Irom Sharmila Chanu, the iconic symbol in the fight against the controversial Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, surprised everyone by announcing she would end her 16-year-long fast on August 9, contest the Manipur Assembly polls, and also get married. If 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, her decision to plunge headlong into electoral politics demonstrates her faith in the nation’s democratic process. The incident that changed Irom Sharmila’s life was the November 2, 2000 killing of 10 civilians waiting at a bus stop at Malom, near Imphal, by the Assam Rifles.
The security establishment contested the claim that the deceased were civilians. That’s a different debate, but the alleged cold-blooded killings led Sharmila to launch a hungerstrike on November 5, 2000. She wouldn’t break her fast ever since, forcing the authorities to charge her with attempts to commit suicide and forcefeed her with nasal drips to keep her alive. A cabin at the Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences in Imphal has become her home. She has, of course, been in judicial custody. Now she has decided to break her fast, apparently as the Government of India paid no heed to her protracted fast demanding AFSPA’s repeal. Her decision to contest next year’s Manipur Assembly polls as an Independent is aimed at raising the demand for AFSPA’s repeal within the House. Obviously, she wants to continue her fight against AFSPA as a part of the Indian political system.
Irom Sharmila is well within her rights as a citizen to fast, end her fast, to contest elections or enter into matrimony with the person of her choice. Now her supporters, and perhaps even family members, appear opposed to her move to not only end her fast but also to her proposed marriage to a Goan-born British national who kept her spirits high for many years with gifts, letters and wishes, along with a whole lot of Manipuris and other Indians. Those unhappy with Sharmila’s decision feel the move will dilute the movement for AFSPA’s repeal. But no genuine movement or dissent can wither away simply as the person seen to be leading it as a mascot decides to move on. In any case, Sharmila is not withdrawing from her fight against AFSPA; she has only decided to chart a new path to raise the issue and others that may concern her. I have to ask a question, however bitter it sounds: were these people waiting for frail Sharmila’s health to deteriorate further from not eating for 16 years and then take to the streets, call strikes and create an uprising?
From a young woman of 28 in 2000, when she began her fast, Irom Sharmila is now in her mid-40s. In all this time, no one really tried even relay hungerstrikes seriously to give her company. Therefore, today, they have no right to oppose her decision to call off her fast. If these people are so bothered about the movement getting retarded, some of them can choose the path Sharmila has shown and launch any democratic and peaceful form of protest. There are two key issues here: one is that of human rights violations, the other is politics over an issue. Human rights have been violated in Manipur and elsewhere by both the security forces and the militants. But violations by men in uniform hogs media attention as they are law enforcers, and that surprises no one. In politics, however, the real cause for concern over AFSPA is that militants and their supporters actually thrive on excesses by the armed forces whose members get immunity under this law.
Significantly, Sharmila decided to end her fast at a time when AFSPA has, for the first time since its inception in 1958, hit a roadblock put up by none other than the Supreme Court. In an unprecedented ruling on July 8, the nation’s highest court said, rather unambiguously, 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. The judges delivering the order said: “If members of our armed forces are deployed and employed to kill citizens of our country on the mere allegation or suspicion that they are the ‘enemy’, not only the rule of law, but democracy would be in grave danger.”
This observation debunked the general view that AFSPA provides complete immunity to armed forces personnel from facing trial over their acts, particularly over charges of excessive use of force. “There is no concept of absolute immunity from trial by criminal courts,” the judgment noted. There is no doubt Sharmila has achieved what she set out to do: raise the nation’s consciousness against draconian measures to contain rebellions. Look at AFSPA — all that the authorities need to do to enforce this law is to declare an area “disturbed”. Once this is done, AFSPA comes into force and members of the armed forces can search, detain and question anyone without a warrant, and even shoot to the extent of causing death, merely on suspicion that the person is a militant. To top it all, court action against an accused soldier can proceed only after the Centre’s prior approval. If these provisions aren’t against citizens’ fundamental rights, what is? The British Raj had used similar powers to maximise executive authority and try to contain democratic protests against colonial rule.
Is AFSPA really the sole effective instrument to tackle insurgencies? I would argue that in a state like Manipur, AFSPA is actually helping the militants’ cause. That is because whenever soldiers commit excesses under the shadow of this law that provides them legal immunity, the masses take to the streets and vent their ire against the Indian state. That helps the insurgents, but who bothers? The Army top brass wants AFSPA to stay and the Centre can’t summon the courage to dilute its provisions. That is one side of the story. But the other is equally strong: what should the armed forces do when armed insurgents train their automatic weapons at them? They can’t simply wait and think of alternative options. The debate over AFSPA is, therefore, not going to end any time soon.
