THE CONTEXT: The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) was reimposed in six police station areas of Manipur on November 14, 2024, following a surge in ethnic violence and insurgent activity. The areas affected include Sekmai, Lamsang, Lamlai, Moirang, Leimakhong, and Jiribam. The volatile situation, marked by ongoing ethnic conflict between the Meitei and Kuki communities, necessitated the reimposition of the Act to empower the armed forces to restore order.
UNDERSTANDING AFSPA
-
- Origins: AFSPA traces its roots to the colonial Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance of 1942, enacted during the Quit India Movement. Post-independence, it was adapted into AFSPA in 1958 to address insurgencies in the Northeast. Over time, it has been applied in various regions like Jammu & Kashmir (1990), Punjab (during the Khalistan movement), and several northeastern states.
- Key Provisions:
- Section 3: Declares an area as “disturbed,” allowing AFSPA’s imposition.
- Section 4: Grants armed forces powers to open fire, arrest without a warrant, and search premises based on suspicion.
- Immunity Clause: Armed personnel are provided with legal immunity for actions taken under AFSPA unless sanctioned by the central government.
- Areas of Application: AFSPA has been applied across various conflict zones in India, including Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, and Arunachal Pradesh. In recent years, its application has been reduced in some northeastern states due to improved security conditions.
AFSPA IN MANIPUR: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:
-
- Initial Implementation (1958): AFSPA was first imposed in Manipur’s Naga-dominated districts—Senapati, Tamenglong, and Ukhrul—in response to Naga insurgencies. It was later extended to Kuki-Zomi areas like Churachandpur during the Mizo insurgency in the 1960s. By 1979, it covered the entire state as Meitei insurgencies emerged in the Imphal Valley.
- Controversies and Protests: AFSPA has been controversial due to allegations of human rights violations by security forces. Notable incidents include:
- Malom Massacre (2000): The killing of 10 civilians by Assam Rifles led to widespread protests.
- Thangjam Manorama Case (2004): The alleged rape and murder of a Manipuri woman by security forces intensified calls for AFSPA’s repeal.
- Irom Sharmila’s Hunger Strike: Sharmila’s 16-year protest against AFSPA drew national attention but failed to repeal it.
THE CURRENT SCENARIO:
-
- Ethnic Conflict and Violence: Manipur has been embroiled in ethnic violence since May 2023. Clashes between the Meitei and Kuki communities have resulted in over 230 deaths and significant displacement. The violence has primarily occurred along the “fringe” areas between the Valley (dominated by Meiteis) and the hills (home to Kukis). Despite efforts by central armed police forces (CAPF) and the Army, peace remains elusive.
- Affected Areas: The six police stations where AFSPA was reimposed are located on the fringes of Imphal Valley—Sekmai, Lamsang (Imphal West), Lamlai (Imphal East), Moirang (Bishnupur), Leimakhong (Kangpokpi), and Jiribam. These areas have seen heightened insurgent activity.
- Government’s Rationale: The Centre justified reimposing AFSPA by citing ongoing violence, the participation of insurgent groups in heinous acts, and the need for statutory protection for security forces operating under challenging conditions. The Manipur government has requested a review of this decision due to concerns over public interest and potential backlash from civil society.
THE IMPLICATIONS:
-
- Enhanced Powers for Armed Forces: AFSPA provides sweeping powers to security personnel operating in disturbed areas. Forces can act without fear of legal repercussions. The presence of AFSPA may instill fear among insurgents and armed miscreants.
- Human Rights Concerns: AFSPA enables human rights violations due to its immunity provisions. Past incidents like fake encounters and custodial killings have fueled resentment against security forces among local populations. International bodies like Amnesty International have also condemned AFSPA as draconian.
THE CHALLENGES:
-
- Balancing Security Needs with Civil Rights: AFSPA empowers security forces to maintain law and order but also risks alienating local populations if not implemented judiciously. The Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) recommended repealing AFSPA due to its adverse impact on civil liberties. In Manipur’s case, restoring peace requires addressing immediate security concerns and long-standing grievances.
- Political Implications: The reimposition of AFSPA may deepen ethnic divides within Manipur. The Meitei community views certain armed groups like Assam Rifles with distrust. Kukis have long demanded that AFSPA be applied uniformly across hill and valley areas to protect them. The state’s divided political landscape complicates efforts for reconciliation between these groups.
SUPREME COURT’S STAND ON EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS UNDER AFSPA
EEVFAM vs Union of India (2016-2017): In this case, brought by the Extrajudicial Execution Victim Families Association of Manipur (EEVFAM), the Supreme Court examined 1,528 cases of alleged fake encounters and extrajudicial killings by security forces between 1979 and 2012. The court held that every death caused by security forces must be thoroughly investigated, regardless of whether the victim was an insurgent or a civilian. This ruling was a significant step toward ending the impunity enjoyed by the armed forces under AFSPA.
Court’s Observation: The court ruled that security personnel do not have “absolute immunity” under AFSPA. It held that any allegation of excessive force must be investigated, and the protection provided by AFSPA cannot override fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution. The court also rejected the argument that every person carrying arms in a disturbed area should automatically be considered an enemy combatant.
THE WAY FORWARD:
-
- Need for Political Dialogue: Military solutions alone cannot resolve Manipur’s ethnic conflict. A sustained political dialogue must be initiated involving all stakeholders—Meiteis, Kukis, Nagas. Previous attempts at negotiation have failed due to entrenched positions on both sides.
- Addressing Root Causes: The conflict stems from deep-rooted ethnic tensions over land rights, political representation, and economic disparities. Meitei’s Demand for Scheduled Tribe Status has been opposed by Kukis, who fear losing their privileges. Kuki groups have long sought greater autonomy or even secession from Manipur. Addressing these issues requires constitutional reforms that balance competing interests while ensuring equitable development across all communities.
- Reducing Violence: To bring warring factions to the negotiating table, violence must first be reduced through coordinated military operations.
- Political Will: Peace will remain elusive without solid political leadership to address root causes like land disputes or ethnic representation issues.
THE CONCLUSION:
The situation in Manipur is complex, driven by historical grievances, ethnic rivalries, and political failures. While AFSPA provides short-term relief by empowering security forces to control violence, it is not a panacea for long-standing issues. A multifaceted approach combining military action with political dialogue is essential for lasting peace.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTIONS:
Q.1 What are the sound determinants of left-wing extremism in the Eastern part of India? What strategy should the Government of India, civil administration, and security forces adopt to counter the threat in the affected areas? 2020
Q.2 The north-eastern region of India has been infested with insurgency for a very long time. Analyze the major reasons for the survival of armed insurgency in this region. 2017
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q.1 “AFSPA is a necessary evil in conflict zones, but it should not come at the cost of human rights violations.” Critically Examine.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word