During the Quit India Movement of 1942, the British colonial government enacted the Armed Forces Special Powers Ordinance to control the escalating unrest in India. The Ordinance was formally given life anew in post-independence India when the Parliament enacted the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act in 1958. Its primary aim was to combat the Naga insurgency in the Northeastern states of India, particularly Nagaland.
It was first implemented in Naga insurgency affected areas of Assam and later extended to other northeastern states facing similar insurgencies, like Manipur, Tripura, and Meghalaya. In case of Manipur the Act was imposed in the entire state in 1980 after the rise of Meitei revolutionary extremist organizations such as the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK), and the armed activities of United National Liberation Front (UNLF) and Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL) in early 90s. Similarly, Tripura faced insurgent activities by groups like the All Tripura Tiger Force (ATTF), leading to the invocation of the Act in the state. Over time, it was extended to other regions affected by insurgency or unrest.
The AFSPA was imposed in Jammu and Kashmir in 1990 in response to the rise of insurgency and militant activities in the region. The insurgency was fueled by separatist movements, as well as the involvement of armed militant groups seeking either independence for the region or its merger with Pakistan. In the 1980s, Punjab witnessed intense militant activity led by the Khalistani movement, which sought an independent Sikh state of Khalistan. This period was marked by violence, bombings, and targeted killings by militant groups. To curb this violence and restore order, the Indian government invoked AFSPA in parts of Punjab during this period.
Let’s understand the powers of Central Security forces behind AFSPA. Section 3 of AFSPA grants the Governor of a state or the Administrator of that Union territory or the Central Government, in either case the authority to declare a region as a disturbed area if it is of the opinion that such a disturbed or dangerous condition that the use of armed forces in aid of civil power becomes necessary.
The power to declare an area as ‘disturbed’ has been extended to the Central Government by 1972 Amendment of the Act. The disturbed or dangerous condition qualification of Section 3 of the Act may be understood with the state of violence or acts of armed activities of insurgent groups, and the armed conflict that entailed with the armed forces of the State. Once an area has been declared as ‘disturbed’, the provisions of the Act automatically become applicable.
Section 4 grants the armed forces the authority to take actions in aid of the civil administration in maintaining law and order in the disturbed areas. It provides the military with powers such as (i) the ability to fire upon individuals or groups to the extent of causing death on ‘mere suspicion’ (ii) the authority to arrest individuals without warrants if there is reasonable belief they are involved in insurgent activities, (iii) the power to enter and search premises without a warrant, provided they have reason to believe it is necessary for the maintenance of law and order and (iv) the power to seize weapons or any property used for insurgent activities. Section 4 is one of the most controversial provisions of AFSPA. It allows armed forces personnel to use force, including lethal force in situations where an individual is found to be involved in an act of insurgency, refusing to comply with orders or is engaging in hostile actions or to disperse unlawful assemblies and prevent disturbances.
Section 5 grants the armed forces the power to arrest any person without a warrant if they suspect the person is involved in activities which are deemed to be ‘suspicious’ or affecting the law and order of the state.Section 5 does not stipulate the time-frame within which a person arrested under the Act should be handed over to the nearest Police State. Article 22 (2) of India’s constitution guaranteed the fundamental right of every person arrested to be produced before the court of the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. Due to the vague nature of Section 5, persons arrested are detained for an unlimited period of time thus violating the one of the basic cardinal principles of criminal law.
Section 6 provides them protection from legal action, including prosecution, for any actions taken in the course of enforcing the provisions of the Act, unless approved by the central government. The Act gives the armed forces extra-constitutional authority to take up extra-police or para-military measures in aid of civil administration in maintaining law and order in regions affected by insurgency and unrest but also raise significant concerns regarding human rights abuses, excessive use of force, and accountability. Section 6 stands against the principle of judicial remedies for violation of human rights.
On March 14, 1984, 14 innocent civilians were killed and many other sustained bullet injuries when CRPF personnel opened fire indiscriminately at Heirangoithong Volleyball Ground after some UG cadres launched an attack against them. A volleyball tournament was underway at the ground when the firing took place. Some CRPF jawans were also reportedly injured in the attack. One of the most significant protests against AFSPA in Manipur was led by Irom Sharmila, also known as the Iron Lady of Manipur.
