By Asangba Tzudir
The recent decision by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. Of India to extend the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) in parts of Nagaland and neighbouring states for another six months has once again placed the people of the region at a familiar crossroads. For decades, AFSPA has been defended as a necessary security measure in areas that are “disturbed” and which is defined through a 'fictitious' "state of necessity", and today it remains one of the most in the Northeast. The renewed extension forces us to ask a very compelling question, and one that is both uncomfortable and unavoidable - "Do the security benefits of AFSPA outweigh its social and human costs?
The rationale behind the continued existence of AFSPA is clear. Nagaland, like parts of Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh, continues to experience the presence of underground groups which, still operate with influence. So, from the perspective of New Delhi, the military’s extraordinary powers under AFSPA are thought essential to ensure law and order, and safeguard national security. Without AFSPA, the army argues, counter-insurgency operations would be severely handicapped but which of course is a subject of debate.
But, beyond the legality (or illegality) of the act, the price of this law is borne disproportionately by ordinary citizens because of the sweeping powers to security forces, including the power to arrest without warrant, to search homes, and to use force, even to the extent of causing death, based merely on suspicion. It also grants near-blanket immunity to personnel from prosecution. This has, over time, led to allegations of abuse, arbitrary detentions, and extrajudicial killings. One cannot forget the tragic Oting incident of December 2021 which remains a raw wound for Nagaland where 14 civilians lost their lives in a botched operation.
For long, Civil liberties have been sacrificed at the altar of AFSPA. Fear of surveillance, random checks, and the chilling effect of military presence, even their so called patrolling diminish the dignity of citizens and deepen the perception of Nagaland as a militarized zone rather than a peaceful homeland. The continuation of AFSPA further aggravates the risk of alienating the very population whose cooperation is indispensable for peace.
While proponents of AFSPA may argue that its withdrawal must wait until insurgency is fully neutralized, it is worth reflecting in the fact that a law which was meant to be a “temporary” measure has continued till today. The political dialogue including the Framework Agreement is yet to bear fruit, but extending AFSPA without visible progress in the peace process only gives a contradictory message. It only reinforces the impression that militarization is the default response.
What then is the way forward? On the whole, no nation can simply dismiss security concerns, but neither can the aspirations for justice, dignity, and peace be extinguished. But the larger question is the application of a 'inhuman law' in the name of security.
Nagaland deserves a future free from the shadow of extraordinary laws. The extension of AFSPA may buy temporary security, but it cannot substitute for the deeper pursuit of peace, justice, and reconciliation. If India’s democracy is to mean more than rhetoric in the Northeast, then the question is - How long should a people be kept under the rule of inhuman laws like AFSPA in the name of safety and security.
(Dr Asangba Tzudir contributes a weekly guest editorial for The Morung Express. Comments can be emailed to asangtz@gmail.com).
