MHA extended AFSPA in regions of Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh

08 Apr MHA extended AFSPA in regions of Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh

This article covers ‘Daily Current Affairs’ and the topic details of ”MHA extended AFSPA in regions of Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh”. This topic is relevant in the “Internal Security” section of the UPSC CSE exam.

Why in the News?

The Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently announced the extension of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, in certain regions of Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh for an additional six months.

Reasons behind the extension of AFSPA 

• Ethnic Clashes:  The state has also been grappling with brutal ethnic violence, particularly between the Meitei and Kuki communities. This conflict, which erupted in May 2023, has claimed over 175 lives, making it the deadliest in Manipur since 1999.  Finding a lasting solution to this ethnic conflict requires addressing underlying grievances and fostering dialogue between communities alongside effective policing.
• Resurgence of Insurgency:  Manipur has witnessed a worrying resurgence of insurgent groups in recent years. These groups, often operating from neighbouring Myanmar, advocate for Manipur’s secession from India. This adds another layer of instability to the region and makes a strong case for improved security measures. However, the effectiveness of AFSPA in addressing this specific challenge is a subject of debate.

About AFSPA

Historical Context

• On August 15th, 1942, during British colonial rule, the Armed Forces Special Powers Ordinance was introduced to quell the Quit India movement.
• This ordinance laid the groundwork for four separate ordinances, including one aimed at addressing internal security challenges arising from the Partition, specifically in the “Assam disturbed areas,” implemented in 1947.
• Subsequently, the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act of 1958 was enacted following the Assam Disturbed Areas Act of 1955 to address the unrest in the Naga Hills and nearby regions.
• This Act was later replaced by the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) for broader application. A similar legislation specific to Jammu and Kashmir was introduced in 1990.

Special provisions and power 

• Under AFSPA, the armed forces and Central Armed Police Forces deployed in designated “disturbed areas” are granted extensive authority. This includes the power to use lethal force against individuals deemed to be acting unlawfully.
• Additionally, the Act provides immunity from prosecution and legal actions without prior sanction from the Central government.
• Notifications concerning AFSPA can be issued by both State and Union governments. In the case of Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland, the Ministry of Home Affairs periodically issues “disturbed area” notifications.
• Special provisions: 

1. As per Section 3, the Central Government, Governor of the State, or administrator of the Union Territory has the authority to designate either the entire area or a portion of the State or Union Territory as a “disturbed area.” An area may be classified as disturbed due to conflicts or disagreements among members of different religious, racial, linguistic, regional, caste, or communal groups.
2. Under Section 4, the Army is granted powers to conduct searches and arrests without warrants, utilise force up to causing death if necessary, dismantle arms and ammunition storage, fortifications, shelters, or hideouts, and halt, search, and confiscate any vehicle.
3. Section 6 mandates that arrested individuals and confiscated property must be handed over to the police promptly.
4. Section 7 provides protection for individuals acting in good faith within their official capacities.

Arguments favouring AFSPA

• Empowering Security Forces:  Proponents argue that AFSPA is essential for effective counter-insurgency operations. They reason that in situations where regular law enforcement fails, the military needs broader authority to restore order.  This includes special legal protections for soldiers operating in these high-risk zones.
• Maintaining National Security: AFSPA is seen by some as a crucial tool for maintaining order in conflict-ridden regions. They argue that by quelling insurgency and violence, AFSPA safeguards national security and territorial integrity.
• Boosting Morale: Backers also suggest that AFSPA boosts troop morale. They argue that the threat of legal action against soldiers for actions taken in good faith can be demoralising.  AFSPA’s legal protections are seen as a way to ensure soldiers can focus on their duties without undue fear of litigation.

Arguments against AFSPA

• Human Rights Violations: Critics argue that the broad powers granted under AFSPA can lead to human rights abuses.  Allegations of extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions, and civilian harassment raise serious questions about accountability and the potential for misuse of power.
• Strained Civil-Military Relations: The act’s critics argue that it creates a climate of fear and mistrust between the security forces and the local population.  They believe that a rights-based approach would be more effective in fostering cooperation and building trust in the long run.
• Ineffectiveness:  Some argue that despite being in place for decades, AFSPA has not achieved its objective of restoring normalcy in troubled areas. They advocate for addressing the root causes of conflict, such as poverty and social injustice, alongside security measures.
• Absence of Accountability: Section 7 of AFSPA necessitates obtaining prior authorization from central or state authorities for prosecuting a member of the security forces. This regulation results in a deficiency of accountability and transparency concerning instances of alleged human rights violations by security forces, enabling them to operate without fear of consequences.

Recommendations given by important committees and commissions

• Jeevan Reddy Committee (2004): This committee recommended a complete repeal of AFSPA, suggesting its powers be incorporated into a revised Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. They also advocated for grievance cells in areas with deployed forces.
• Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC): The ARC’s 5th report echoed the call for AFSPA’s repeal, highlighting the need for alternative approaches to public order.
• Santosh Hegde Commission: This commission proposed a more nuanced approach. They suggested:

1. Regular reviews (every 6 months) to assess AFSPA’s necessity.
2. Amending the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act to address terrorism concerns.
3. Removing immunity from investigation for security forces accused of misconduct.

Download plutus ias current affairs eng med 8th April 2024

Prelims practise question

Q1. Consider the following statements:

1. Under AFSPA, the central government has the authority to declare an area as “disturbed”.
2. As per the Santosh Hegde Commission, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act should replace AFSPA.

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

(a) 1 only

(b) 2 only

(c) Both 1 and 2

(d) Neither 1 nor 2

ANSWER: A

Q2. What action can the armed forces take without a warrant under AFSPA?

(a) Conduct searches

(b) Make arrests

(c) Use force

(d) All of the above

Answer: D

Mains practise question

Q1. Evaluate the effectiveness of AFSPA in maintaining law and order in conflict-affected areas. Discuss any alternative approaches that could be considered to address similar challenges.

Q2. Analyse the impact of AFSPA on the right to life and liberty of individuals living in regions where it is implemented. Provide examples and case studies to support your arguments.

Himanshu Mishra

I am a content developer and have done my Post Graduation in Political Science. I have given 2 UPSC mains, 1 IB ACIO interview and have cleared UGC NET JRF too.