On 28 May 2004, the Okram Ibobi Singh government of Manipur State of India decided to further extend the disturbed area status for the whole of Manipur for a period of six months. The disturbed areas status, which has been enforced under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 was due to expire on 31 May 2004.  Normal life came to a standstill on 31 May 2004 in an 18-hour bandh called by the Manipur Forward Youth Front to protest against the extension of the disturbed area status. All markets, shops, business establishments remained closed in the capital town in view of the bandh, attendance in government offices was also reported to be "very thin."

Literally meaning "A jeweled land", Manipur has been placed under undeclared emergency under the draconian Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), 1958 since September 1980.  Since then, according to Manipur Chief Minister Ibobi Singh over 8000 innocent persons and over 12,000 members of armed opposition groups and security have lost their lives. [1] Although, the government of India is required to inform other State parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights through the Secretary General under Article 4(3), India has repeatedly failed to comply with its treaty obligation.

Manipur, which has about 32 ethnic groups, also has largest number of 25 armed opposition groups. The bigger ethnic groups have more than one armed opposition group.

The Meiti armed opposition groups include United National Liberation Front, the People's Liberation Army, the People's Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK), Kangleipak Communist Party, Kanglei Yaol Kanba Lup and the Manipur People's Liberation Front. After a series of clashes between Meitis and the Pangals, the Manipuri muslims, in May, 1993, a number of new outfits such as People's United Liberation Front (PULF), North East Minority Peoples Front (NEMPF), Islamic National Front, Islamic Revolutionary Front (IRF) and United Islamic Liberation Army (UILA) had been formed.

Both factions of the National Social Council of Nagaland, the Issac-Muivah and Kaplang factions are active in Manipur. The conflict between the Nagas and the Kukis in early 1990s led to emergence of a number of Kuki armed opposition groups such as Kuki National Army, Kuki National Front, Kuki Revolutionary Army, Zomi Revolutionary Army and the United Kuki Liberation Front.

The security forces undoubtedly operate under trying circumstances. However, a democratic country’s commitment to fundamental rights including the right to life is tested under these trying circumstances. Often, legal checks and balances against violations by the security forces are of paramount importance for avoiding a vicious circle of violence. However, when the law itself legalises extrajudicial executions, the citizenry are left with little recourse to justice. While many armed opposition groups start their movement over political demands, extrajudcial executions by the security forces certainly contributes to sustenance of insurgency.

Section 4 (a) the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958 provides the legal framekwork for extrajudicial executions by empowering non-commissioned officers to "fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death” if he believes that it is necessary for maintenance of law and order. Section 6 of the AFSPA provides impunity to the security forces against such abuses. Although, the United Nations Human Rights Committee recommended its repeal, the Supreme Court of India in its judgement in the case of Naga People's Movement of Human Rights, etc.  Vs. Union of India on 27 November 1997 sanctified such extreme measures.

The security forces carry out dozens of extrajudicial executions each year. In the intervening night of 9 and 10 March 2004, twenty-two-year-old Khundrakpam Tejkumar, a third year BA student of D M College of Arts, Imphal was allegedly picked up near his residence at Uripok Khoisnam Leikai area in Imphal West district by the Assam Rifles personnel. Tejkumar was participating in a Holi sports meet. On the morning of 10 March 2004, his dead body with bullet marks was reportedly found near a college in Naoremthong area of Imphal West, around two km from where he was picked up. [2] While the Assam Rifles claimed that Mr Tej Kumar was killed in an encounter, the Uripok area residents charged the Assam Rifles personnel of killing him in cold blood. [3]  

The State government of Manipur ordered a series of magisterial inquiries to quell public outrage against extrajudicial executions. The magisterial enquiries into the firing incident at Pangei Yangdong on 9 April 2002, the killing of Md Qayamuddin, 20, son of Md Zamiruddin of Kiyamgei Muslim Awang Leikai of general post office on 4 September 2003, killing of RK Thoibinao Devi, daughter of RK Ajitkumar Singh of Ningthoukhong on 1 January 2004 are still continuing. As the public anger gradually disappears, the inquiries continue for indefinite period.

The armed opposition groups too have been responsible for gross and widespread violations of the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions through arbitrary executions, hostage taking and extortions. Kidnapping has become a cottage industry in Manipur.

At around 8.30 am on 22 March 2004, 19 years old Huidrom Shyamsunder alias Amujao, son of H Ibomcha of Wabagai Awang Leikai was shot dead at a place near Oriental Social Association, Wabagai Awang Leikai by three unidentified gunmen after he was abducted from the campus of Wabagai Pole Star College examination Centre. He was reportedly writing his class XII exams conducted by the Council of Higher Secondary Education Manipur. He was reportedly shot at his left thigh, at the back and at his head. The police also recovered five empty cartridges of 9 mm pistol from the spot. Besides being the General Secretary of Pole Star College Students Union, the deceased was also the secretary of Manipur Students’ Federation, Hiyanglam unit. PREPAK reportedly claimed responsibility for the killing of Shyamsunder, alleging that he was a police informer, and his activities had led to the death of the organization’s secretary captain on 9 March 2004. [4]

While many armed opposition groups in Manipur resort to arbitrary killings, in effect there is little or no difference between the security forces and the armed opposition groups. Both groups act unlawfully; but in the case of the security forces, with the sanction of the law i.e. Armed Forces Special Powers Act.

The Central Government of India with the consent of the State government of Manipur continues to impose the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958 despite its failure to even contain the insurgency, let alone resolve it. However, the AFSPA which has become a symbol of oppression has successfully alienated the common people because of the excesses perpetrated by the security forces with impunity. The killings in genuine armed counters are seldom questioned, and therefore, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act serves little purpose. It is the execution of the innocent people, suspects and captured armed opposition groups’ cadres, which are questioned; and the government is duty bound to order proper investigations to establish justice and thereby, reduce alienation. As the section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code already provides impunity to the security forces, the impunity provided under section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act is naturally viewed as justifying the excesses by the security forces. As the rest of India debates about the misuse of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 and therefore its repeal by the new Congress led Central government, the silence over the Armed Forces Special Act by the mainland India could not have been more pervading.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions stated “Impunity for human rights offenders seriously undermines the rule of law, and also widens the gap between those close to the power structures and others who are vulnerable to human rights abuses.  In this way, human rights violations are perpetuated or sometimes even encouraged, as perpetrators feel that they are free to act in a climate of impunity.  …..,.  The increasing difficulties in securing justice alienate the people from the State and may drive them to take the law into their own hands, resulting in a further erosion of the justice system and a vicious circle of violence and retaliation.  If unaddressed, such situations may easily degenerate into a state of anarchy and social disintegration.” [5]   Manipur is an apt example.