Syllabus: GS-III & V: Northeast Insurgency

Why in the News?

Recently, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) extended the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), 1958 in parts of Manipur, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh for another six months.

• In Manipur, the Act was extended to the entire State, except the limits of 13 police stations across five valley districts.
• In Nagaland, nine districts and 21 police station areas in five districts remain under AFSPA.
  In Arunachal Pradesh, the districts of Tirap, Changlang, Longding and parts of Namsai continue to be notified as disturbed areas.

The decision comes amid continuing ethnic violence in Manipur (since May 2023), insurgency concerns in Nagaland, and insurgent activities along the Assam–Arunachal border.

About AFSPA

Origin

• Enacted in 1958, AFSPA was first introduced to tackle the Naga insurgency which the State governments found difficult to control.
• It empowers the armed forces to operate in “disturbed areas” and provide support to civil administration in maintaining law and order.

Provisions of AFSPA

• Declaration of disturbed area: Done by the Governor of a State, Administrator of a UT, or the Central Government under Section 3.
• Special powers to armed forces:
  Prohibit gatherings of five or more persons.
  • Use force, including lethal force, against violators.
  • Arrest and search without a warrant.
  • Legal immunity: No prosecution without prior sanction of the Central Government.
    

AFSPA in Northeast India 

• Assam: Declared disturbed in 1990; gradually withdrawn from 2022. Currently limited to a few districts.
• Nagaland: AFSPA in force since 1958; now reduced to nine districts and parts of five others.
• Manipur: Imposed in 1981. Currently applicable across the State except in 13 valley police stations.
• Arunachal Pradesh: Limited to Tirap, Changlang, Longding, and parts of Namsai.
• Withdrawn: Meghalaya (2018), Tripura (2015), Mizoram (1980s).

Why Is AFSPA Necessary?

• Counter-insurgency Tool: Northeast India (Nagaland, Manipur, Assam, Arunachal) and J&K have faced armed insurgencies.
  • AFSPA empowers armed forces to act swiftly — arrest without warrant, search, and use force — to neutralize threats.
• Aid to Civil Power: In disturbed areas, the state police is often weak or outnumbered. AFSPA allows the army to step in and maintain order.
• Operational Immunity: Soldiers face guerilla tactics (ambushes, human shields). 
  • Immunity ensures they can take decisions in real time without fear of endless litigation.
• National Integrity: AFSPA has been justified as essential for preserving territorial unity and sovereignty against separatist and insurgent groups.

Criticisms of AFSPA

• Human Rights Concerns:
  • Grants sweeping powers of arrest, search, and use of force without accountability
  • Allegations of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, torture, and misuse of powers.
• Violation of Fundamental Rights: Right to life (Article 21), remedy, and equality before law (Article 14).
• International Criticism: Seen as violating Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).
• Alienation of Locals: Creates mistrust between armed forces and civilians, fueling resentment and prolonging insurgencies.
  

Supreme Court Judgements on AFSPA

• Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1998):
  • Upheld the constitutionality of AFSPA.
  • Stressed that armed forces’ actions must be reasonable and proportional.
• Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India (2016):
  • Ruled that absolute immunity does not exist; armed forces can be tried for excesses.
  • Emphasised that even in disturbed areas, the rule of law prevails.

Committee Recommendations

• Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005):
  • Recommended repealing AFSPA.
  • Suggested incorporating necessary provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.
• Second ARC Report (2007): Advocated a review of AFSPA to make it more humane.
  

Way Forward

• Gradual Withdrawal: Replicate Assam and Meghalaya models by removing AFSPA in peaceful areas.
• Strengthening State Police: Build capacity of local law enforcement for long-term security.
• Accountability Mechanisms: Amend the Act to introduce checks and balances on armed forces’ actions.
• Dialogue & Political Solutions: Engage with insurgent groups, encourage peace accords, and promote rehabilitation.
• Human Rights Oversight: Empower NHRC/state commissions to investigate complaints.
  

Conclusion

AFSPA remains one of the most contentious laws in independent India, balancing national security imperatives with human rights concerns. While the Act has helped contain insurgencies, its misuse has fueled alienation and distrust. A phased withdrawal, institutional accountability, and emphasis on dialogue can help reconcile security with democracy, ensuring peace and stability in the Northeast.

Mains Question

1. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) has often been called both a “necessary evil” and a “tool of oppression.” Critically examine its relevance in the present context of Northeast India.

The Hindu