Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi’s statement that the situation in Jammu and Kashmir was not yet conducive for the removal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) has reignited the debate on the necessity of the controversial law. While security forces view AFSPA as a crucial tool in counterinsurgency operations, human rights groups and political parties see it as an impediment to democracy and justice. The persistence of this law in the Union Territory raises important questions about security, governance, and the long-term path to stability. AFSPA, enacted in Jammu and Kashmir in 1990, grants the armed forces sweeping powers, including the authority to search, arrest, and even use force without prior approval from civilian authorities. It has been instrumental in combating terrorism and maintaining order in J&K that has long been plagued by insurgency, cross-border militancy, and internal unrest. General Dwivedi’s assertion suggests that despite significant security improvements, challenges remain, particularly in countering the influence of Pakistan-backed terror groups and radical elements. Recent reports indicate that while incidents of violence have declined, targeted attacks on security personnel and civilians still occur, especially in areas like Rajouri, Poonch, and the Kashmir Valley. The threat of infiltration from across the border also persists. In such a scenario, removing AFSPA prematurely could weaken the operational capabilities of security forces, making them vulnerable to legal and procedural constraints that could hamper swift action against emerging threats. On the other hand, the continued enforcement of AFSPA raises concerns about civil liberties and governance. Critics argue that the law, which provides legal immunity to security forces, has led to allegations of human rights violations, including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and custodial deaths. The demand for its removal has been gaining momentum, particularly in the post-Article 370 era, as Jammu and Kashmir transitions into a fully integrated Union Territory. Moreover, AFSPA’s prolonged application creates a perception of a militarized state, which can fuel alienation among the local population. In the Northeast, similar concerns led to the partial withdrawal of AFSPA in several states, proving that phased dilution is possible without jeopardizing security. The challenge lies in striking a balance between security and civil liberties. The government must ensure that its counterinsurgency efforts are accompanied by robust political engagement, economic development, and trust-building measures with the local populace. A phased approach—where AFSPA is gradually withdrawn from stable regions while maintaining vigilance in sensitive areas—could be a prudent middle path. Ultimately, AFSPA cannot be a permanent solution. Its presence reflects the state’s inability to fully normalize the situation. If the country truly aspires for lasting peace in Jammu and Kashmir, addressing the root causes of alienation, strengthening democratic institutions, and ensuring justice must go hand in hand with security measures.