She began a hunger strike in November 2000 demanding the repeal of AFSPA after the Malom massacre where 10 civilians were killed in a cross fire by the security forces. Sharmila’s protest became an emblematic movement for peace and justice in Manipur against the brutalities of the armed forces. Arrested time and again after occasional and ceremonial productions before the Court of law, Sharmila ended her fast-to-death campaign in 2016. On July 11, 2004, the 32-year-old, Thangjam Monoroma was arrested from her home on the pretext of interrogation by the soldiers of the Assam Rifles and then she was raped and killed while in their custody. Her bullet-ridden corpse was left in a field not far from her home where it was discovered by villagers. The Assam Rifles claimed she had been shot dead while trying to escape. As a part of the protest against the killing of Monoroma and the AFSPA, 12 women stripped themselves naked in front of Kangla fort, the headquarters of an Indian army unit in Manipur.
Another firing incident occurred at BT (Bir Tikendrajit) Road on July 23, 2009 which took the lives of a pregnant lady, Rabina Devi and a youth, Chungkham Sanjit Meitei, a former cadre of an insurgent group by the Manipur Police commandos. At least five others were also injured in the firing. Amid the increasing incidents of extrajudicial killings (fake encounters) in the state (over 1,528 people died in extra-judicial killings carried out by the Central armed forces and State Police between 1979 and 2012), SC called it “excessive and retaliatory force” used by the Police and Armed forces in Manipur, and directed the CBI to set up a Special Investigative Team (SIT) to investigate the alleged fake encounters in the state. Public resentment following the tragic killing of Monoroma led the central government to appoint Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee to review the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 which the committee submitted its report in 2005.
In August 2004, the ‘disturbed’ area tag was lifted from the Imphal Municipality area. Recently in 2022, the disturbed area status has been partially removed from 15 police stations in the districts of Jiribam, Thoubal, Bishnupur, Kakching, Imphal East and Imphal West, all in the Imphal Valley. The Act remains in force in the hill districts of the state. Even during a state of emergency, the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 and certain rights under article 20 of India’s constitution cannot be suspended. But the absolute power given to armed forces dissolves the inherent rights given under the fundamental rights and all the powers are vested in the security forces.
Amid the ongoing violence between the Meitei and Kuki communities over the past 18 months, tragic incidents continue to unfold. On November 7, 2024, a Hmar woman was burnt to death, and several houses were set ablaze in Zairawn village, allegedly by suspected Meitei armed groups. The following day, a Meitei woman farmer was shot dead by suspected Kuki militants in Saiton village, Bishnupur district. The situation escalated on November 11, when 10 Kuki militants were neutralized by CRPF personnel in a retaliatory operation at Borobekra, Jiribam. During the attack, a CRPF constable, Sanjeev Kumar, sustained a bullet injury.
According to a statement by the Manipur Police, the security forces recovered a significant cache of weapons, including three AK-series rifles, four SLRs, two INSAS rifles, one RPG, one pompi gun, magazines, and helmets. As per the news reports, those killed by the CRPF personnel came from Churachandpur travelling 200 kilometers all the way up to Jiribam to carry out the attacks. On the same day, several houses were set on fire by Kuki militants in Jiribam, leading to the tragic deaths of two Meitei civilians. Six internally displaced persons (IDPs), including three women and three children, were abducted and taken as hostages by the Kuki Armed Groups (KAGs). The indigenous communities including Meitei community called for the immediate and safe release of the hostages.
In response to the deteriorating situation, the Central Government re-imposed AFSPA on November 14, 2024 in six police station areas of Manipur. The Ministry of Home Affairs cited the “volatile” situation and the “active participation of insurgent groups in heinous acts of violence” requiring for effective co-ordination of the armed forces’ operation as the reasons behind this decision. The affected areas include Sekmai and Lamshang in Imphal West, Lamlai in Imphal East, Jiribam in Jiribam district, Leimakhong in Kangpokpi, and Moirang in Bishnupur district.
