EXPLAINER: Why AFSPA is again in news? Home Minister’s assurance ray of hope for J&K people

Srinagar, Mar 28:  Two days ago, Union Home Minister Amit Shah hinted at considering the revocation of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) as the situation was turning normal in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). The Act, which grants special powers to the armed forces in “disturbed areas,” has been a subject of intense debate and controversy in Union Territory for several decades.

AFSPA was first enacted in 1958 to tackle insurgency in the north-eastern states of India but was later extended to J&K in July 1990 amidst rising terrorism. The Act gives the armed forces special powers, including the authority to arrest without warrant; to shoot to kill, and to destroy property, in areas declared as “disturbed” by the government.

The roots of AFSPA can be traced back to the British colonial era, when similar laws were enacted to deal with nationalist movements and insurgencies. In independent India, AFSPA was intended to provide the armed forces with the necessary powers to combat insurgents and maintain law and order in areas affected by insurgency.

Over three decades after the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) was implemented in Jammu and Kashmir, the law still remains a bone of contention in the terrorism-hit Union Territory.

The law was first implemented on July 5, 1990, when the entire law-and-order machinery collapsed in the Valley and normal law was found inadequate to tackle the rising graph of terrorism. The then state government declared the Kashmir Valley as a disturbed area under section 3 of AFSPA. Later, on August 10, 2001, the J&K government extended disturbed area provision to the Jammu province also.

Over the years, AFSPA has been a subject of much controversy and criticism, both within J&K and at the national level. Human rights organizations and activists have condemned the Act for alleged violations of human rights. The Act has also been criticized for its broad and vague definitions of “disturbed areas” and “reasonable force”, which critics argue, have been used to justify excessive use of force by the armed forces.

During his six-year tenure, former chief minister Omar Abdullah had constantly demanded gradual withdrawal of the AFSPA from peaceful areas of Jammu and Kashmir. However, the army rejected any proposal to withdraw the AFSPA even from Srinagar, Budgam and Jammu, which usually J&K Police, which is not covered by the AFSPA, protects. The Army argued that the cover provided by the J&K Police and CRPF was just one layer of security and for keeping these districts safe, “area domination” operations by Army columns to keep militants at bay were necessary. These operations, contends the Army, must be covered by AFSPA. Several national political parties, including the Congress and the BJP, also say that the armed forces should have the final say on the issue.

In 2011, the then J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah announced that AFSPA and the Disturbed Areas Act (DAA) would be withdrawn from some areas of the state, citing a gradual improvement in the security situation and the return of peace. However, the Army expressed reservations about the move, stating that the situation in J&K had not improved enough to warrant such a step.

The Home Minister’s statement regarding possible revocation of AFSPA in J&K has renewed debate over its pros and cons. While some see it as a positive step (as and when taken) towards restoring normalcy and addressing human rights concerns, others argue that it may undermine security operations in the region.

It remains to be seen how the central government will proceed with the issue and what impact it will have on the security situation in J&K. The debate over AFSPA is expected to continue, highlighting the complex and sensitive nature of the situation in the region.

Over the years, there have been calls for the repeal or amendment of AFSPA in Jammu and Kashmir. Various political parties, civil society groups, and international organizations have criticized the Act and called for its abolition, citing alleged violations of human rights and its impact on the lives of civilians in the region. However, the central government has defended AFSPA, arguing that it is necessary to maintain public order and combat insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir.

In March 2015, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, the then Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, announced a comprehensive review of the state's security situation, including the contentious Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA).

Speaking after his cabinet's oath-taking ceremony, Sayeed had said that while the removal of AFSPA was not the primary issue, he would ensure accountability within the armed forces and indicated that if the environment improved, AFSPA could be repealed.

The coalition government, comprising Sayeed's Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), outlined their stance on AFSPA in the “Agenda of the Alliance,” stating that the decision to de-notify 'disturbed areas' would be examined, allowing the union government to decide on AFSPA's continuation in these regions.

Only last year , in a significant move aimed at bolstering peace and development in the Northeast region, the Centre decided to reduce the jurisdiction of 'disturbed areas' under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) in Assam, Nagaland, and Manipur. Home Minister Amit Shah announced the decision, highlighting the remarkable improvement in the security situation in the region under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The reduction in the disturbed areas under AFSPA comes after a series of efforts by the central government. Last year, several districts across Assam, Nagaland, and Manipur saw the removal of AFSPA notifications, signifying a positive trend in security dynamics. With the latest decision, starting April 1, the Disturbed Areas notification will be lifted from one more district in Assam, four more police stations in Manipur, and three more police stations in Nagaland.

Home Minister Shah emphasized that the decision reflected the government's commitment to prioritizing security, peace, and development in the Northeast. He highlighted the substantial decrease in extremist incidents, security personnel and civilian deaths, comparing data from 2014 to 2022.