Manipur Militancy and Crusade of Irom Sharmila against AFSPA

Introduction
Irom Sharmila broke her fast today after being on a hunger strike for 16 years. In 2000, the death of 10 people in
firing by security forces drove Sharmila to launch a hunger strike and demanded the removal of the Armed
Forces Special Powers Act or AFSPA that gives the army special emergency powers while operating in the areas
declared as disturbed.
She had been arrested and kept under detention in a hospital on account of attempted suicide for all these years
and force-fed through a plastic tube.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate granted her bail after she broke her fast and furnished bond of Rs. 10,000 as
surety.
She has indicated her desire to get into active politics and continue her fight against AFSPA. She also expressed
her wish to marry Desmond Coutinho, a Goa-based British citizen, with whom she has been in touch for a while
through letters.
Understanding the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, (AFSPA)
Armed Forces Special Powers Act-1958, is an Act which has just six sections and was enacted to bestow certain
special powers on the Armed Forces operating in the areas declared as disturbed, under the provisions of Article
355 of the Constitution, among other things, to protect every state against internal disturbance.
Many NGOs, human rights organisations and non-state bodies like the UNO find the AFSPA to grossly violate the
international laws on human rights and its enforcement is considered to result in arbitrary killings, torture, and
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of the subjects.
However, the commanders of the troops deployed on the ground feel that the Act is highly essential for the proper
conduct of operations to counter the menace of terrorism and feel that by providing the necessary flexibility to
operate and adequate legal immunity and safeguards, the efficacy of the counter-terror operations is enhanced.
Historical Background
The history of the Armed Forces Special Powers Ordinance of 1942 goes back to the British era, when, on 15
August 1942, it was promulgated to suppress the Quit India Movement.
Later, the United Provinces Disturbed Areas (Special Powers of Armed Forces) Ordinance was invoked by
the central government to deal with the internal security situation in the country in 1947 which arose out of
Partition of India.
Prior to the creation of NE states, when greater Assam existed as an entity, and included the territory of present
Nagaland; in 1951, Naga National Council conducted a unilateral free and fair plebiscite and declared that 99%
of the Naga people had opted for Free and Sovereign Naga Nation. They boycotted 1952 general elections and
also boycotted government schools and officials.
To tackle the civil disturbance in the area, the Assam government imposed the Assam Maintenance of Public
Order (Autonomous District) Act in the Naga Hills in 1953 and intensified police action against the rebels.
As the situation worsened, Assam Rifles was deployed and in the Naga Hills and Assam Disturbed Areas Act
of 1955, was enacted to provide a legal framework for the paramilitary forces and the armed state police to
combat insurgency in the region.
But the Assam Rifles and the state armed police could not contain the Naga rebellion and the rebel Naga
Nationalist Council (NNC) formed a parallel government "The Federal Government of Nagaland" on 22 March
1956.

Finally, the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Ordinance 1958 was promulgated by the
President, Dr Rajendra Prasad on 22 May 1958. It was later replaced by Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur)
Special Powers Act, 1958 on 11 September 1958.
Territorial Extent of the Act
In 1972, the territorial scope of the Act was expanded to the five states of the North-East, - Assam, Manipur,
Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura and to the Union Territories Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram.
In addition, the words, "The Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958" were substituted by
"Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958", getting the acronym of AFSPA, 1958.
On 15 October 1983, the central government enacted the Armed Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special
Powers Act, to enable the central armed forces to operate in the state of Punjab and the union territory of
Chandigarh.
Once the situation in Punjab stabilised, the Act was withdrawn in 1997, roughly after 14 years of its enforcement.
Similarly, the AFSPA was withdrawn from Tripura in Nov 2014.
On 05 July 1990, Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, was enacted and was applicable
to the whole state of J&K. The provisions of the Act are very similar to the ones which is applicable in the NE
states.
Special Powers under the Provisions of the AFSPA
According to the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), in an area that is proclaimed as "disturbed", an
officer of the armed forces has powers to:

After giving such due warning, fire upon or use other kinds of force even if it causes death, against the
person who is acting against law or order in the disturbed area for the maintenance of public order.

Destroy any arms dump, hide-outs, prepared or fortified position or shelter or training camp from which
armed attacks are made by the armed volunteers or armed gangs or absconders wanted for any
offence.

To arrest without a warrant anyone who has committed cognizable offences or is reasonably suspected
of having done so and may use force if needed for the arrest.

