The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) announced the extension of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) for another six months in parts of Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, and Nagaland, starting Tomorrow. In Manipur, AFSPA will continue in all districts except for those under the jurisdiction of 13 police stations in five districts – Imphal West, Imphal East, Thoubal, Bishnupur, and Kakching. The state has been grappling with ethnic violence since May 2023. The law has also been extended in eight districts of Nagaland and parts of five others, while in Arunachal Pradesh, AFSPA applies to Tirap, Changlang, Land ongoing districts, and certain areas in Namsai district.
What is AFSPA?
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), 1958 is a law enacted by the Parliament of India that grants special powers to the Indian armed forces to maintain public order in “disturbed areas.”
It is primarily aimed at addressing insurgency, internal disturbances, and threats to national security in regions where the civil administration is unable to function effectively.
Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) Provisions
1. Section 3: Declaration of Disturbed Area: The Governor, UT Administrator, or Central Government can declare an area as “disturbed” through a notification in the Official Gazette.
2. Section 4(a): Use of Force: Armed forces can use force, even lethal, against individuals violating laws or bearing arms unlawfully.
3. Section 4(b): Arrest Without Warrant: Permits arrest of individuals without a warrant based on reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity.
4. Section 4(c): Search Without Warrant: Enables armed forces to search and seize property or premises without a warrant for expediency in operations.
5. Prohibition of Assembly: Prohibits gatherings of five or more in disturbed areas to prevent riots or unrest.
6. Section 6: Legal Immunity No legal proceedings can be initiated against armed forces personnel without Central Government approval.
7. Deterrence Mechanism: Intended to serve as a deterrent against insurgency and anti-national activities, especially in border regions.
8. Six-Month Periodic Review (SC Directive, 1997): The Supreme Court mandates that disturbed area status must be reviewed every 6 months.
Role of AFSPA in Strengthening Internal Security
1. Tackling Insurgency in the Northeast: Enabled major operations against groups like NSCN-IM and ULFA, reducing insurgency in Assam and Nagaland.
2. Restoring Order in Jammu & Kashmir (since 1990): Helped suppress militancy from groups like Hizbul Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba.
3. Quick and Decisive Action: The law provides operational freedom to act swiftly without procedural delays—vital in counter-insurgency.
4. Securing Border Regions: AFSPA aids in controlling cross-border terrorism and smuggling, especially along the India-Myanmar and India-Bangladesh borders.
5. Protection for Armed Forces: Section 6 immunity allows personnel to act in high-risk zones without fear of litigation.
6. Stability for Civil Administration: By reducing insurgency, AFSPA helped states like Assam and Tripura conduct elections and restore governance.
7. Curbed Drug Trafficking: Operations under AFSPA in Manipur have disrupted trafficking from the Golden Triangle.
8. Reduction in Violence: According to MHA data, insurgency-related incidents in the Northeast fell by 80% between 2014–and 2020.
Issue with Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA)
1. Human Rights Violations: 1,528 alleged fake encounters in Manipur (2000–2012) per SC; seen as widespread misuse of power.
2. Lack of Accountability: Section 6 makes prosecution of armed forces nearly impossible without Central approval, leading to impunity.
3. Alienation of Civilians: Continuous military presence fosters fear and resentment, especially among youth in conflict zones.
4. Prolonged Enforcement: AFSPA has remained in Nagaland since 1958, yet insurgency persists, showing limited effectiveness.
5. SC Criticism (2016): In the Extrajudicial Execution Victim Families Association case, SC said, “Excessive use of force is not justified”.
6. Mental Health Impact: Reports of trauma, PTSD, and anxiety among civilians due to militarization of civilian spaces.
7. International Condemnation: Groups like Amnesty International and UNHRC have criticized AFSPA as a violation of international human rights norms.
8. Undermining Federalism: Central imposition of AFSPA without state consent (post-1972 amendment) raises questions on federal principles.
Recommendation
1. Phased Withdrawal: Gradually lift AFSPA from peaceful regions—as done in Tripura (2015) and Meghalaya (2018).
2. Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005): Recommended repealing AFSPA and replacing it with a more humane, rights-based law.
3. Institutional Oversight Mechanism: Establish an independent grievance redressal body to investigate alleged abuses.
4. Restrict Immunity Clause: Amend Section 6 to ensure judicial oversight over decisions to prosecute.
5. Regular Review of Disturbed Area Status: Ensure genuine 6-month reviews, with input from state governments and civil society.
6. Promote Political Dialogue: Engage groups like NSCN and ULFA through peace accords and dialogue (e.g. Naga Peace Accord, 2015).
7. Increased Investment in Development: Prioritize economic growth, infrastructure, and employment in conflict-prone regions to tackle root causes.
8. Training in Human Rights: Mandatory human rights training for armed forces operating in AFSPA areas, ensuring ethical operations.
Conclusion
AFSPA has played a critical role in maintaining internal security in insurgency-prone and border-sensitive regions like the Northeast and Jammu & Kashmir. It has enabled swift military responses, safeguarded national sovereignty, and helped restore civil governance in conflict zones. However, its prolonged enforcement, allegations of human rights violations, and lack of accountability mechanisms have led to widespread criticism. Balancing national security with constitutional rights is the need of the hour. A phased, region-specific withdrawal combined with political dialogue, developmental initiatives, and enhanced oversight can help India transition from a militarized approach to a more democratic and inclusive conflict resolution model. The future of AFSPA must align with both national integrity and the values of justice and human dignity.
No Comments