'Continuance of Disturbed Area under AFSPA in Nagaland based on perception without foresight'

Naga Republic News

A senior retired government official writing in a top Government of India funded Think-Tank has said that the recent notification of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to extend the Disturbed Area Act in Nagaland was a decision based on perception without foresight. The Government of India had extended the declaration on Disturbed Area provisions in Nagaland till the end of June 2018 under Section 3 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) 1958.

Points of Highlight

Existing internal law and order situation in Nagaland largely peaceful in recent times

Whether continuance of Disturbed Area provisions under AFSPA would facilitate progress towards a consummation of the Framework Agreement of 2015

Delhi’s decision denotes lack of confidence in the state government machinery for ensuring security

Consider placing Nagaland under President`s rule after present tenure of assembly expires in February 2018

The raison d’être for the extension, as per the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) notification of December 30, 2017 was that the whole of the state of Nagaland is in such a disturbed and dangerous condition that the use of armed forces in aid of the civil power is necessary.

Gautam Sen, who served in senior positions at the Centre and in a north-east while writing for the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) has termed as surprising the extension of the Disturbed Area provisions in Nagaland pointing out that a framework agreement for reconciliation between the Government of India and main insurgent group – the Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagalim (Issac-Muivah) (NSCN-IM) was concluded on August 3, 2015.

Sen further notes that efforts are under way to include other Naga insurgent groups in the framework, and a ceasefire between the government and the insurgents, negotiated in 1997, has been holding even after the (NSCN-Khaplang) group decided in March 2015 not to be bound by the ceasefire agreement.

“The moot point is whether continuance of the Disturbed Area provisions would facilitate progress towards a consummation of the framework agreement of 2015. The existing internal law and order situation in Nagaland as well as the broader security milieu within the state and its periphery has been largely peaceful in recent times”, Sen writes in the IDSA publication.

It may be mentioned that the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) is a non-partisan, autonomous body dedicated to objective research and policy relevant studies on all aspects of defence and security. Its mission is to promote national and international security through the generation and dissemination of knowledge on defence and security-related issues.

According to the scholar, the only “manifest deterioration in the law and order situation in Nagaland was the public upsurge in Kohima and Dimapur in February 2016”. Sen observes that the violence and protest against the State government last year was against the introduction of reserved seats for women in local bodies below the provincial level “without the concurrence of traditional ethnic institutions”. This decision of the state government, according to the writer was in contravention of Article 371 of the Constitution.

However, this short-term disturbance was contained by the state government both through the employment of the state and central police forces as well as by engaging in dialogue with civil society groups, Sen states.

The analysis by Sen goes on to suggest that “isolated incidents and movements of insurgents can be obviated through the oversight provided by the ceasefire monitoring committees in place and the disposition of the state`s police forces, central police units, and the Army in and around Nagaland”.

“The overall situation may not be susceptible to deterioration beyond acceptable levels without the Disturbed Area notification and the concomitant application of the AFSPA”.

The article also refers to a former Union Home Secretary, who while reviewing the need for continuance of the AFSPA (which require the Disturbed Area cover to be operative) had opined that “law and order-related casualties are perceptibly on the decline and are also lesser in Nagaland than in a place like Delhi”.

Sen also points out that a similar declaration of DAA and the imposition of AFSPA had been totally withdrawn from Tripura, which was earlier affected by insurgency. “Interestingly, Nagaland has had its insurgency situation broadly under control for a number of years stretching back to the previous decade”, the analysis points out.

Giving an insight on perhaps how the security agencies in India function, the writer reveals that “there are probably institutional hurdles in the way of withdrawing the Disturbed Areas notification with respect to Nagaland”. “In all probability, the higher defence services headquarters and the Ministry of Defence as well as agencies like the Intelligence Bureau would have advocated for continuance of the provisions. The government would have taken their views into account and chose the option of maintaining the status quo”, Sen notes in his article.

Interestingly the analysis terms as unclear “whether the central political leadership attempted to take a progressive and long-term view, which envisages an early culmination of the Naga reconciliation process with the insurgents divested of their arms and eventually absorbed into the governance structures of the state”. According to Sen, “in such a framework, the Disturbed Area notification and AFSPA should not have primacy”.

As such the continued designation of the entire state as a Disturbed Area, according to the analysis “may not be deemed conducive for public morale and will not engender a confidence-building environment towards achieving a satisfactory outcome to the 2015 ad-hoc framework agreement”.

The central government’s decision also denotes lack of confidence in the state government machinery for ensuring security, the article points out. This is seen as “indicative of the central government`s apprehension to the effect that the state government`s security apparatus, even in concert with supportive central resources, may not be able to ensure optimum security in the state, with a likely negative fallout on the Naga reconciliation process and possibility of a final peace agreement”.

In this backdrop, the writer suggests that it may be worthwhile for the MHA to consider placing the state under President`s rule after the tenure of the state legislative assembly expires in February 2018, especially given demands for deferment of elections including from the incumbent chief minister. “In this evolving scenario, the declaration of the state as a Disturbed Area is neither a judicious instrument nor a protective cover to ensure security and build public morale”.

Pointing out that such notifications on Disturbed Areas and AFSPA have been generally viewed as odious, undemocratic and coercive by the public in North East India, the writer argues that with the promotion of developmental efforts by successive central governments during the past two decades, and the special initiatives taken by the present central government as part of its `Act East` drive, “it may be appropriate to modify the above-cited statutory declaration apropos Nagaland, if not withdraw it altogether”.

“It will be a curious incongruity to work towards a trans-Asian highway intended to bring about intermingling of cultures, promotion of trade and comprehensive welfare of the people who inhabit the region even as it traverses a `disturbed area` like Nagaland”, the article states in its conclusion.

Not only that the declaration of the Disturbed Area provision, according to the writer “is fundamentally at odds with the mutually accommodative integration endeavour of the Nagas with the Indian Union as envisioned in the 2015 framework agreement”.