To enter and search any premise in order to make such arrests, or to recover any person wrongfully
restrained or any arms, ammunition or explosive substances and seize it.

Stop and search any vehicle or vessel reasonably suspected to be carrying such person or weapons.

Any person arrested and taken into custody under this Act shall be handed over to the officer in charge
of the nearest police station with the least possible delay, together with a report of the circumstances
occasioning the arrest.

Army officers have legal immunity for their actions. There can be no prosecution, suit or any other legal
proceeding against anyone acting under that law. Nor is the government's judgment on why an area is
found to be disturbed subject to judicial review.

Protection of persons acting in good faith under this Act from prosecution, suit or other legal
proceedings, except with the sanction of the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred
by this Act.

Review of AFSPA
Supreme Court in its judgement in 1998 brought in certain restrictions on the exercise of power at various levels
while imposing or using the provisions of the AFSPA and ruled that:

Central government to consult the state government before declaring an area as disturbed.

AFSPA does not confer arbitrary powers to declare an area as a 'disturbed area, the declaration has to
be specific to an area and for a limited duration and there should be a periodic review of the declaration
after the expiry of every 6 months.

While exercising the powers conferred upon him by AFSPA, the authorised officer should use minimal
force necessary for effective action and strictly follow the 'Dos and Don'ts' issued by the army.

On November 19, 2004, the Central government appointed a five member committee headed by Justice B P
Jeevan Reddy to review the provisions of the act in the north eastern states.
The committee submitted its report in 2005, which included the following recommendations:

AFSPA should be repealed and appropriate provisions should be inserted in the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967.

The Unlawful Activities Act should be modified to clearly specify the powers of the armed forces and
paramilitary forces.

Grievance cells should be set up in each district where the armed forces are deployed.

The 5th report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission on public order has also recommended the
repeal of the AFSPA.
However, these recommendations have not been implemented.
Representations against AFSPA
As brought out earlier, Irom Sharmila had been on an indefinite fast for the last 16 years, seeking the repeal of
the act in Manipur. The government could not agree to this demand as the insurgency situation in the Manipur
continues to remain hostile.
Also, successive State governments of J&K have been asking the central government to remove AFSPA from
those parts of the State which have remained peaceful for the previous few years. The demand has been to
remove such areas from the list of 'disturbed areas' so as to selectively repeal AFSPA.
When India presented its second periodic report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 1991,
members of the UNHRC asked numerous questions about the validity of the AFSPA. On 23 March 2009 and
again on 31 March 2012, UN has asked India to revoke AFSPA, stating that it had no place in Indian democracy.
On 15 Nov 2014, Congress leader, Mr P Chidambaram created a controversy by tweeting that AFSPA was an
"obnoxious law", and said that it has no place in a modern, civilised country.
Implications of Withdrawal of AFSPA
Presently, AFSPA is enforced in the North East in the regions of Manipur (excluding the Imphal Municipal Council
area), Assam and Nagaland and in the Tirap and Changlang districts of Arunachal Pradesh.
The recent removal of AFSPA by Tripura Government is expected to set precedence for other States and the
demand for the same is likely to be echoed with greater fervour form various corners of the country.
However, what needs to be understood in true earnest is that, revocation of AFSPA greatly curtails the freedom of
the forces to carry out operations decisively. It amounts to asking our soldiers to combat terrorism with both their
hands tied behind their back.
A soldier deserves all the legal protection he can get for the result of any action/decision he takes on the spot,
acting in the best interests of the situation. The AFSPA does not give unlimited powers to the troops on ground,
but, is only an enabling Act that facilitates execution of their duties better.

