India’s internal security landscape is marked by several regions that have been affected by extremism and insurgencies, particularly in the northeastern states. Manipur, one of the most volatile regions, has witnessed decades of unrest, influenced by ethnic tensions, insurgent activities, and demands for autonomy. This article explores the evolving security situation in Manipur, the role of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), and the socio-political implications of the Disturbed Areas status.

Historical Background of Extremism in India

• Insurgencies and Ethnic Conflicts: Internal extremism in India has manifested in various forms, including regional autonomy movements and ethnic conflicts. In the northeastern states, particularly Manipur, insurgencies have been fueled by demands for independence and self-determination from ethnic groups.
• The Complex Demography of Manipur: Manipur’s demographic makeup—dominated by the Meitei community in the valley and Kuki, Naga, and other indigenous groups in the hills—has contributed to tensions. These tensions have often been exacerbated by political demands, leading to sustained insurgent activities.

The Role of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA)

• Introduction of AFSPA: The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) was enacted in 1958 to address insurgencies in the northeastern states. The Act empowers the armed forces to take extreme measures to maintain law and order in areas deemed “disturbed.” In Manipur, AFSPA was imposed in 1980 in response to escalating insurgent activities.
• Powers and Criticisms:
• AFSPA grants security forces the authority to use lethal force, arrest individuals without warrants, and search premises without prior approval.
• The Act has been criticized for its potential to infringe on human rights, as it provides sweeping powers to the armed forces with little accountability. This has often led to allegations of abuse and violations.
• Impact on Security and Governance: AFSPA has been central to India’s counter-insurgency strategy, but it has also created an atmosphere of militarization and impunity. While it has contributed to the suppression of insurgent activities, it has also disrupted civil administration and economic development in affected areas.

Disturbed Area Status and Its Implications

• Definition and Application: The Disturbed Area status is declared when an area is deemed to be in a state of internal conflict, necessitating the deployment of armed forces under AFSPA. This status is renewed periodically based on an assessment of the security situation.
• Historical Withdrawal of Disturbed Area Status:
• In 2004, the status was partially withdrawn from some parts of the Imphal Valley following protests against AFSPA and the killing of Thangjam Manorama. However, the rest of the state remained under the Disturbed Area notification.
• In 2022, areas of the Meitei-dominated valley were gradually removed from the Disturbed Area status, marking a temporary de-escalation.
• Re-Imposition in 2024: Due to renewed violence and ethnic clashes, the Indian government has re-imposed the Disturbed Area notification in certain regions of Manipur. These areas include:
• Sekmai and Lamsang in Imphal West
• Lamlai in Imphal East
• Moirang in Bishnupur
• Leimakhong in Kangpokpi
• Jiribam, located at the westernmost edge of the state

Geographical and Demographic Context

• Strategic Importance of Re-imposed Areas: The regions where the Disturbed Area status has been re-imposed are crucial for maintaining security:
• Sekmai and Lamsang are located near the Meitei-majority areas and are vulnerable to ethnic violence from the Kuki-majority hill districts.
• Jiribam, located near Assam’s Cachar district, has a mixed population and is sensitive due to its proximity to insurgency-prone areas like Pherzawl and Tamenglong in the hill districts.
• Leimakhong, home to the 57 Mountain Division of the Indian Army, is of military importance, contributing to the state’s security apparatus.
• Ethnic Tensions and Territorial Disputes: The demographic makeup of Manipur’s Imphal Valley and hill districts remains a source of ethnic tension. The Kuki, Naga, and Meitei communities have historically had competing political aspirations, leading to violent conflicts.

AFSPA’s Impact on Socioeconomic Conditions

• Military Presence and Economic Disruption: Areas under AFSPA experience significant socio-economic challenges. The heavy military presence often disrupts daily life and hinders economic activities, limiting infrastructure development, access to education, and healthcare services.
• Human Rights Concerns: The sweeping powers granted to the military under AFSPA have led to numerous human rights violations. These include arbitrary arrests, extrajudicial killings, and the suppression of peaceful protests, all contributing to a breakdown of trust between the civilian population and the state.
• Developmental Setbacks: The instability created by the imposition of AFSPA has led to underdevelopment in affected areas. Economic opportunities are limited, and people living in conflict zones face difficulties in accessing basic amenities. This further fuels the grievances of affected communities.

The Path Toward Lasting Peace

• Promoting Inclusive Governance:
• Political Dialogue: Engaging all ethnic groups in the political process and addressing their demands for autonomy and self-determination is crucial.
• Ensuring Minority Representation: Efforts to ensure that minority groups, especially the Kuki and Naga communities, feel included in the governance of the state are essential for long-term peace.
• Socio-Economic Development:
• Infrastructure Development: Focus on infrastructure projects that improve access to education, healthcare, and employment opportunities in conflict-affected regions.
• Improving Livelihoods: Addressing the economic grievances of marginalized communities can help reduce the appeal of insurgent groups and militias.
• Strengthening Local Law Enforcement:
• Reducing Dependence on the Military: Empowering local police forces and reducing the need for military intervention is essential for restoring civilian control and fostering trust between the government and the people.
• Accountability for Security Forces: Ensuring accountability for the actions of security personnel is key to rebuilding trust and ensuring that the application of AFSPA does not result in human rights violations.

Conclusion

Manipur’s complex security situation underscores the limitations of using military power alone to resolve deep-rooted ethnic and political conflicts. While AFSPA and the Disturbed Area status have played a role in maintaining order, they have also contributed to human rights violations, socio-economic challenges, and a breakdown in civil-military relations.

To achieve lasting peace, India must prioritize:

• Inclusive governance that addresses the concerns of all communities,
• Development initiatives that improve the living standards of those affected by conflict, and
• A balanced approach to security that reduces the military footprint and restores civilian control.

Only by addressing both the political and socio-economic dimensions of the conflict can Manipur move toward a peaceful and prosperous future.