AFSPA reimposition in Manipur: A Setback to Peace Amid Crisis

With ongoing attacks from armed Kuki-Zo militants primarily operating from the hill districts where AFSPA is already enforced, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs’ decision to reimpose the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) across six police station areas in Manipur’s valley districts has sparked serious concerns. This move, in a state already engulfed by deep-seated social, ethnic, and political tensions, risks exacerbating distrust and widening divisions. The contentious history of AFSPA in the Northeast, coupled with its damaging impact on public confidence, calls for a critical review of whether this reimposition is truly a security measure or part of a broader political strategy. Could this decision be influenced by demands from Kuki-Zo civil society organizations (CSOs) such as the Committee on Tribes Unity (COTU) and the Indigenous Tribal Leaders’ Forum (ITLF)?
For decades, AFSPA has governed Manipur’s hill districts, justified as a counter-insurgency tool for “disturbed” areas. The act grants security forces sweeping powers, including arrest without a warrant, entering homes, and using lethal force if deemed necessary. While some argue these measures have been critical to maintaining order, extending them into the valley districts, predominantly inhabited by the Meitei community, raises significant questions about necessity and fairness. Many fear that this selective reimposition is more divisive than stabilizing, especially given AFSPA’s notorious potential for misuse. Why has this controversial law been suddenly extended to these areas, and what objectives does this decision aim to achieve?
The government’s explanation remains opaque. Officials have vaguely cited heightened security concerns but offered no specific evidence to justify the drastic measures in the newly included areas. Crucially, while AFSPA continues unabated in Kuki-majority hill districts, its recent extension into Meitei-dominated valley districts raises concerns of selective enforcement. Such unequal application risks deepening existing divisions and fosters a perception that the government is either biased or strategically targeting specific communities. This uneven approach to law enforcement undermines efforts to bridge societal rifts and creates a dangerous precedent for handling unrest.
Manipur’s relationship with AFSPA is one of pain and trauma. The act’s enforcement has been marred by human rights violations, including wrongful detentions, custodial violence, and extrajudicial killings, leaving lasting scars on its people. Reintroducing AFSPA in the valley districts threatens to reopen these wounds and deepen grievances against the state and central governments, as well as the armed forces. Particularly troubling is the perception of inequity, with the valley communities unfairly bearing the brunt of AFSPA’s reach while similar measures in the hill districts appear to be less impactful. Such selective treatment risks further alienating affected populations, pushing them further from the prospect of reconciliation.
Some political observers suggest this reimposition might be a calculated move, a tool to assert control over specific regions while appeasing certain interest groups. This suspicion is compounded by the government’s silence on ongoing issues in the hill districts where AFSPA has been long enforced. Such a strategy raises concerns about a “divide and rule” policy, where AFSPA is used not as a tool for stability but as an instrument to manage dissent selectively. If such tactics persist, they risk fracturing Manipur’s society along lines of perceived loyalty and compliance, further destabilizing the state.
Expanding AFSPA’s jurisdiction will not solve Manipur’s underlying challenges. The government must shift its focus from militarization to addressing the root causes of unrest. Achieving lasting peace requires inclusive dialogue, equitable policies, and sustained socioeconomic development that acknowledges the grievances of all communities. This moment presents an opportunity to de-escalate tensions by engaging with local leaders, strengthening community-driven peace efforts, and reforming policing systems to prioritize civilian safety. A phased withdrawal of AFSPA, accompanied by these initiatives, would not only signal a commitment to justice but also lay the foundation for long-term stability.
Reimposing AFSPA in Manipur’s valley districts threatens to derail progress toward peace and stability. Without clear justification, this measure appears unjust and strategically selective, fostering suspicion about the government’s motives. After enduring decades of violence and unrest, the people of Manipur deserve better than a return to heavy-handed military control. They need solutions that build trust, empower local voices, and pave the way for a self-determined future.
Manipur’s crisis is undoubtedly complex, but reverting to outdated and oppressive laws like AFSPA is not the solution. The time has come for the government to prioritize inclusive approaches that promote understanding, tackle long-standing grievances, and restore hope for a peaceful and united Manipur.