Army has always been quick to admit its follies, as in the case of mistaken identity in Budgam, where two youths
had died in army firing in 2014.
Also, Army demonstrated zero tolerance towards human rights violation by punishing those who were found
guilty in the case of fake encounter in Machil in Jammu and Kashmir. All five accused were given life sentence by
an Army Court Martial.
The overall security implications of removing the AFSPA need to be correctly assessed, so that it does not result
in creating a vacuum that leads to providing a safe haven for militants to operate from.
Militancy in Manipur
Manipur is one of the seven states of Northeast India, called the seven sisters. The State is bound by Nagaland
in the north, Mizoram in the south, Assam in the west, and shares a 398 km border to its east and south with
Myanmar. The state capital of Manipur is Imphal.
Manipur has an approx population of about, 23 lac. Out of which, 61.5% live in the valley and the remaining
38.5% live in the hills.
The people of Manipur are predominantly Mongoloid, and speak Tibeto-Burman languages. They can be
classified as hill tribes and non-tribal, who live in the valley.
The hill tribes can be further broken up into the Naga group of tribes, the Kukis-Chin-Mizo group of tribes, and
the intermediary group of tribes.
Currently there are 29 recognised tribes.
Most of the non-tribals live in the valley; and tribals in the hills. Non-tribals are barred from buying land in the
hills. The non-tribal communities are the Meiteis (43%), Meitei-Muslims (8%) and other immigrant
communities (10%).
Christianity is the major religion in the hills; and Sanamahi and Hinduism (46%) in the valley.
The State of Manipur has been in a state of conflict for many years now and the conflict is not merely between
the State and the various non-state armed groups, but also between these armed groups that are polarised along
ethnic lines.
Historical Perspective
The people of Manipur want to aggressively protect their independence and the reason for that is that its people
have had histories and memories, of being an independent entity longer and deeper than those of most other
Indian people when India attained independence. Manipur was an independent kingdom since 1st century AD.
Manipur ceased to be an independent kingdom in 1891 when, Britain took over the Kingdom in the Battle of
Khongjam, a major battle in the conflict, which is even now officially commemorated every year on April 23.
The defeat at the hands of Britain came to be accepted as part of British Indias expansion to secure its eastern
frontier in which the independence of Manipur became an inescapable casualty.
Thereafter from 1892 onwards Manipur became a princely native state under the political control of the British
India.
After the British rule ended, Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947 established a government with the Maharaja of
Manipur as the Executive Head and an elected legislature. The first Manipur State Assembly was opened on 18
October 1948.
In 1949, Manipur was formally merged within the Indian Union through a Merger Agreement signed between the
then king, Bodhachandra Singh, and the Government of India.

After its merger, Manipur was placed as a part C state which was administered by the President of India through
a Chief Commissioner.
In 1956, Manipur became a union territory and finally in 1972, it became a full-fledged state of India with a
Legislative Assembly consisting of 60 elected members.
Major Issues of Conflict and Prime Contenders
Opposition to the Merger with Union of India
The revolutionary movement in Manipur was started by Hijam Irabot Singh. He opposed Manipurs merger with
India. Several non-state armed groups also declared it illegal and unconstitutional as it was widely believed that
king, Bodhachandra Singh signed the Merger Agreement under duress from India.
Hijam Irabot Singh proposed a Purbanchal state which was to include Manipur, Tripura, Cachar and Mizo hills.
He further advocated that Manipur should be assigned the status of a republic and Kabaw Valley, which is
believed to have been given away by Nehru to Burma, should be restored to Manipur.
The public of Manipur, particularly the youth, were very unhappy with the way Manipur, a princely state with a
Constitution of its own and an elected Assembly was annexed to the Indian Union and felt humiliated by the
way the state was put as a PartC state after the merger.
Feeling slighted and deeply hurt some groups of Meiteis took up arms to fight for restoration of premerger status
of Manipur.
Insecurity Emerging from Demand for Greater Nagaland or Nagalim
The Naga armed conflict began in 1950s and had a tremendous impact on Manipur. The NSCN-IM, a prominent
Naga armed group, has been pressing for the formation of Nagalim comprising all Naga-inhabited areas of
Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur and some areas of Myanmar which it believes to be the rightful homeland of
the Nagas.
Four districts of Manipur (Chandel, Senapati, Tamenglong and Ukhrul) are included in Nagalim and Manipuris
believe that the Nagas are trying to destroy their state.
The inclusion of Manipuri districts in Nagalim has led to a serious polarisation between the Nagas/ Kukis living in
the hills and the Meiteis/ Muslims living in the valley.
Consequently, the Meiteis in the valley called for violent demonstrations against the administration and the Naga
insurgent groups as a repercussion imposed a 52-day-long (June 19 to August 11, 2005) blockade of the MaoImphal section of the NH-39.
Ethnic Divisions within Manipur
Given the nature and magnitude of ethnic diversity of Manipur, the plurality of its population and the shared
geographical and cultural spaces it is virtually impossible to come up with an acceptable division of territory.
There have been many major conflicts between various groups based on ethnic lines to meet their political
aspirations and gain dominance, e.g. conflict between the Nagas and the Kukis, between the Paites and the
Kukis; as well as those between the Meiteis and the Meitei-Muslims.
Conflict between Hill Tribes and Valley People
The basic source of income for the local people is Agriculture and handloom industry. Though the landmass of
valley is much smaller as compared to the hilly region, land in the valley is more fertile and productive.
The valley people are better educated, more skilled, have better access to jobs and are contributing more and
hence, have greater say in the running of the affairs of the State.

