What Happened
- A drunken altercation on February 7, 2026, at Litan Sareikhong village in Ukhrul district, Manipur, in which a Tangkhul Naga man was assaulted by members of the Kuki community, triggered three days of ethnic violence.
- Over 30 houses along with other properties were burnt in Litan Sareikhong village; armed men fired several rounds. Hundreds of Kuki and Tangkhul Naga villagers (mainly women, children, and elderly) fled to safer locations in Kangpokpi and Ukhrul districts.
- Two Tangkhul Naga organisations imposed restrictions on the movement of Kukis in Ukhrul and neighbouring Kamjong district, escalating tensions.
- The Manipur government suspended internet and mobile data services in Ukhrul district for five days under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules, 2017, and imposed curfew and prohibitory orders. Internet services were subsequently suspended in two more districts.
Static Topic Bridges
Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), 1958
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, grants special powers to the Indian Armed Forces to maintain public order in "disturbed areas" in India's northeast. Once an area is declared "disturbed" under Section 3 of the Act (by the Governor of the state or the Central Government), Section 4 grants the armed forces sweeping powers including the authority to fire upon or otherwise use force, arrest without warrant, and enter and search premises.
- Enacted: September 11, 1958 (originally for Assam and Manipur; separate Act for J&K in 1990)
- Section 3: Declaration of "disturbed area" — by Governor or Central Government
- Section 4: Powers granted — fire after due warning, arrest without warrant, enter and search premises without warrant
- Section 6: Protection from prosecution — no legal proceeding without prior Central Government sanction
- Key judicial challenges: Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1997) — SC upheld AFSPA's constitutional validity but imposed guidelines (grievance cells, periodic review of "disturbed area" declaration)
- Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India (2016) — SC ruled that immunity under AFSPA is not absolute; security forces are accountable for excessive force
- AFSPA currently applies in: Assam, Nagaland, Manipur (excluding Imphal Municipal Council Area), and parts of Arunachal Pradesh
- The Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) recommended repeal of AFSPA; the recommendation has not been implemented
Connection to this news: Ukhrul district, where the violence erupted, falls within the area where AFSPA is in force in Manipur. The Act provides the legal framework for armed forces deployment in such situations. The debate around AFSPA remains a critical UPSC topic, as it sits at the intersection of national security and fundamental rights.
Internet Shutdown Legal Framework — Telecom Suspension Rules, 2017 and Anuradha Bhasin (2020)
Internet shutdowns in India are governed by the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, notified under Section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The original power to order a shutdown derives from Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act.
- Legal basis: Section 5(2), Indian Telegraph Act, 1885; rules framed in 2017
- Authority: Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs (Central) or Secretary, Home Department (State); in unavoidable circumstances, an officer of Joint Secretary rank or above
- Grounds: Sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, or preventing incitement to offence
- Review Committee: Must meet within 5 working days — chaired by Cabinet Secretary (Centre) / Chief Secretary (State)
- Maximum duration: 15 days per order (after 2020 amendment inserting Rule 2A)
- Landmark case: Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) — Supreme Court held that access to internet is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(g) (right to practise any profession or trade); indefinite suspension is impermissible; all shutdown orders must be published and are subject to judicial review; proportionality test must be applied
- India leads globally in internet shutdowns — over 700 shutdowns between 2012 and 2024
Connection to this news: The Manipur government's 5-day internet suspension in Ukhrul follows the 2017 Rules. The Anuradha Bhasin judgment requires the order to be published and reviewed within 5 working days. The extension to two additional districts raises questions about proportionality — whether a blanket shutdown across multiple districts is the least restrictive measure available.
Sixth Schedule of the Constitution — Autonomous District Councils (Article 244)
The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution (Articles 244(2) and 275(1)) provides for the administration of tribal areas in four northeastern states — Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram — through Autonomous District Councils (ADCs). Notably, Manipur and Nagaland are NOT covered under the Sixth Schedule despite having significant tribal populations.
- Constitutional basis: Article 244(2) and Sixth Schedule
- Applicable states: Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram (NOT Manipur or Nagaland)
- 10 ADCs across 4 states — including Bodoland Territorial Council (Assam), Khasi Hills ADC (Meghalaya), etc.
- ADC powers: Legislative (on land, forest, water, customs, social practices), judicial (village courts), executive, and financial
- Governor's role: ADC laws require Governor's assent; Governor can create or dissolve councils
- Distinct from Fifth Schedule: Fifth Schedule covers tribal areas in mainland India (9 states); Sixth Schedule covers northeast
- Naga and Kuki groups in Manipur have at various times demanded inclusion under the Sixth Schedule or a separate administration
Connection to this news: The Naga-Kuki tensions in Ukhrul are partly rooted in governance and autonomy demands. While Manipur's hill areas have Autonomous District Councils under state legislation (Manipur Hill Areas District Councils Act, 1971), these are not the constitutionally empowered Sixth Schedule councils. Demands for greater autonomy — including Sixth Schedule-type protections — remain a contentious issue in the state's ethnic politics.
Naga Peace Process and the 2015 Framework Agreement
The Naga insurgency is one of India's oldest armed conflicts, dating back to Naga resistance leader Angami Zapu Phizo's declaration of Naga independence in 1947. The Framework Agreement signed on August 3, 2015, between the Government of India (represented by interlocutor R.N. Ravi) and the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-IM) was intended to pave the way for a comprehensive settlement.
- Naga insurgency origins: Pre-independence; Naga National Council (NNC) formed 1946; Phizo declared independence August 14, 1947
- NSCN-IM (Isak-Muivah faction) formed: 1980, after split from NSCN
- Ceasefire between India and NSCN-IM: Since August 1, 1997
- Framework Agreement signed: August 3, 2015 — by R.N. Ravi (GOI interlocutor), Isak Chishi Swu and Th. Muivah (NSCN-IM), in the presence of PM Modi
- Key elements: Recognition of "unique history, culture, and position" of Nagas; concept of "shared sovereignty"; special political and administrative status
- Stalemate since: NSCN-IM insists on a separate Naga flag and constitution; GOI has refused these demands
- No full-time interlocutor since 2021
- Over 600 rounds of negotiations spanning 27+ years without a final accord
Connection to this news: The Tangkhul Nagas (the largest Naga tribe in Manipur, predominantly in Ukhrul district) are key stakeholders in the Naga peace process. The unresolved Naga political issue, combined with competing Kuki autonomy demands (Kukis have sought a separate administration after the 2023 Meitei-Kuki violence), creates overlapping fault lines in Manipur. Ukhrul violence is a symptom of these deeper, unresolved political questions.
Key Facts & Data
- Ukhrul violence trigger: Assault on a Tangkhul Naga man at Litan Sareikhong, February 7, 2026
- Over 30 houses burnt in Litan Sareikhong village over 48 hours
- Internet suspended in Ukhrul for 5 days; later extended to two more districts
- AFSPA enacted: 1958; applies in Manipur (excluding Imphal Municipal Council Area)
- Telecom Suspension Rules: 2017, under Section 7 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
- Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): Internet access = fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a); shutdown orders must be published and proportionate
- Naga ceasefire with NSCN-IM: Since August 1, 1997
- Framework Agreement: August 3, 2015; stalled over flag and constitution demands
- Sixth Schedule applies to: Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram (NOT Manipur)