AFSPA Extension

The contentious Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) continues to be a subject of debate and concern as the central government announces its extension in three districts and three police stations of Arunachal Pradesh for a further six months. This decision raises questions about the balance between security imperatives and the protection of civil liberties in the northeastern state.

1: Dimension- Need of the Act in India’s north-east

• Arunachal Pradesh, shares its borders with China, Bhutan, and Myanmar, making it strategically significant from a security standpoint.
• Over the years, the region has witnessed sporadic incidents of insurgency and militancy, prompting the deployment of security forces and the enactment of special legal provisions such as AFSPA.
• The extension of AFSPA in three districts—Tirap, Changlang, and Longding—and three police stations underscores the persistent security challenges facing certain pockets of Arunachal Pradesh.
• These areas have been identified as being vulnerable to insurgent activities, cross-border infiltration, and other threats to public order and national security.

2: Dimension- Efficacy of such legal measures in addressing security challenges

• AFSPA is essential for dealing with insurgencies and protecting civilians from armed groups, critics view it as a draconian law that enables human rights abuses and undermines democratic principles.
• While security agencies emphasize the need for uninterrupted powers to combat insurgency and maintain stability, civil society organizations and human rights activists raise concerns about the potential for abuse of power and violations of fundamental rights.
• Reports of extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, and other human rights violations have fuelled calls for the repeal or reform of AFSPA.
• SC on AFSPA: The Supreme Court established legal principle “Accountability is a facet of the rule of law.” It rules that the armed forces cannot escape investigation for excesses in the course of the discharge of their duty even in “disturbed areas”.

Way forward

While security measures are undoubtedly important in addressing immediate threats, there is a growing recognition of the need for a holistic strategy that addresses the root causes of insurgency, including socio-economic marginalization, governance deficits, and issues of identity and belonging.While the recent decision is driven by legitimate concerns for public safety and national security, it also underscores the need for a nuanced approach that balances security imperatives with respect for human rights and the rule of law.