For decades, Nagaland and India’s wider Northeast have remained at the center of one of South Asia’s longest-running security and political conflicts.
Insurgency, armed groups, military operations, peace negotiations and the controversial Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act — commonly known as AFSPA — have shaped political and civilian life across the region for generations.
But one question continues to attract attention:
How large is India’s security presence in Nagaland, and what has that presence meant for ordinary civilians?
The answer is more complicated than a single number.
Claims that 60,000 troops are currently stationed in Nagaland should not be treated as an established fact. Publicly available reporting does not provide reliable evidence for a current 60,000-troop figure specifically for Nagaland. Similar numbers have historically referred to larger military formations operating across the Northeast or troops deployed along the India-China frontier, rather than troops stationed inside Nagaland alone.
The real story, however, does not depend on one number.
At the center of the controversy is AFSPA.
What Is AFSPA?
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act was introduced in 1958 as a security measure during the Naga insurgency. It allows the central government to declare an area a “disturbed area,” after which armed forces receive special powers to assist civil authorities.
According to the current legal framework, these powers include the ability to use force in specified circumstances, conduct searches and make arrests without warrants in certain situations, while the law also creates additional legal protections concerning prosecution of personnel for actions taken under the Act.
Supporters of the law have argued that such powers are necessary when security forces operate against armed insurgent groups in difficult terrain.
Critics, including Human Rights Watch, have argued that these protections can create serious accountability problems when allegations of unlawful killings, torture or disappearances arise.
That disagreement has existed for decades.
And AFSPA is still relevant today.
On September 25, 2026, the Indian government extended the “disturbed area” declaration under AFSPA for another six months from October 1.
The latest notification covers nine districts of Nagaland in full — Dimapur, Niuland, Chümoukedima, Mon, Kiphire, Noklak, Phek, Peren and Meluri — along with specified areas under 21 police stations in five other districts.
That means the debate surrounding military powers and civilian accountability remains a current issue rather than simply a historical one.
The Naga Conflict
The roots of the conflict go back much further.
Naga political movements developed around questions of identity, autonomy and sovereignty. Armed insurgency emerged in the Northeast, eventually producing decades of conflict between Indian security forces and different Naga armed organizations.
Over the years, governments have pursued both military and political approaches.
Peace negotiations have continued for years, but the broader political dispute has not completely disappeared.
For civilians living in affected areas, this has created a complicated environment.
Security forces argue that their presence is connected to insurgency and the need to protect civilians, infrastructure and the wider territorial integrity of India.
Human-rights organizations and sections of civil society have raised a different concern: when extraordinary security powers remain in place for decades, how can civilians effectively seek justice when security personnel are accused of wrongdoing?
That question becomes especially important when deaths occur during military operations.
The Oting Incident
One of the most important recent examples came in December 2021.
On December 4, security personnel opened fire on a vehicle carrying coal miners in Oting village in Mon district. Six civilians were killed in the initial incident.
According to reports, the soldiers had mistaken the miners for militants. The incident was followed by violence and further deaths involving civilians and security personnel.
The incident generated widespread anger in Nagaland and renewed calls for AFSPA to be repealed.
The Nagaland Police subsequently conducted an investigation through a Special Investigation Team. In June 2022, the SIT filed a chargesheet naming 30 Army personnel, including a Major. The chargesheet alleged violations including murder, attempted murder, conspiracy and disappearance of evidence, among other offences.
However, that was not the end of the legal dispute.
The Army conducted its own internal inquiry, which did not find wrongdoing by the personnel involved. The Supreme Court later became involved in proceedings concerning prosecution, while the Central Government ultimately refused sanction to prosecute the accused personnel under the relevant legal framework.
In 2024, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre on a challenge brought by the Nagaland government concerning the refusal to grant prosecution sanction.
This is precisely why the Oting case remains significant.
There are competing official and investigative accounts, and the allegations against individual personnel should not automatically be treated as judicially established guilt.
But the case clearly demonstrates the broader accountability problem surrounding military operations in areas where AFSPA applies.
What About Forced Disappearances?
The phrase “forced disappearance” carries a specific meaning. It should not be used simply to describe every person who goes missing during an insurgency or security operation.
Human Rights Watch has documented allegations of forced disappearances, torture and unlawful killings involving security forces in India's northeastern region over many years. The organization has also criticized the legal protections surrounding AFSPA and argued that they can make prosecution difficult.
These are serious allegations, but individual cases must still be examined separately.
There is also another important part of the story: armed insurgent organizations themselves have been responsible for violence and have posed security threats in the Northeast.
Therefore, understanding Nagaland requires looking at both realities — the security challenges faced by the state and the rights of civilians living under prolonged security operations.
So, What Are Thousands of Troops Doing There?
The answer is not simply “occupying Nagaland.”
India's security presence in the Northeast has multiple purposes, including counter-insurgency operations, border security, protection of strategic areas and support to civil authorities.
But the exact number of troops deployed specifically inside Nagaland is difficult to establish from reliable public information.
That makes the “60,000 troops in Nagaland” headline something that should be investigated rather than repeated as an established fact.
The more important question is perhaps broader:
How should a democratic state balance national security with civilian rights when extraordinary military powers remain in place for decades?
India argues that security forces operate in difficult environments against armed insurgencies.
Human-rights organizations argue that extraordinary powers can contribute to impunity when allegations of abuses arise.
The Oting case demonstrates how sharply those two perspectives can collide.
And the latest September 2026 AFSPA extension shows that the underlying security debate is far from over.
The history of Nagaland therefore cannot be reduced to a simple story of “army versus civilians” — nor can it be understood solely through the lens of counter-insurgency.
It is a story involving insurgency, national security, political negotiations, civilian rights, military operations and decades of unresolved political questions.
The evidence deserves to be examined carefully.
Watch the full documentary:
THE GREY — Truth Not Drama.
.png)
0 Comments