The hilly tribes are less equipped to earn a comparatively better quality of lifestyle. Hence, they feel like a
minority in their own State. Besides, they have greater affinity with the Nagaland (has a sizable Naga population),
which have been a constant reason for rivalry amongst them.
Agitations against Repealing of Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958
Manipur was declared a disturbed area in 1980 and AFSPA was imposed and has been in place ever since.
On 11 July 11 2004, the alleged rape and murder by security forces of Thangjam Manorama Devi, suspected to
be a separatist, sparked agitations across Manipur, including the nude protest by a dozen Manipuri women.
This was when Irom Sharmila Devi went on an indefinite fast demanding the repeal of the Act. Rejection of this
demand by the government has continued to be a cause of violent agitations and anger against security forces.
Regional tensions eased off in late 2013, with the Indian and state governments' making a concerted effort to
raise the living standards of people in these regions. However in late 2014, tensions again rose as the Indian
government launched an offensive, which led to a retaliatory attack on civilians by tribal guerrillas.
Since 2015, militant have been highly active in Assam, Manipur, Nagaland and Tripura.
Foreign Support to Insurgents
It has been a known fact that countries like Bangladesh and China have been funding, arming and supporting
insurgency in the North Eastern states.
Myanmar, shares a huge and a very porous border of 398km with Manipur. Though Myanmar, like Bhutan has
supported India on previous occasions also to conduct joint operations (Operation Somtal launched in 2007) to
seek and destroy militant camps operating from their country.
However, considering the extent of the border, it is almost next to impossible to have a proper vigil all along.
Sources of Funding Hurts the Local Population
The first and foremost source of funding is the regular levy of revolutionary taxes on the people based on their
economic status. Even the government organisations are accused of paying a fixed percentage of their revenues
to the armed groups.
Further, the militant groups, also directly or indirectly interfere in the award of government contracts and
execution of developmental projects.
Besides this, funds are raised through gun-running; drug trafficking, extortion and kidnapping, etc.
The harassment caused and the fear psychosis generated in the minds of the local population further ferments
anti- establishment feelings.
Insurgent Groups Operating in Manipur
In 1964 states first separatist group United National Liberation Front (UNLF) was formed. In 1978 another outfit
called People's Liberation Army (PLA) came into existence. Another insurgent group that surfaced around the
same time was the People's Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK).
By mid 1979 the three groups unleashed a fierce spell of urban and semiurban guerrilla warfare in the Imphal
valley. New rebel groups like Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP)and Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL)also
appeared in the horizon some years later, KYKL was formed after a split in theUNLF.
Many smaller outfits mushroomed in the valley in the last one decade including an outfit of Manipuri Muslims
(Meitei Pangals) under the name of People's United Liberation Front (PULF).

In the hill areas of Manipur the Kukis formed many rebel groups under the acronyms of KNA, KNF, KLA, etc. In
2008 the Indian army signed a Suspension of Operation (SoO) with eight Kuki groups in an effort to use them
against the valley insurgent groups.
Presently in Manipur, both in the valley and the hills, there are more than twodozen rebel outfits. Objectives of
quite many of these outfits are divergent and often obscure.
Details of Insurgent Attack on Army Convoy on 04 June 2015
Naga insurgent outfit Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland-A (NSCN) along with Manipuri outfit Kangleipak
Communist Party (KCP) and Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL) claimed responsibility for the attack on an Indian
Army convoy in which 18 soldiers were killed and 11 injured in Chandel district of Manipur on 04 June 2015.
The attack, the deadliest in the last three decades, took place when the 6 Dogra Infantry Regiment was being deinducted from the area.
The Army convoy was on a road opening patrol, when it was ambushed and was attacked with rocket propelled
grenades (RPGs) and improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
After the army vehicle was damaged, at least 50 terrorists using automatic rifles fired indiscriminately at the
soldiers resulting in the heavy casualty. Some terrorists were also killed in the retaliatory fire by the soldiers.
It was assessed by experts that the rocket propelled grenades (RPGs), and weapons used by regular Armies,
were probably smuggled through Kunming, China.
Army launched surgical combing operations in the adjoining areas of Myanmar and inflicted huge casualties on
the militant cadres, who had made proper training camps and hideouts over there.
Major Law and Order Problem in September 2015
The State of Manipur was once again on the boil in September 2015, when the State assembly unanimously
passed the following three bills to regulate the influx of outsiders into the State:

