The phased withdrawal of AFSPA from the Northeast is both a security imperative and a human rights necessity. Critically examine.

Q. The phased withdrawal of AFSPA from the Northeast is both a security imperative and a human rights necessity. Critically examine. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 lets a government declare a "disturbed area" under Section 3 and arms the forces with powers of arrest, search and lethal force under Section 4 [1]. Its calibrated rollback since 2022 rests on twin logics — a normalised security landscape and the restoration of citizens' rights — though the process remains incomplete and reversible.

Withdrawal as a security imperative - Falling insurgency: disturbed areas were reduced in Nagaland, Assam and Manipur in 2022 [2] and again in 2023, after full withdrawal from Tripura (2015) and Meghalaya (2018) [3]. - Negotiated settlements have replaced coercion; the June 2026 Centre–Assam–Nagaland tripartite MoU on oil and gas in the disputed border belt marks a shift from conflict management to development [4], with near-complete rollback promised by 2027 [5]. - Population-centric security: consent of local communities is a force multiplier on a frontier abutting five countries, and station-level demarcation returns primacy to the state police.

Withdrawal as a human rights necessity - Section 6 bars prosecution without prior Central sanction, creating a structural accountability gap [1]. - In EEVFAM v. Union of India (2016) the Supreme Court rejected blanket immunity and ordered inquiry into alleged fake encounters in Manipur [6]. - The Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) recommended repeal; Irom Sharmila's 16-year fast reflected the alienation the Act generated.

A critical caveat - Rollback is an executive notification, not statutory repeal — it can be reversed, as Manipur's ethnic violence shows. - Sustaining it demands police modernisation and intelligence capacity, plus redressal of past grievances; otherwise withdrawal is procedural, not transformative.

Thus the two rationales converge rather than compete: security gains make withdrawal feasible, while rights concerns make it necessary. The way forward lies in pairing rollback with capacity-building, time-bound accountability for pending cases and continued peace accords — anchoring Northeast policy in the constitutional promise of dignity and equal protection.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 — India Code (Act 28 of 1958) — Sections 3, 4 and 6 (disturbed-area declaration, powers, immunity from prosecution) 2. PIB, "Government reduces disturbed areas under AFSPA in Nagaland, Assam and Manipur" (2022) — first phased reduction of disturbed areas 3. PIB, "Government again decides to reduce disturbed areas in Nagaland, Assam and Manipur under AFSPA" (2023) — further 2023 reduction; full withdrawal from Tripura (2015) and Meghalaya (2018) 4. Akashvani News, "Centre and Govts of Assam, Nagaland ink MoU for exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas" — June 2026 tripartite MoU on the disputed Assam–Nagaland belt 5. The Hindu, "No AFSPA in most of Northeast from 2027" (12 June 2026) — Home Minister's announcement of near-complete withdrawal by 2027 6. Supreme Court of India — Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) v. Union of India (2016) — no blanket immunity; inquiry into alleged encounter deaths in Manipur