It
is over 12 years since Irom Sharmila went on a fast for the removal of
the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in Manipur – an
unprecedented protest staged by a single individual anywhere in the
world. Her symbolic resistance has brought people from all over the
country together in the common cause of ending the writ of a draconian
law. She has been awarded the Gwangju prize for Human Rights in 2007, a
lifetime achievement award from the Asian Human Rights Commission and
the Rabindranath Tagore Peace Prize in 2010.
It all started on
November 2, 2000. A group of people were waiting for a local bus in
Malom, about five kilometres from Manipur’s capital, Imphal. They were
mowed down by the Assam Rifles in retaliation to an ambush it had
suffered at the hands of some underground groups. The incident created
instant public outrage. It changed the lives of not just the 10 who were
killed and their relatives, but that of a woman who was in her late
20s. Two days after that incident, Irom Sharmila took her decision to
fast until the AFSPA was withdrawn from her state.
Her steely
resolve did not immediately create ripples. In fact, her colleagues at
Human Rights Alert, the organisation she was associated with then, ran
from pillar to post to draw public attention to her call. Despite the
lack of broad support, Sharmila persisted with the fast amidst concerted
attempts by the state and central governments to force her to withdraw
it.
In October 2006, during one of her periodic releases from jail,
Sharmila came to Delhi to pay tribute to Mahatma Gandhi, her idol. At
that point the local and mainstream media had almost forgotten her
existence.
She went on to continue her fast at Delhi’s site of public
protest, Jantar Mantar, and was immediately arrested by the Delhi
Police. For months, she was confined to a hospital room at the Ram
Manohar Lohia Hospital in the Capital, under blanket security cover. In
2007, she was shifted to Imphal’s Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital, where she
has been ever since. While in Delhi she continued to garner media
attention and support from civil society organisations. Booked under
Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 309, which pertains to “attempt to
suicide”, Sharmila persisted with her struggle, even as an indifferent
State turned a deaf ear to her call.
While much has been said and
written about her case, it is her “love story” that has suddenly become
the talking point. This, in turn, has proved very controversial with her
supporters, especially those belonging to the Meitei community,
reacting even violently to it. In September 2011, for instance, they
protested against ‘The Telegraph’, for writing exclusively on the
“romance”. The protestors demanded an “explanation” from the newspaper
for its sensational reportage, even calling for a ban on its circulation
in Manipur.
Deepti Priya Mehrotra, who wrote a biography of Irom
Sharmila, ‘Burning Bright: Irom Sharmila and the Struggle for Peace in
Manipur’ in 2010, believes the stridency of the protest was because her
supporters felt the media was focusing on personal matters unduly while
putting her political struggle on the backburner. “Her supporters are
being painted as if they want Sharmila to continue fast and to be in
detention rather than have a personal life, which is far from the
truth,” Mehrotra observes.
There could also be another factor –
general disquiet over Sharmila’s relationship with a non-Manipuri, since
the person in question is of Goan origin with a British citizenship. As
Babloo Loitongbam, human rights activist and a close comrade of
Sharmila, points out, a society like the Meiteis, where a lot of respect
is traditionally paid to elders and customary ways of life, any
deviation from the norm causes unease.
Assertions of this kind
involve not just Sharmila, but women in general. Vigilante groups have
from time to time issued diktats on how women should conduct themselves
in terms of dress, marriage and general behaviour. In early 2012, for
instance, student bodies in Manipur issued a dress code for girls,
insisting that the traditional “phanek” should be their uniform.
Haripriya
Soibam, a Delhi University scholar and Manipuri poet, believes that at
least some of the anger over Sharmila’s reported ‘romance’ could well be
because it indicated that a non-Manipuri journalist had direct access
to her while most Manipuri journalists did not.
As for the issue of
whether Sharmila should give up her fast or not, Loitongbam is
categorical, “It is entirely up to her, whether she wants to continue
with it or not. We will support her either way.” However, given the
sensitivity of the central issue – the banning of people who are
fighting for repeal of AFSPA and branding them anti-national – there is
some speculation over the motives of the person who has declared his
deep interest in Sharmila. He has also courted controversy by stating in
letters to media houses and social networking sites that the local
media and Sharmila’s supporters (including women groups) are “deadly
against their relationship”. He has, in fact, also claimed for himself
the status of being “the only approved spokesperson of Irom Sharmila”.
Anubha
Bhonsle, senior journalist with CNN-IBN who had done television
documentaries on Sharmila, believes “both sides will have to prove their
true intent”. As she puts it, “No one can lay claim to Sharmila,
including the man in question. She should be her own master.” Bhonsle
also believes it is time that Sharmila herself issue a personal
statement to dispel the confusion.
As things stand today, Iron
Sharmila has been put on a pedestal and deemed a superhuman. Admits
Soibam candidly, “Her iconification is a sad fact. But it is also
perhaps inescapable. We have turned her into a universal ‘eche’ (elder
sister).” This has its downside. Because she is cast in this superhuman
role, her needs as a human being are overlooked. To say that Sharmila
has become, more or less, public property would be too harsh, but it has
shades of truth, according to Soibam.
Confined as she is to an
isolated hospital room, Sharmila has little control over her life. She
is dictated to at every turn; her every move is monitored by the State.
At the same time, she is also at the command of supporters and human
rights activists who have literally taken her cause to the nation and
the world with their cry, “Support Sharmila’s fast against AFSPA!”
But
some like Bhonsle believe that Sharmila has made enough of a personal
sacrifice and people should not insist on her becoming a martyr to the
cause. Bhonsle knows that this is easier said than done, “I understand
her dilemma of not wanting to let go of the struggle and the fast. After
all, she has given 12 good years of her life for it. But the campaign
has hinged on Sharmila’s fast for far too long and has tended to focus
on commemorating anniversaries.”
Today, according to her, the State
and non-state actors want to keep her alive for their own reasons and
the time has come for a change in attitude, not just at the civil
society level but at the political level.
Should Sharmila then take
up a different mode of protest rather than persist with her fast? Soibam
believes she should. Mehrotra, not just her biographer but a friend,
also feels Sharmila should end her fast and “come out to lead us in the
struggle against AFSPA”, while Bhonsle wants her to make her life’s
choices “without any guilt”. She believes that women’s groups, who have
fought long and hard by her side, should now understand Sharmila’s
predicament and rally by her side again – just as they did all those
years ago when she first decided to go on fast.
—(Women's Feature Service) December 2012
|
No comments:
Post a Comment