipur, excluding specified areas.
Challenges in Reviewing “Disturbed Area” Status
- Assessment Issues: A detailed ground assessment was deemed premature due to security agencies’ ongoing law and order maintenance.
- Public Sensitivity: Declaring areas as “disturbed” is sensitive and may attract public criticism if not handled carefully.
- Decision to Maintain Status Quo: Given the volatile situation and security challenges, the state government opted to maintain the current “disturbed area” status without changes for six months.
AFSPA PROVISIONS
- Authority Under AFSPA: The Act empowers armed forces to arrest or kill anyone contravening the law, search premises without a warrant, and provide immunity from prosecution without central government sanction.
- Application Scope: AFSPA applies in “disturbed areas,” primarily in hill districts dominated by tribal communities. However, it has been gradually withdrawn from valley districts due to improved security conditions.
STATE VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ROLES IN ISSUING NOTIFICATIONS:
Both the State and Central Governments have the authority to issue notifications regarding AFSPA. Currently, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issues “disturbed area” notifications only for Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh. In contrast, their respective State Governments issue notifications for Manipur and Assam. This division of responsibility highlights the complex federal structure in managing internal security issues.
THE ISSUES:
- Impact on law and order: The government justifies the extension of AFSPA in Manipur by citing “violent activities of various extremist/insurgent groups”. The Act grants extensive powers to the armed forces, including the ability to arrest without a warrant and use force in certain situations. While intended to maintain law and order, its implementation has been controversial.
- Constitutional and legal aspects: AFSPA raises essential questions about the balance between national security and fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Its implementation and the powers it grant to armed forces are crucial topics for understanding the legal framework of internal security management.
- Center-state relations: The division of authority in issuing AFSPA notifications between the Centre and State governments exemplifies the complex nature of India’s federal structure, especially in security and law enforcement matters.
- Northeast India issues: The implementation and gradual withdrawal of AFSPA in different northeastern states provide insights into the region’s unique socio-political dynamics and the evolving approach to governance and security in this strategically important part of India.
- Demographic considerations: In Manipur, the areas exempted from AFSPA are predominantly inhabited by the Meitei community in the valley regions. Such specific community-based exemptions are not as prominently mentioned for other states.
- Review process: Manipur cites challenges in conducting detailed ground assessments due to ongoing security issues. The review process and criteria may differ for centrally administered AFSPA areas.
DIRECTIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON AFSPA:
- Supreme Court Decision: In 2016, in a case regarding alleged fake encounters in Manipur, the Supreme Court ruled that security personnel do not have absolute immunity from trial for offenses. Supreme Court called for an investigation into alleged extrajudicial killings in Manipur.
- Jeevan Reddy Committee (2004): It recommended repealing the AFSPA and incorporating appropriate provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967. They Recommended setting up grievance cells in districts where armed forces are deployed.
- Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) Recommendations: The ARC recommended repealing AFSPA, which it stated would remove feelings of discrimination and alienation.
MEASURES TAKEN TO ADDRESS SECURITY CONCERNS IN AREAS WHERE AFSPA IS NOT APPLIED IN MANIPUR:
- Gradual withdrawal approach: The government has been taking a phased approach to removing AFSPA, withdrawing it first from the Imphal Municipality area in 2004, then from 15 police station areas in 6 districts in April 2022, and 4 more police stations in April 2023. This allows for monitoring the security situation as AFSPA is lifted.
- Focus on valley districts: Since 2022, AFSPA has gradually been withdrawn from valley districts dominated by the Meitei community due to reported “significant improvement” in security. This targeted approach maintains AFSPA in more sensitive hill areas.
- Increased state police presence: With AFSPA lifted in some areas, there is likely increased reliance on state police forces to maintain law and order in those regions.
- “One district, one force” deployment: The state government is considering deploying security forces in “one district, one force” to improve operations in areas not under AFSPA.
- Central forces deployment: Around 40,000 Central security forces, including the army, have been deployed in the state to assist with security. These forces can support areas not under AFSPA.
- Regular security assessments: The government conducts periodic reviews of the security situation to determine if AFSPA needs to be reimposed or can be further withdrawn.
- Coordination between agencies: There is likely increased coordination between state police, central forces, and intelligence agencies to monitor security threats in areas where AFSPA is not applied.
- Focus on law and order: In areas without AFSPA, there is likely greater emphasis on maintaining law and order through regular policing and civil administration measures rather than military operations.
WAY FORWARD:
- Revised Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs): Forces need to rework their operating procedures to conduct operations without the special powers granted by AFSPA. This includes adapting to stricter rules of engagement and evidence collection.
- Focus on “humane operations”: Security forces are required to launch operations with a more “humane face” to address both insurgent threats and the concerns of local people. This involves using minimal force and prioritizing non-lethal methods.
- Enhanced intelligence gathering: Forces must rely more heavily on accurate intelligence to conduct targeted operations, as they no longer have broad powers to search and detain.
- Legal considerations: Operations must be conducted with stricter adherence to regular criminal procedures, as forces no longer have immunity from prosecution.
- Technology utilization: Technology like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) is used more extensively for surveillance and monitoring to compensate for reduced operational flexibility.
- Creation of buffer zones: In some areas, buffer zones are established between communities to prevent conflicts, and patrolling is increased.
- Emphasis on winning public trust: Forces focus more on community engagement and building trust with local populations to gather information and support.
- Readjustment of force deployment: The army may reallocate forces to focus on areas where threats remain highest, especially along international borders.
- Stricter rules on the use of force: Without AFSPA’s protections, forces must be more cautious about using lethal force, focusing on de-escalation tactics.
THE CONCLUSION:
The extension of AFSPA in Manipur’s hill districts reflects the government’s ongoing efforts to address security concerns while gradually easing restrictions in valley areas. As the state works towards resolving ethnic tensions and improving law and order, there is hope that continued assessment and targeted measures will lead to a more stable and peaceful Manipur.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:
Q. The north-eastern region of India has been infested with insurgency for a very long time. Analyse the primary reasons for the survival of armed insurgency in this region. 2017
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q. “The extension of AFSPA in Manipur highlights the complex interplay between security concerns and civil liberties in conflict-affected regions.” Critically examine this statement in light of the recent developments in Manipur.
SOURCE:
gl=1*1pjfkjo*_ga*YW1wLThsNkdUYVRSN08ydXA0enpySk9IQlVXVUllVGdrODY2dU5NXzFwSVg1eTRmc2k5
ZlVicTYxTll0OFB1Z1pUQVk.*_ga_MHCVDGHV0S*MTcyNzc1NTA2OC4yNy4xLjE3Mjc3NTUxMjIuMC4wLjA
Spread the Word