The Iron Lady

HUMAN RIGHTS protests don’t have to be aggressive or even violent to be effective. Mohandas K. Gandhi taught us that. When he challenged British imperial rule in India during the early 20th century, he used sit-ins, civil disobedience, vigils and fasting. Gandhi used the term ‘Satyagraha’ to describe his philosophy of non-violent resistance. His fasts tended to be for long periods, and sought self-purification and protest. In non-violent confrontation the participant does not want to make their opponent suffer; instead they show that they are willing to suffer themselves in order to bring about change. But, fifty years after his death, is ‘Satyagraha’ an outdated and naïve kind of protest? Apparently not. Gandhi’s form of protest has a famous follower in India today.

A contemporary hunger striker

Irom Sharmila Chanu lies on a bed in Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital in Imphal, capital of the north-eastern Indian state of Manipur. She leans against a bare wall, huddled under a blanket, tightly hugging herself. Guarded by armed police officers, she has been on hunger strike since the year 2000. Her protest started on November 2 that year when the Assam Rifles shot dead ten unarmed Manipuris at a bus stop in the city of Imphal on suspicion of being insurgents. Through her fast, she is demanding the repeal of the controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act or AFSPA, which gives sweeping powers to the Indian army in Manipur. Sharmila is known throughout India as the “Iron Lady” for her epic fast and her steadfastness to the cause.

Within days of her fast beginning back in 2000, she was arrested on charges of ‘attempted suicide’ and put in jail. She refused bail and refused to break her fast. For seven years now, she has been in custody on the orders of the state administration, being forcibly nose-fed a liquid diet through a tube. Time and again, the courts have released her. But she resumes her fast and is invariably re-arrested each time. She lives with the discomfort of the tube thrust into her nose. She is now 36 years old, but has become feeble, can hardly speak, and looks much older.

An unjust law

Since the implementation of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act in 1958, and the designation of Manipur as a ‘disturbed area’, human rights organisations have recorded numerous breaches of human rights by the military in the area. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act allows the armed forces to use force “as may be necessary” based on their “opinion” and “suspicion”, to effect “arrest without warrant” or “fire upon or otherwise use force, even to causing death”. Furthermore, no military personnel can be prosecuted for actions taken under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. There is a very fervent opposition to the Act in Manipur, and it is one of the main electoral issues in local state elections.

Manipur was sovereign for at least two millennia until its defeat by Britain in 1891. In 1947, with the British Parliament’s repeal of British Paramountcy, in preparation for Indian independence, Manipur became an independent kingdom once again, but not for long. With a population of some 2.3 million, Manipur has been administered by the Indian army since 1980, and human rights organisations often describe the army’s powers as “draconian”. A sensitive border state, with Burma as a close neighbour, foreigners entering Manipur (including foreign citizens born there) must obtain a Restricted Area Permit. Permits are valid for only 10 days, and visitors must travel only on tours arranged by authorised travel agents. Furthermore, they may come to Imphal only by air, and will not be permitted to travel outside the capital. While the government maintains that the law is necessary to restore normalcy in a state racked by a militant secessionist movement, civil society groups allege gross human rights violations by the army.

Human rights undermined

“I will withdraw the fast as and when the government withdraws the Armed Forces Special Powers Act unconditionally,” says Sharmila. Hers is not a lone voice. In 2004, Manipur erupted after the brutal rape and murder of a young woman activist, Manorama Devi, allegedly by soldiers of the Assam Rifles. After days of violent protests, the government withdrew the law from certain areas of Manipur. But Sharmila says she will relent only after the law is withdrawn from the entire state. “My fast is on behalf of the people of Manipur,” she says. “This is not a personal battle – this is symbolic of truth, love and peace,” she adds. Sharmila’s sacrifices have various dimensions. During the years of the hunger strike, Sharmila has not seen her ageing mother. “I am weak-hearted and if I see her, I will cry,” reflects her mother; “I do not want to erode her determination, so I have resolved not to meet Sharmila till she reaches her goal”.

The years of hunger strike have taken their toll on Sharmila’s health. Doctors say her fasting is now having a direct impact on her body’s normal functioning – her bones have become brittle, and she has developed other medical problems too. Yet, the government cannot afford a high-profile martyr for the Manipuri nationalist movement and so they cannot let Sharmila die. The state director general of police, AK Parashar, says, “We have an obligation to see that she doesn’t die an unnatural death – we are doing our best to keep the young lady alive. She is doing her job – we are doing our duty.”

International attention

The campaign for repeal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act in Manipur received a boost in November 2006 when Iranian Nobel Laureate and human rights activist Shirin Ebadi visited Sharmila in hospital, spending an hour with her. She promised Sharmila that she would take up the issue in various global forums. Afterwards, Ebadi expressed her solidarity and support to the Manipuri cause. She promised to take up the matter with the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights and highlight the “atrocities committed on Manipuris by the Army.” She had recorded her conversation with Sharmila and it was to be presented to the UN Human Rights Council. Ebadi said she was deeply moved and touched by the non-violent and long struggle of Sharmila against “repression of Manipuris”. The Army was for people’s protection and not to be used against them, she added. “My meeting with Sharmila has been a painful experience,” she said. “She is too weak to talk, but she is a resolute lady and is still continuing with her struggle”.

Some analysts say the protest may be losing its sting and that Sharmila may be fighting a losing battle. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act has been in force in Manipur for 27 years now. A committee formed by the government suggested the Act be scrapped, but its report was rejected. “The Armed Forces Special Powers Act is to stay and it is difficult for the armed forces to function without it,” comments India’s Foreign Minister, Pranab Mukherjee. So Sharmila continues her unequal battle against the Indian state – sacrificing, according to her brother, “what could have been the best years of her young life”.