AFSPA Extended Again: Six More Months in Manipur, Nagaland, Arunachal
On 27 September 2025, the Ministry of Home Affairs extended the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) for six months in select areas of Manipur, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh. This includes districts in Manipur like Kangpokpi, Churachandpur and several locations in Nagaland. Notably, despite calls for repeal and evidence of misuse, the Act remains entrenched across parts of India's Northeast. The timing is striking amidst fragile post-insurgency recovery in Manipur following ethnic violence earlier this year.
Breaking from the Pattern: A Case of Chronic Extensions
Unlike the sporadic rollbacks of AFSPA in Jammu & Kashmir or Tripura, the ministry's decision signals a recurring cycle in the Northeast. For instance, AFSPA was lifted from Assam in April 2022 after nearly three decades, and before that in Meghalaya. However, Manipur and Nagaland remain under the law’s shadow, with the former marking over 65 years of AFSPA’s application. This extension aligns with a decades-old template: periodic renewals justified through vague references to "disturbed conditions". The irony is evident—the Ministry's framing treats AFSPA as an administrative tool, ignoring its failure to address insurgency's systemic roots.
Consider Manipur, where insurgent violence has declined nearly 75% since 2014, as per the National Crime Records Bureau data. Yet, AFSPA is extended not in response to insurgent resurgence but due to ongoing ethnic tensions following the Kuki-Meitei clashes earlier this year. This raises questions about whether policymakers are conflating communal strife with insurgency—a legislative misdiagnosis that risks institutional overreach.
The Machinery Behind AFSPA's Authorization
Under Section 3 of AFSPA, the Governor can declare a region "disturbed", enabling the law’s activation. However, the opaque threshold for declaring areas as "disturbed territory" remains controversial. The Armed Forces subsequently derive excessive powers under Section 4, allowing operations without warrants, even leading to fatal force in certain instances. Section 7 compounds this by insulating officers from prosecution without prior clearance from the Centre—a provision criticized for fostering impunity.
Importantly, the Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) called AFSPA’s provisions “too vague,” recommending its repeal. It instead suggested incorporating counter-terror laws into the broader Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which has more prescribed oversight mechanisms. A failure to act on those recommendations indicates systemic inertia within the Ministry of Home Affairs, where executive immunity appears prioritized over human rights accountability.
What the Data Tells Us: Between Decline and Distrust
The Ministry’s blanket justification of AFSPA rests on claims of insurgency management. Yet, data paints a more complex picture:
- Between 2014 and 2023, insurgency-related incidents dropped by 80% in Nagaland, per Ministry of Home Affairs reports. In Manipur, numbers fell by a similar margin, showing comparative stability.
- Despite reduced militant activity, Manipur saw over 200 extrajudicial killings between 2008 and 2012, as documented by the Santosh Hegde Commission, with AFSPA implicated directly.
- In Nagaland, the 2021 Mon massacre—where armed forces killed 14 villagers mistaking them for militants—became a flashpoint for anti-AFSPA protests across the region.
The mismatch between official security narratives and ground-level resentment unravels the deepest critique. While insurgency data shows a marked decline, the Act appears more anchored to geopolitical hedging than actual operational necessity. That number is misleading.
Uncomfortable Questions: Governance or Coercion?
What remains underexamined is not AFSPA’s existence but its precise function. How often do the armed forces leverage powers under Section 4? What impact does immunity under Section 7 have on trust between the state and its people? These gaps underscore deeper governance failures.
Moreover, the state-centric nature of “disturbed area” declarations limits constitutional accountability. The emphasis lies overwhelmingly on military interventions while infrastructure gaps persist—nagging issues like 5% failure rates in Northeast rural electrification schemes (2023 NITI Aayog Data) remain unaddressed. Effectively, AFSPA’s machinery bypasses civilian development pathways, leaving insecurities unresolved.
Even worse, policies based on coercion risk fuelling resentment rather than reconciliation, as shown time and again in Manipur and Nagaland protests. The real question isn’t security; it’s sustainability—how functional is AFSPA as a legal mechanism after six decades?
International Comparison: Lessons from Colombia
One comparison worth noting is Colombia’s approach to insurgency in its war against FARC rebels. While Colombia implemented draconian counter-terror laws between 1998-2016, its eventual pivot to negotiating peace saw reforms emphasizing socio-economic trust-building. Key measures, such as rural land reforms and localized governance via elected councils, were critical in curbing militancy sustainably. India, by contrast, relies disproportionately on force-backed instruments like AFSPA—disconnecting civilians from developmental conflict resolution processes seen in global counterparts.
Practice Questions for UPSC
Prelims Practice Questions
- 1. AFSPA provides the armed forces with the right to conduct operations without warrants.
- 2. The Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee recommended the complete repeal of AFSPA.
- 3. The extension of AFSPA in regions signifies a decline in insurgency.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
- 1. Section 3
- 2. Section 4
- 3. Section 7
Select the correct option.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the implications of extending AFSPA in Manipur, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh?
The extension of AFSPA extends military oversight in these regions, which raises concerns regarding human rights violations and lack of accountability. Additionally, it perpetuates a cycle of unrest, as deployment of armed forces under AFSPA can exacerbate local tensions, particularly in the context of post-insurgency conditions, as seen in Manipur.
How does AFSPA’s Section 3 empower state authorities, and why is it controversial?
Section 3 empowers the Governor to declare an area 'disturbed', enabling the activation of AFSPA. This is controversial due to its vague criteria for designation, often leading to accusations of misuse and extending military jurisdiction over civil matters without adequate checks on authority, undermining civil liberties.
What criticisms have been leveled against the application of AFSPA according to the Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee?
The Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee criticized AFSPA for its vagueness and called for its repeal, suggesting that counter-terror laws should be integrated into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to ensure more robust oversight and accountability mechanisms. This recommendation highlights a preference for governance based on rule of law rather than special military powers.
What evidence suggests a disconnect between the government's security narratives and the ground realities in the Northeast?
While the government cites ongoing insurgency management to justify AFSPA, data shows a significant decline in insurgency-related incidents by up to 80% in recent years. This discrepancy between reduced militant activities and the continuation of AFSPA raises questions about whether the law serves operational needs or reflects deeper systemic issues within governance in the region.
In what ways does AFSPA impact civilian governance and development in the Northeastern states?
AFSPA's implementation prioritizes military intervention over civilian development, leading to persistent failures in infrastructure and social governance, such as in rural electrification projects. This focus on coercive measures can hinder reconciliation efforts and breed resentment among local populations, making sustainable development more challenging.
Source: LearnPro Editorial | Internal Security | Published: 27 September 2025 | Last updated: 3 March 2026
About LearnPro Editorial Standards
LearnPro editorial content is researched and reviewed by subject matter experts with backgrounds in civil services preparation. Our articles draw from official government sources, NCERT textbooks, standard reference materials, and reputed publications including The Hindu, Indian Express, and PIB.
Content is regularly updated to reflect the latest syllabus changes, exam patterns, and current developments. For corrections or feedback, contact us at admin@learnpro.in.