Centre, State Need To Work To Strike Balance Between Enforcing AFSPA And Addressing Dissent | OPINION

 

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, or AFSPA, has often been used by the Government of India to address insurgency in various states, including those in the Northeast, as well as those of Punjab, and Jammu & Kashmir. This act provides sweeping powers to the armed forces and grants them immunity for their actions. It authorises the armed forces to fire — even to the extent of causing death — if anyone is found violating the law or carrying arms and ammunition.

The AFSPA also allows the armed forces to arrest individuals or search premises without warrants, based merely on "reasonable suspicion". Security personnel acting under the act cannot be prosecuted without the permission of the central government.

Due to its extensive powers, AFSPA has often been labelled “draconian” and “undemocratic” by human rights activists. There have been allegations of human rights violations as well. However, while it may be an unpleasant necessity, AFSPA is often implemented in precarious situations where the government has few alternatives. The armed forces view the act as essential for operating with the freedom required in such circumstances.

AFSPA, however, is not accepted by all sections of society. This is evident in the northeastern state of Manipur, where the act was recently extended to six police station areas in the valley. Voices of dissent, especially from the Meitei community, have risen against this decision. This week, a massive protest erupted in the Imphal Valley, with demonstrators, including students, demanding the repeal of the AFSPA in these areas.

It should be noted that while AFSPA has long been in force in Manipur's hill districts, it was extended to parts of the valley only last month.

Why Are Meiteis Opposing AFSPA?

Opposition to the Act in the valley is not new. In 2000, Manipuri activist Irom Sharmila began a hunger strike against the Act, which continued for 16 years. This protest was fuelled by allegations of “fake encounters” attributed to AFSPA's implementation. The act was first extended to the entire state in 1979 when valley-based militant groups became active.

Since the outbreak of ethnic riots between the Meiteis and Kuki-Zo communities in May last year, the Meiteis have often alleged that central forces, particularly the Assam Rifles, are biased toward the Kuki-Zo people. They have accused these forces of “aiding Kuki-Zo militants” during the ethnic violence. It is also worth noting that Kuki-Zo militants have targeted Meitei settlements near the foothills.

The current atmosphere of mistrust, combined with the valley’s longstanding opposition to AFSPA, has fuelled resistance among the Meiteis to its implementation. Nevertheless, the act is deemed necessary in the valley — even though it has not yet been implemented across the entire region — to deter Meitei militant groups. Meanwhile, the Kuki-Zo people have alleged that the state police, dominated by Meiteis, have been lenient toward these militant groups.

In such a situation, while the presence of AFSPA is deemed essential in both the hills and the valley, dissenting voices against the act must be addressed. Failure to do so could hinder the operations of central armed forces, which require local cooperation to succeed.

Polarisation On Ethnic Grounds

Manipur’s ground realities are deeply polarised along ethnic lines, allowing militant groups to exploit the situation. Any action taken by armed forces against militants is likely to provoke strong reactions from the community to which those militants belong. This was evident in the recent incident in Jiribam, where the killing of 10 — some reports say 11 — Kuki-Zo militants by security forces was met with condemnation from the community.

Operating in such a polarised environment, where ethnic militancy is on the rise, poses significant challenges for central forces. Mere implementation of AFSPA will not suffice without simultaneous cautionary measures. In this context, the Tripura model of AFSPA implementation offers a valuable example.

Tripura Model Of AFSPA

AFSPA was first enforced in Tripura in 1997, at the height of terrorism in the state. However, the act was withdrawn in 2015 after the law and order situation improved and insurgency waned.

It is worth noting that when AFSPA was enforced, the state was governed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), or CPI(M), which traditionally opposed such legislation. Tribal parties, like the Indigenous Nationalist Party of Twipra (INPT) and the Indigenous People’s Front of Tripura (IPFT) also strongly opposed the act, arguing it was against tribal interests.

Despite this opposition, the Left Front government led by Manik Sarkar took steps to ensure minimal local resistance against AFSPA. Measures included fostering coordination between central forces and the state police, as well as monitoring their actions at the highest levels, including by the governor and chief minister. These measures helped prevent incidents of human rights violations, which could have provoked a backlash from the locals.

In a 2011 op-ed for The Hindu, titled 'How Tripura Overcame Insurgency', former Tripura Governor DN Sahay highlighted the importance of such measures. He noted that central and state forces engaged in civic action programmes like healthcare, drinking water supply, and medical aid, which helped build trust among locals.

This shows that while there are concerns regarding AFSPA among the locals of the Imphal valley, these can be cleared through proper actions as seen in the case of Tripura. Currently, the security forces, both central forces and state police, work under the Unified Command, whose in-charge is Kuldiep Singh, security advisor to Chief Minister N Biren Singh. Kuldiep Singh was appointed by the Centre after the ethnic riots broke out.

First of all, there should be proper coordination among the security forces, as currently it seems there is a lack of cooperation. Secondly, the security forces should be checked at the highest level to ensure no human rights violations take place. Lastly, the State should engage the security forces in civic programmes to gain the confidence of the locals and dispel their doubts regarding the intentions of the forces working under AFSPA.

All these initiatives are likely to help restore normalcy in the strife-torn state in the long run and also show that "draconian" AFSPA, when implemented cautiously, can give fruitful results with hardly any cases of human rights violations. 

The author is a political commentator.

[Disclaimer: The opinions, beliefs, and views expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this website are personal and do not reflect the opinions, beliefs, and views of ABP Network Pvt. Ltd.]