The Fight Against AFSPA and Human Rights Violations in Manipur

For decades, a single piece of legislation has defined the relationship between the people of Manipur and the Indian state. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, commonly known as AFSPA, gives soldiers extraordinary powers in regions declared “disturbed.” In Manipur, this law has become the focal point of one of the longest-running human rights struggles in the country. From a woman who refused food for sixteen years to groups of mothers patrolling the streets with flaming torches, Manipur’s resistance has produced some of the most striking images of civil protest in modern India. Understanding this movement requires looking at both the law itself and the deep historical wounds that fuel the anger against it.

What is AFSPA and why is it so controversial?
The problem of impunity
The historical roots: the 1949 merger
The incidents that ignited the movement
The Malom Massacre of 2000
The Thangjam Manorama case of 2004
Irom Sharmila: the Iron Lady of Manipur
The Meira Paibi: guardians of civil society
A tradition of women’s resistance
The wider human rights demands
The state’s justification

What is AFSPA and why is it so controversial?

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act was passed by Parliament in 1958. It traces its roots to a 1942 British ordinance that was originally designed to suppress the Quit India movement during the Second World War. When the Indian government revived the framework in 1958, some legislators warned that human rights violations would inevitably follow.

The law applies only in areas officially declared “disturbed.” Once that declaration is made, the armed forces gain sweeping authority. They can arrest without a warrant, search premises without permission, and use lethal force on mere suspicion that a person is acting against the law. Critically, no soldier can be prosecuted for actions taken under the Act without prior sanction from the central government.

The problem of impunity

This last provision is the heart of the controversy. Human rights groups argue that the requirement for central government permission creates near-total impunity for security personnel. Cases of alleged abuse rarely reach a courtroom because civilian prosecutors are prevented from pursuing soldiers. For ordinary citizens, this sends a message that the state is indifferent to their suffering, which in turn deepens distrust and fuels further resentment.

AFSPA was first imposed in Manipur’s Naga-dominated districts in 1958. It was later extended to other areas during the Mizo insurgency, and by 1980 it covered the entire state as armed movements spread across the Imphal Valley.

The historical roots: the 1949 merger

To understand why insurgency took hold in Manipur, we have to go back to 1949. Before independence, Manipur was a princely kingdom with its own ruler. The Maharaja, Bodhachandra Singh, signed the Instrument of Accession with India, but on the assurance that the kingdom’s internal autonomy would be preserved. Manipur even held elections in 1948 based on universal adult franchise, making it one of the first places in India to do so.

The turning point came in September 1949. The Maharaja was invited to Shillong for discussions and signed a Merger Agreement without consulting the popularly elected Legislative Assembly. Many Manipuris view this as a coerced annexation rather than a voluntary union. The merger took effect on 15 October 1949, and that date is still observed annually as a day of protest and bandh in the state.

This sense of a broken promise became the seed of decades of armed resistance. A number of insurgent groups emerged, demanding autonomy or outright independence, and the Indian state responded with counter-insurgency operations backed by AFSPA. The cycle of insurgency and counter-insurgency that followed has produced repeated and serious rights abuses.

The incidents that ignited the movement

Two events in particular transformed local anger into a sustained mass movement.

The Malom Massacre of 2000

On 2 November 2000, an Assam Rifles convoy near Malom, on the outskirts of Imphal, came under fire from insurgents. In retaliation, the troops opened fire on civilians waiting at a nearby bus stop, killing ten people. Among the dead were a 62-year-old woman and a teenage boy who had received a national bravery award. The soldiers faced no inquiry, since they were protected under AFSPA. This massacre would become the immediate trigger for the most famous protest in the state’s history.

The Thangjam Manorama case of 2004

Four years later, on 11 July 2004, a 32-year-old woman named Thangjam Manorama was taken from her home by Assam Rifles personnel who claimed she was linked to a banned insurgent group. Her body was found later, bearing marks that suggested torture and sexual assault. The killing provoked an extraordinary response. On 15 July 2004, a group of middle-aged women marched naked to the gates of Kangla Fort in Imphal holding a banner reading “Indian Army Rape Us”. The image shocked the nation and brought international attention to the human cost of the law.