Tragically, all the six Meitei hostages were brutally murdered by Kuki militants, and their bodies were later found in the Barak River. Among the deceased were an 8-month-old infant, Langamba; a 2.5-year-old child, Chingkheinganba and an 8-year-old, Thajamanbi. In the wake of these horrific killings, agitated mobs attacked the residences of the Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) and Ministers across several areas of the valley, demanding prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators of the crimes from the government. In response to the escalating unrest, the Manipur Government imposed curfew and suspended internet services to regain control of the situation.
The question of whether re-imposition of AFSPA in police stations of the Imphal Valley will effectively address the violence in Manipur remains contentious. While AFSPA has long been in force in the hilly regions, the persistent presence of Kuki militant groups, shielded by the Suspension of Operation (SoO) agreement, highlights the limitations of this legislation in curbing violence. The activities of the Kuki militants ranging from free movement with arms towards foothills adjoining valley areas, to preparing and launching indiscriminate attacks against the Meitei civilians all have been taking place in the hill areas which is under AFSPA.
Despite the heavy deployment of security forces, the violence between the Kukis and Meiteis continues unabated, leaving innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. The tragic murder of six abducted women and children by Kuki militants—whose bodies were callously discarded in the Barak River—underscores the deep insecurity and lawlessness that persists. This raises fundamental concerns: Can the return of AFSPA in certain areas truly restore peace, or is it merely a superficial response to a far more complex problem that demands a more nuanced approach?
The activities of Meitei armed groups like Arambai Tenggol or village volunteers have been confined to defending or retaliating against the indiscriminate attacks of the KAGs in the foothills. No evidences are found where these groups have launched attacks against the Indian armed forces or Police personnel of the State whereas KAGs have killed more than 10 Indian armed forces in hill areas since May 2023. In this background, there is a clear gap of the nexus between the return of the draconian Act and objectives which it sought to achieve. The continued bloodshed suggests that military force alone cannot heal the wounds of Manipur, and the root causes of the violence must be addressed.
For a lasting solution the state government should work closely with the Union government to address the issue of illegal immigration through national-level initiatives like the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The government must strengthen the surveillance along the borders, especially with neighboring Myanmar, to detect and prevent illegal crossings. This can involve the use of advanced technology such as drones, infrared cameras, and border surveillance systems. A comprehensive population registry system could be established, requiring all residents, including migrants, to be registered with local authorities. This would involve verifying citizenship status, identity, and the origin of individuals residing in the state. The ongoing violence between the Kuki and Meitei communities in Manipur requires a comprehensive, multi-pronged approach that goes beyond military intervention and addresses the underlying issues of historical grievances and economic disparities of the indigenous people of the state.
First, along the lines of an NRC for Manipur, there is a need to identify immigrants who have illegally crossed the borders into Manipur and take measures for their deportations taking 1951 as the base year. Those who stand the test of 1951 base year can be accounted as old Kuki inhabitants of the state who shall enjoy rights and protections under the existing law and who can be engaged for further negotiations.
Second, bilateral dialogue and reconciliation must be prioritized, with meaningful engagement between the Kuki and Meitei leaders, along with a mediator appointed by the Supreme Court to create a platform for mutual understanding and trust.
Third, there can be formulated a blueprint or a common framework amongst the three major communities Nagas, Meiteis (Meitei-Pangals included) and Kukis for sharing of political power or representations, economic development and resources. All these communities should have a say in the political and administrative decisions affecting them, with efforts made to ensure equitable representation and resources.
Additionally, creating socio-economic opportunities including job creation, access to education, and infrastructure development, will reduce the sense of marginalization and foster cooperation. The role of the government should be to create an inclusive environment where the rights and concerns of all communities are acknowledged and respected.
Finally, the focus should shift from militarized solutions to long-term peacebuilding efforts, which include demilitarization, strengthening the rule of law, and ensuring that security forces operate with accountability and transparency. This holistic approach combining political, social, and economic reforms, offers the best hope for a lasting resolution to any forms of tensions amongst the communities co-existing in the state in general and to the violence between the Kuki and Meitei communities in particular.
The writer is MA in History from IGNOU and can be reached at [email protected]