Protection of Manipur People Bill;

Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (7th amendment) Bill;

Manipur Shops and Establishments (Second Amendment) Bill.

The houses of Manipurs Health Minister and five other lawmakers were set on fire on 01 September 2015 at
Churachandpur, in south Manipur because none of them objected to the passage of these Bills through the
House.
Reasons for the Agitations
There is a special provision for Manipur under Article 371C of the Indian Constitution providing for the Hill Areas
Committee. This Committee comprises of 19 members elected to the state legislative assembly from all the tribal
areas, which was envisaged to be the guardian of tribal interests.
The state governor is required to submit an annual report on the administration of Hill Areas to the President of
India, and the central government has the power to give directions to the state government regarding
administration of these areas. Hence, Article 371C limits the power of Manipur legislature vis--vis the Hill Areas
of Manipur.
Under the provisions of Article 371C, called the Inner Line Permit System, the non tribals or any other outsiders
are barred from buying land in the hills. The non-tribal communities are the Meiteis (43%), Meitei-Muslims (8%)
and other immigrant communities (10%).

Difference in Provisions of Article 371 between Manipur and some other NE States
Special autonomy status has been granted to the complete states of Nagaland and Mizoram under the provisions
of Article 371A and Article 371G of the Constitution, respectively, whereas Article 371C relates only to the Hill
Areas of Manipur.
Also, while Articles 371A and 371G enhance the autonomy and power of the Nagaland and Mizoram state
legislatures vis--vis the Indian Parliament, Article 371C restricts the power of Manipur legislature only to the Hill
Areas of Manipur.
The same has not only led to a constitutional recognition of the hill-plain divide in Manipur, but, also signifies an
inter-state asymmetrical federal provision. The constitutionally designated Hill Areas are inhabited by the tribal, or
Scheduled Tribe, people of the state.
Conflict of Interests amongst Various Stake Holders
There has been a conflict in the demands put forth by the tribals and the non tribals due to inherent clash of
interests. The demands include the following:

The non tribal population is demanding for the implementation of the Inner Line Permit System in
complete Manipur, so as to remove the hill-plain divide. As per the protestors, it would also restrict and
regulate the influx of outsiders and internal migrants to save the culture, tradition, identity and
demographic structure of the indigenous people of the state. However, the proposal is being opposed
by the tribal hill people of Manipur.

Since the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (7th amendment) Bill will now make the tribal
areas accessible to all within the state. The ones to suffer would be the tribals, Kukis and Nagas as they
would end up losing land to the more prosperous non tribals, like the Meiteis.

The second issue which is contentious is that, as per the amendments passed in the Manipur assembly
yesterday; those who have settled in Manipur prior to 1951 can have property rights. The protestors say
that many do not have the exact records of when they settled in these areas. They feel that it indirectly
mean that they will have to give up their land and leave.

In addition to the Inner Line Permit System, the Meiteis are also demanding a Scheduled Tribe status,
emphasising their indigenousness. The larger aim of the protestors seems to be, to convert Manipur
into a tribal state (like Nagaland or Mizoram) by forcing the government to admit the Meiteis into
Scheduled Tribe category and then place the entire state under a uniform Inner Line Permit regime.
Conclusion
The state government rather than addressing the issue of how to prevent influx of outsiders into the state to
safeguard their interests and concurrently respect the constitutionally-sanctioned distinction between the
Meiteis and the tribals, created a confusion by laying down a base year of 1951 to identify indigenous
peoples of Manipur something which is extremely difficult for the nomadic tribals to establish.
Any tampering with the safeguards provided to the hill tribes under the provisions of Article 371C will only
cause greater unrests in Manipur.
At the macro level, government will have to do a tight rope walk to balance regional and ethnic aspirations
and suppressing insurgency without collateral damage.