Irom Sharmila: the Iron Lady of Manipur

No figure embodies the anti-AFSPA struggle more than Irom Chanu Sharmila. Born in 1972 in the Imphal East district, she was a young activist when the Malom Massacre occurred. Deeply shaken by the killings, she began an indefinite hunger strike in November 2000, vowing to continue until AFSPA was repealed.

Her protest lasted sixteen years, widely described as one of the longest hunger strikes in the world. For most of that time she was held in judicial custody at a hospital in Imphal and force-fed through a tube in her nose. She was repeatedly arrested under the law against attempted suicide, released, and then arrested again whenever she resumed her fast. Her endurance earned her the title Iron Lady of Manipur, and her method, a fast unto death, drew direct comparison to Gandhi’s tools of non-violent resistance.

In 2016, Sharmila finally ended her fast, stating that she no longer believed she could win the battle through fasting alone. She decided instead to enter electoral politics. Although her political career did not bring electoral success, her sixteen-year struggle had already made AFSPA a national and international issue.

The Meira Paibi: guardians of civil society

While Sharmila became the individual face of the movement, the collective force behind it has long been the Meira Paibi, meaning “women torch bearers.” Founded in 1977 in present-day Kakching district, these are groups of Meitei women who march through streets at night carrying flaming torches, acting both as neighbourhood patrols and as protesters. The Times of India has described them as the largest grassroots civilian movement fighting state atrocities and rights violations in the state.

A tradition of women’s resistance

The Meira Paibi did not appear from nowhere. They draw on a powerful tradition of women’s activism known as Nupi Lan, or “Women’s War.” The first Nupi Lan in 1904 was a protest against a British system of forced labour. The second, in 1939, was a revolt against the export of rice that was causing starvation among local people. These movements established women as central political actors in Manipuri society. The Meira Paibi grew out of an anti-alcohol and anti-drug campaign in the 1970s before becoming the backbone of the resistance against rights violations, a role that has earned it the label of a “third Nupi Lan.”

The wider human rights demands

The movement in Manipur has never been only about a single law. Activists and civil society organizations have documented patterns of abuse including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial executions, torture, and sexual violence. The broader demands centre on accountability for these acts, the protection of civil liberties, and a political resolution to the long-standing question of autonomy.

There have been some legal openings. In 2016, the Supreme Court delivered a significant verdict on alleged fake encounters in Manipur, ordering a thorough investigation and ruling that the use of excessive or retaliatory force is not permissible even in disturbed areas. Yet the law itself remains in force across much of the state, and student bodies and civil society groups continue to criticise it for the lack of accountability it provides.

The state’s justification

It is worth understanding the government’s reasoning as well, because the debate is genuinely difficult. The central and state governments have repeatedly justified extending AFSPA by pointing to the continuing presence of numerous armed groups, ongoing violence, and the need to give security forces statutory protection while operating in dangerous conditions. From this perspective, the law is presented as a necessary tool for maintaining order in a region with a long and unresolved insurgency. Critics respond that order purchased through impunity is no order at all, and that the law has alienated the very population it claims to protect.

This tension, between the security imperatives of the state and the civil liberties of citizens, is what makes the Manipur case such an important study in the politics of democracy and rights. It asks a question that goes to the core of any democracy: how far can a state go in the name of security before it undermines the freedoms it is meant to defend?

What do you think? Can a democratic state ever justify granting its armed forces immunity from prosecution, or does such immunity inevitably erode the rule of law? And in a region where memories of the 1949 merger still shape political identity, what would a genuine and lasting resolution to the conflict in Manipur actually look like?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 5 / 5. Vote count: 1

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

What is AFSPA and why is it so controversial? 🔗

The problem of impunity 🔗

The historical roots: the 1949 merger 🔗

The incidents that ignited the movement 🔗

The Malom Massacre of 2000 🔗

The Thangjam Manorama case of 2004 🔗

Irom Sharmila: the Iron Lady of Manipur 🔗

The Meira Paibi: guardians of civil society 🔗

A tradition of women’s resistance 🔗

The wider human rights demands 🔗

The state’s justification 🔗