Centre Reimposes AFSPA in Six Volatile Areas of Manipur Amid Rising Insurgent Violence (GS Paper 3, Internal Security)
Context
- In response to intensifying insurgent violence in Manipur, the central government has reimposed the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) in six police station jurisdictions across the state.
- This measure has been taken to contain the ongoing security crisis and curb the growing insurgency problem, which has been exacerbated by ethnic violence over the past year.
- The decision marks a significant shift in the government’s approach to tackling unrest in the region and signals a tougher stance in addressing the insurgent threat.
The Areas Affected and the Security Situation
- The specific areas where AFSPA has been reintroduced include several districts in the Imphal Valley and along the border with Assam: Sekmai, Lamsang, Lamlai, Moirang, Leimakhong, and Jiribam.
- These regions, once peaceful and relatively stable, have been increasingly drawn into the wave of violence, primarily driven by insurgent groups with both ethnic and political motivations.
- The decision to reimpose AFSPA in these regions follows the rise in violent clashes between armed groups and security forces, including ambushes, bombings, and targeted attacks.
- The violence has been particularly concentrated in the Imphal Valley, which houses a significant portion of the state’s population, and Jiribam, a border area with Assam, which has seen insurgent activities escalate.
- Notably, these areas had previously seen a rollback of the Disturbed Areas status between April 2022 and April 2023, but the return of ethnic violence and the spread of insurgent operations prompted the government to act swiftly by restoring AFSPA in these zones.
- Jiribam, a town historically unaffected by the worst of the violence, now finds itself under the same special powers regime.
- The decision to extend AFSPA to Jiribam suggests that the conflict is no longer contained within traditional flashpoints but is now spreading across previously calmer areas of the state.
Understanding AFSPA and its Provisions
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act is a controversial piece of legislation that grants the Indian military sweeping powers to deal with insurgency and unrest in areas declared "disturbed." First enacted in 1958, AFSPA was initially applied to Manipur and Assam to address insurgent activity but has since been extended to several Northeastern states as well as Punjab during the 1980s.
Under AFSPA, the armed forces are given extensive powers, including:
- The authority to open fire: If an officer in charge deems it necessary to restore order, they can fire upon individuals without prior warning, even if the result is death.
- Power to arrest without warrant: Security forces can arrest individuals suspected of committing cognizable offences, without the need for a formal arrest warrant.
- Power to search premises without warrant: Security forces can enter and search any premises without a warrant if they suspect any unlawful activity is taking place.
- Immunity for armed forces: Under Section 7 of the AFSPA, members of the armed forces are granted immunity from prosecution for any actions taken while performing their duties unless prior sanction is given by the central government.
The application of AFSPA thus bestows upon the military broad authority to maintain law and order in regions experiencing violent insurgency. However, its controversial nature stems from its perceived overreach, as critics argue that it often leads to human rights violations such as extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, and disappearances.
The Controversy Surrounding AFSPA
- AFSPA has been one of the most contentious laws in India, particularly in the Northeast.
- While proponents argue that it is necessary to combat entrenched insurgencies and maintain national security, critics contend that it enables a state of impunity for the armed forces, often leading to serious abuses of power.
- Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have repeatedly called for the repeal of AFSPA, citing numerous instances of military excesses, including arbitrary killings, torture, and enforced disappearances.
- Local rights groups in Manipur have been particularly vocal, arguing that the law has contributed to a climate of fear and oppression.
- Moreover, the immunity granted to the armed forces under AFSPA has been a point of contention.
- Security forces are not held accountable for their actions unless the central government grants permission to prosecute them, which rarely happens.
- This has led to calls for greater oversight and accountability within the armed forces, especially when it comes to operations in civilian areas.
The Resurgence of Violence in Manipur
- The recent escalation of violence in Manipur is part of a broader pattern of unrest that has plagued the state for decades.
- The state has witnessed numerous ethnic and political insurgencies, with various groups demanding autonomy, independence, or greater political power.
- The violence in Manipur, particularly since mid-2023, has involved clashes between insurgent factions, as well as between ethnic communities.
- The violence has been both intense and widespread, leading to significant casualties and displacement.
- Several factors contribute to the unrest in Manipur, including deep-rooted ethnic divisions between the Meitei community (which dominates the Imphal Valley) and the tribal communities (such as the Nagas and Kukis) that reside in the surrounding hills.
- These ethnic tensions have been further exacerbated by political instability, and the ongoing insurgency by groups such as the Kuki National Army (KNA) and the United National Liberation Front (UNLF).
- The reimposition of AFSPA is, in part, a response to these insurgent groups, who have been increasingly engaged in violent acts against the state and its security forces.
- The government argues that AFSPA provides the necessary legal framework to deal with insurgents operating in these sensitive areas, while critics suggest that its reimplementation may further inflame ethnic tensions and complicate efforts toward a political resolution.
The Legal and Political Implications
- The reimposition of AFSPA also carries significant legal and political implications.
- While it may provide the security forces with the necessary tools to combat insurgent activities, it also raises questions about the balance between national security and individual rights.
- The continued application of AFSPA has been met with growing calls from civil society and political leaders to seek alternatives that do not infringe upon fundamental human rights.
- The political fallout from the decision is also significant.
- In Manipur, there are concerns that the reintroduction of AFSPA will lead to further alienation of the local population, particularly the tribal communities who have long been critical of the law.
- Protests and resistance movements have been common in regions where AFSPA is enforced, with accusations of abuses and heavy-handed tactics by security forces.
- Additionally, while the government may view AFSPA as a necessary tool for restoring order, its application often delays any meaningful dialogue about political solutions to the underlying causes of insurgency.
- Critics argue that a more sustainable peace can only be achieved through political dialogue, reconciliation, and addressing the root causes of ethnic strife and insurgency.
Conclusion: A Delicate Balance Between Security and Civil Liberties
- The reimposition of AFSPA in Manipur underscores the ongoing struggle between maintaining national security and respecting the rights of civilians.
- While the law is viewed by some as necessary for combating insurgency, its broad powers and historical record of abuse continue to make it a deeply polarizing issue.
- The situation in Manipur is a reflection of the broader challenges faced by India in conflict zones where insurgencies and ethnic tensions persist.
- The government’s move to reintroduce AFSPA may provide short-term security benefits, but the long-term solution lies in addressing the root causes of violence, fostering dialogue, and ensuring that the rights of all citizens are protected—particularly in regions where mistrust between communities and the state remains high.
- For Manipur and other conflict-prone areas in India, the challenge remains to strike a balance between ensuring security and upholding civil liberties, while working towards long-lasting political solutions that can end the cycle of violence and conflict.
