On 9 August 2016, Irom Sharmila (46), decided to break her 16-year-long fast and also announced her decision to contest the 2017 Manipur Assembly elections. She has also announced her decision to get married. She was on fast for the last 16 years, and she had become an iconic symbol in the fight against the controversial Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA). Her 800-week fast created history by being the world’s longest hungerstrike, and, perhaps, the most talked about democratic protest by a lone individual.
The decision to fast
Before we get into the implications of her decision, let us quickly look at the genesis of Irom’s fast. On 2 November 2000, 10 civilians who were waiting at a bus stop at Malom, near Imphal, were killed by the Assam Rifles soldiers. It was one of the most shocking incidents, but the security establishment contested the claim that the deceased were civilians. This alleged cold-blooded killings led Sharmila to launch a hunger-strike on 5 November 2000. Since then, she never broke her fast, though the government force-fed her with nasal drips for years. The authorities charged her with attempt to commit suicide. This is how she was kept alive at the Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences in Imphal.
Soon her fast became international news, and Sharmila an icon. Her pictures were often flashed all over the world by wire agencies. In between, she was released and rearrested by the police.
A black comedy
The drama around the release and re-arrest of Sharmila had all the ingredients of a black comedy. She was released by a local court in Imphal on 19 August 2014. She stood exonerated, as the charges of suicide against her filed under section 309 of IPC (Indian Penal Code) (attempted suicide) were scrapped by the court. The moment she was released, she declared that she would continue with her fast-unto-death that she started on 5 November 2000. This announcement put the Manipur government in a tight spot. If something were to happen to her, the Manipur government would be hard pressed to defend this. This was because while releasing her, the court in Imphal decreed that her protection and well-being was the responsibility of the state government. If something were to happen to her, the state government would have to face the flak. In that case, it would be better to arrest and force-feed her than let her roam free. This was the logic behind her arrest. Equally interesting is to note that she was arrested for attempted suicide, something she was released of by the court. Strange are the ways in which the government functions!
If at one level the whole drama appeared to be a black comedy, at a deeper level, it showed the compulsions of running a system and dealing with a faceless enemy like separatism. Irom has been protesting against the dreaded (AFSPA) Act of 1958, which has turned Manipur into a police state. This Act was passed in 1958 to deal with the insurgency in Nagaland when the Nagas were agitating for a separate state of Nagaland by vivisecting Assam. The Union government had realised that it did not have any powerful law to deal with this new enemy which aimed at breaking the Indian Union. Hence, the AFSPA was passed in 1958, and soon was extended to some parts of Manipur too.
As of today, almost all democratic countries in the world have similar or perhaps more draconian laws. After 9/11, the US passed the Patriot Act, 2001, to deal with international terrorism. If one were to compare the details of the AFSPA and that of the Patriot Act, our Act would appear mild. Even the UK, the mother of all democracies, passed a similar Act when it found that the terrorists are operating freely on its land. Why blame the Indian state alone, which has had to deal with separatism right from its birth? The Indian state has been dealing with forces keen to break its territorial integrity in the North, as well as in the Northeast.
This, however, does not mean that the activities of the armed forces under AFSPA should go unchallenged and uninvestigated. Far from it. In fact, there is machinery that deals with and investigates charges of excesses on the part of the armed forces. If the person is found guilty, there is adequate punishment to the offender. No one is spared from this. This again does not mean that all is well in Manipur state and Irom Sharmila was barking up the wrong tree.
How valid was Sharmila’s demand?
There are reports galore of excesses by the armed forces in Manipur. The demand should be to speed up these inquiries and punish the guilty, and not to scrap the AFSPA. This amounts to throwing the baby with the bath water. It is one thing to demand proper inquiry into excesses, and quite another to demand the scrapping of the AFSPA.
The standard and at times rather groundless argument against the AFSPA has been that it has not been able to end the activities of the separatist forces. This is like arguing for scrapping of the police force as it has not been able to stop crimes, or scrapping the UNO (United Nations Organisation), as it has not been able to stop wars in the world. What kind of social life can the Manipuris expect if the armed forces were to be withdrawn and civilian rule is allowed to prevail? The answer is too scary to even imagine. Today, at least thanks to the presence of the armed forces in Manipur, some semblance of law and order and discipline is maintained. Without armed forces in Manipur, the well-armed and well-trained separatist forces would roam free, spreading mayhem.
Today, all over the world, democracies have had to find new ways to combat terrorism. Even France had to pass a law to ban Muslim women from wearing the hijab in public places. This is because the French authorities realised that the hijab was freely used by terrorist groups to carry bombs and other materials of destruction. Similarly, Indian authorities have witnessed many such techniques used by terrorists. In such cases, the provisions of the AFSPA come handy while dealing with such people.
But on the other hand, time has indeed come for the Indian state to review the efficacy of the AFSPA. There are too many complaints and too many commission reports suggesting its withdrawal. There was the Upendra Commission set up by the Manipur government to investigate the custodial death of Thangjam Manorama. Then there was Justice Jeevan Reddy Commission appointed by the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) government to review the working of the AFSPA. Though the Commission submitted the report in June 2005, the findings are yet to be made public. Finally, there is the Santosh Hegde Committee set up by the Supreme Court to investigate six separate cases of possible AFSPA abuse in Manipur. The Hegde Committee found that five out of six killings were fabricated ‘encounters’.
These details show us that the working of the AFSPA is not above board. Hence it is necessary to set up some mechanism to bring it to book without allowing it to lose its primary responsibility of fighting separatist forces in the state of Manipur. The critics of the AFSPA should note that there is broad concurrence about the AFSPA among our major political parties. Like UPA, even the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) would be reluctant to initiate debate on this dreaded Act. Similarly, the CPI-M government in Tripura allowed the extension of this law for six months. This decision was announced only last week.
These contradictory details force us to accept that the time has indeed come to take a fresh look at the AFPSA. Even the Supreme Court is not very happy with this Act. On 8 July 2016, the apex court ruled that the members of the armed forces cannot simply shoot to kill militants engaged in internal disturbances by treating them as ‘enemies’. The court also said armed forces members would face criminal prosecution if found using excessive force even in areas where AFSPA is in force.
Here, nobody is a hero or a villain. However one must ensure the territorial integrity of the country by crushing the anti-India forces.
