On December 4, the Indian armed forces killed 13 civilians, including six coal miners, in a botched operation in Nagaland’s Mon district. Following widespread protest and public outcry at the extrajudicial killings, the Spear Corps of the Indian Army said, “The cause of the unfortunate loss of lives is being investigated at the highest level, and appropriate action will be taken as per the course of law.” At the same time, the Nagaland government urged the central government to repeal the Armed Forces (Special Protection) Act (AFSPA) and condemned the central government for subsequently extending the act in the state by six months.
#Nagaland | Nagaland civilian killings : citizens to march from Dimapur-Kohima on January 10, demanding immediate repeal of AFSPA.#AFSPARepeal #NagalandFiring #civiliankillings #march #dimapur #kohima #Mondistrict #NetSnippet #NortheastToday pic.twitter.com/7xA9ED8YbF
— NORTHEAST TODAY (@NortheastToday) January 6, 2022
AFSPA is a British colonial-era law that is invoked in cases of insurgency or when India’s territorial integrity is at risk. Under the Act, the central government may declare an area a ‘disturbed area’ and endow the armed forces with special powers, such as arresting individuals or searching premises without a warrant. Furthermore, security forces in the ‘disturbed area’ cannot be prosecuted for their actions without the central government’s approval, which some argue paves the way for extrajudicial killings. The extension of the act, which is currently in place in Nagaland, Assam, and some parts of Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh, is reviewed every six months.
The security forces’ botched operation has stirred debate surrounding AFSPA and illustrated the divisions within the Indian political landscape. While some groups have demanded the complete repeal of the act, others have called for reforms. Moreover, this is not the first time this debate has been held.
The first demand for the law’s repeal was made in 2001, when Irom Sharmila launched a 16-year-long hunger strike after the 8th Assam Rifles gunned down ten civilians in Manipur.
Likewise, this is not the first time the government has conducted an investigation of the Act. Following the death of a woman in police custody in 2004, the Congress-led government formed a committee headed by Justice (retired) B.P.Jeevan Reddy in 2005. The Committee recommended repealing the law due to a lack of accountability and a transparent system that could ensure the protection of citizens from the misuse of the law. Acknowledging that the Act had created a sense of “discrimination and alienation” among the residents of northeastern states, the committee instead recommended amending the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to include a provision providing special powers to the armed forces in northeastern states. This suggestion was also echoed by the Second Administrative Reforms Commission in its fifth report on public order. Similarly, the Justice Verma Committee, formed in 2013 to suggest criminal law reforms, recommended the revocation of the AFSPA provision whereby the persecution of those accused of sexually assaulting women in conflict areas requires Central government approval.
In addition, in 2016, the Supreme Court ordered a probe into 1,528 cases of alleged fake encounters in Manipur over the last two decades. The Court condemned the indefinite deployment of armed forces in the name of restoring democracy under AFSPA and said it mocks the democratic process and highlights the failure of the armed forces and civil administration. It argued that “every person carrying a weapon in a disturbed area cannot be labelled a militant or terrorist or insurgent and be killed without any inquiry.” Consequently, the Court ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation after a committee headed by former Judge Santosh Hegde reported that six cases involving seven killings were fake encounters.
However, none of the proposals or orders made by these committees or indeed the Supreme Court were ever implemented or led to any meaningful change.
Therefore, following the recent incident in the Mon district, the Chief Ministers of Nagaland, Meghalaya, and Manipur once again demanded the revocation of AFSPA. To this end, following a meeting between Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Nagaland Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio last month, the Ministry of Home Affairs agreed to form a committee to review the application of AFSPA in Nagaland. Given the failure of previous governments to implement the demands of the states, however, there is a lack of belief in what this new committee will achieve.
On the one hand, the MHA announced a Committee to review the need to apply AFSPA in Nagaland.
— P. Chidambaram (@PChidambaram_IN) December 31, 2021
On the other hand, the MHA declared the whole of Nagaland as a ‘disturbed area’ and extended the application of AFSPA
Thread:
— Sanbeer Singh Ranhotra (@SSanbeer) December 6, 2021
Why don't those who are demanding a repeal of AFSPA first ask insurgent groups in Nagaland to lay down their arms?
What angle are they running here?
What agenda do they have?
Tell NSCN-K and NSCN-IM to surrender. Don't they care for Naga civilians?
The army, meanwhile, continues to push the central government to keep the Act in place. In 2018, India’s Supreme Court heard a petition by hundreds of army officers seeking blanket immunity from any prosecution for civilian killings in the ‘disturbed areas’ by branding those killed as insurgents or anti-national elements. They said AFSPA empowers them to take these extrajudicial measures and that the judiciary shouldn’t meddle in this.
The army personnel also alleged that police cases filed against them were politically motivated. Indeed, herein lies the issue of why both Congress and BJP governments have thus far refused to act on the anger surrounding AFSPA. Considering their considerable role and influence in protecting India’s borders and its citizens, holding the armed forces accountable can be interpreted as a criticism of a highly venerated institution, and would be a deeply unpopular move and have severe political consequences.
However, it is clear that the situation in the region has now reached a tipping point and cannot be ignored any longer. Given the ruling administration’s focus on tackling the looming external threats emanating from Pakistan and China, perhaps the government can use this as a unique opportunity to examine the extended deployment of armed forces to the northeast while also pacifying the region’s states. In fact, a press release by the state government said that “a court of inquiry will initiate disciplinary proceedings against the army unit and army personnel who were directly involved in the Oting incident and action will be taken immediately on the basis of a fair inquiry.” The press release also mentioned that those facing the inquiry will be suspended “with immediate effect.”
Therefore, although AFSPA was extended in Nagaland by six months, there are also parallel indications that the recent incident in the Mor district has pushed the Central government to address or at least seriously consider the grievances of the northeastern states and strike a better balance between national security and the protection of human rights. There are thus at this stage fairly muted suggestions that this could represent a seminal moment in Indian history and more importantly for northeastern states. However, given the failure of such initiatives in the past, it remains too early to say how this will play out.