The Indian Central Government extended the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) in parts of Manipur, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh for an additional six months. This decision followed a review of the law and order situation in these regions. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued notifications confirming the extension, effective from April 1, 2025.
About AFSPA
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act was enacted in 1958. It grants special powers to armed forces in “disturbed areas.” These powers include the ability to arrest without a warrant and use force to maintain public order. The act aims to address insurgency and unrest in various regions, primarily in Northeast India.
Current Status in Manipur
The entire state of Manipur is declared a ‘disturbed area’ under AFSPA, excluding specific regions under 13 police stations across five districts. This includes major areas in Imphal, Thoubal, Bishnupur, and Kakching districts. The MHA cited the need for enhanced security measures due to ongoing ethnic violence between the Meitei and Kuki communities, which has persisted since May 2023.
Extension in Nagaland
In Nagaland, several districts including Dimapur, Niuland, and Mon have been designated as ‘disturbed areas.’ Specific police station jurisdictions in Kohima, Mokokchung, Longleng, Wokha, and Zunheboto districts are also included. This extension aims to address persistent unrest and maintain public order.
Areas Covered in Arunachal Pradesh
Arunachal Pradesh also saw an extension of AFSPA in districts like Tirap, Changlang, and Longding. Additionally, areas under Namsai District’s police stations are included. The government emphasised the need for continuous monitoring of the security situation to determine future actions.
Impact of AFSPA Extension
The extension of AFSPA empowers security forces to conduct operations and maintain law and order more effectively. The government has committed to regularly assessing the security landscape to decide on further extensions or modifications. The ongoing unrest and ethnic tensions in these regions necessitate a careful balance between security and civil liberties.
Public Response and Criticism
The extension of AFSPA often faces criticism from human rights organisations. Critics argue that the act leads to human rights violations and curtails civil freedoms. Supporters, however, argue that it is essential for maintaining stability in conflict-ridden areas. The debate continues as the government navigates the complex socio-political landscape.
Future Considerations
The MHA’s decision to extend AFSPA reflects ongoing challenges in maintaining peace in Northeast India. Future assessments will be crucial in determining whether the act remains necessary or if alternative measures can be implemented to address the underlying issues.
Questions for UPSC:
- Critically analyse the implications of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act in conflict zones in India.
- What measures can be taken to address ethnic violence in Northeast India? Illustrate with examples.
- Estimate the impact of AFSPA on the human rights situation in affected regions.
- Point out the differences between the roles of state police and armed forces in maintaining law and order during civil unrest.
Answer Hints:
1. Critically analyse the implications of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act in conflict zones in India.
- AFSPA allows armed forces to operate in “disturbed areas,” granting them special powers like arrest without a warrant.
- It aims to control insurgency but has been criticized for leading to human rights violations.
- AFSPA creates a legal framework for military intervention, often overshadowing civil authority.
- The act can exacerbate tensions between local populations and security forces, leading to further unrest.
- Public perception of AFSPA varies; while some see it as necessary for security, others view it as oppressive.
2. What measures can be taken to address ethnic violence in Northeast India? Illustrate with examples.
- Promoting dialogue between conflicting communities, such as the Meitei and Kuki, to encourage understanding and reconciliation.
- Implementing socio-economic development programs to address underlying grievances, as seen in successful initiatives in Assam.
- Strengthening local governance and empowering community leaders to mediate disputes effectively.
- Enhancing police-community relations through training and community policing models, similar to those in Kerala.
- Encouraging cultural exchange programs to build trust and reduce stereotypes among different ethnic groups.
3. Estimate the impact of AFSPA on the human rights situation in affected regions.
- AFSPA has been associated with increased reports of human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings and torture.
- The act’s provisions often lead to a climate of fear, discouraging civilians from reporting abuses.
- Human rights organizations frequently criticize AFSPA for undermining civil liberties and due process.
- While it aims to restore order, the act can perpetuate cycles of violence and resentment among local populations.
- International scrutiny and calls for reform are growing, urging the government to balance security with human rights.
4. Point out the differences between the roles of state police and armed forces in maintaining law and order during civil unrest.
- State police are primarily responsible for local law enforcement and community relations, focusing on maintaining public order.
- Armed forces, under AFSPA, operate in “disturbed areas” with enhanced powers to use force, often in response to severe unrest.
- Police are trained in community policing and conflict resolution, while armed forces are trained for combat and tactical operations.
- State police rely on legal frameworks and civil rights, whereas armed forces may operate with fewer legal constraints under AFSPA.
- The involvement of armed forces can escalate violence, while state police typically aim for de-escalation and negotiation.
