UPSC foundations · Note 263
Insurgency in the north-east and peace accords
Study context: GS III — Linkages between development and spread of extremism; role of external state and non-state actors in creating challenges to internal security; challenges to internal security through communication networks, role of media and social networking sites, basics of cyber security; money-laundering and its prevention; security challenges and their management in border areas; linkages of organised crime with terrorism; various security forces and agencies and their mandate.
The north-eastern states have experienced several distinct insurgencies, not one movement. Their causes differ: demands for separate states or autonomy, fears about migration and identity, grievances over resources and development, and the legacy of borders drawn without regard to ethnic geography. Groups in Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Tripura and other states have at different times sought independence, greater autonomy or protection of tribal land and identity. Treating them as a single problem misreads the region.
The central response has combined negotiation, autonomy arrangements and security law. The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution provides autonomous district councils in parts of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. Peace agreements include the Mizo Accord of 1986, which ended the Mizo insurgency and led to statehood for Mizoram in 1987; the Assam Accord of 1985; the Bodo Accord of 2020, which expanded the Bodoland Territorial Region in Assam; and agreements in Karbi Anglong and with other groups in 2021 and 2022. Each accord traded a measure of autonomy, development funds or political representation for an end to armed struggle.
Security law remains controversial. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, gives armed forces special powers, including arrest and use of force, in areas declared disturbed. The government has progressively withdrawn the Act from many areas of the north-east as violence declined, while retaining it in parts of states such as Nagaland, Manipur and Assam. Supporters argue it is needed where police cannot operate; critics argue its immunity provisions weaken accountability and alienate local people. The Supreme Court has held that the Act is constitutional but that its powers are not unlimited.
The region's future depends less on any single accord than on connectivity, jobs, border trade with Myanmar and Bangladesh, and the handling of migration and citizenship questions, which remain sensitive. Peace that brings roads, schools and markets to former conflict areas is more durable than peace that only disarms a group and leaves its grievances untouched.
Key takeaways
- North-eastern insurgencies have distinct causes: autonomy, identity, migration and resources.
- Accords from the Mizo Accord (1986) to the Bodo Accord (2020) traded autonomy and representation for disarmament.
- AFSPA's scope has narrowed in the north-east, but its accountability provisions remain debated.
Why it matters for civil studies
The north-east shows how autonomy, negotiation and security law interact, and why a settlement in one state does not transfer to another.
Think it through
Should autonomy councils and accords be extended further in the north-east, or has the region reached the limit of what autonomy can solve?
From the Public Notes companion study collection. Editorial context and corrections.