Let it be blessing in disguise
- Hueiyen Lanpao Editorial :: March 05, 2013 -

Irom Sharmila refuses to plead guilty at Delhi court on MArch 4 2013 :: Pix - Hueiyen Lanpao

The irony is simply too hard to be missed.

While the investigation by a Supreme Court-appointed independent Inquiry Commission into the cases of extrajudicial killings committed by security personnel with impunity under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) is underway back home, Irom Chanu Sharmila, who has been on a fast for more than 12 years now demanding repeal of the very same 'draconian' Act which ensures that impunity to the security personnel, was summoned for appearance in Patiala Court, New Delhi only to be charged with attempting to commit suicide under Section 309 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Court summon is related to Sharmila's fast at Jantar Mantar sometime in October, 2006 to draw the attention of the Nation to the suffering of the people under the Military Act.

When Sharmila refused to plead guilty of attempting suicide, saying, "I only want justice…If I wanted to commit suicide I might have died (long ago). My protest is non-violent (means) for my demand, just to live as human being", the court had told Sharmila: "We respect you but the law of land does not permit you to take your life."

Even if we are ready to agree with the court verdict that the law of the land does not permit anyone to take their own lives, the question that still remains answered in the present case of Sharmila is, who actually is trying to take away whose lives.

Is Sharmila trying to end her life by fasting against prolonged imposition of AFSPA? Or is she trying to send out a message to the world about the suffering of the people under AFSPA?

Sharmila and her people would surely like the Patiala Court to give an answer to this question in the next hearing of the case on May 22.

Yes, as per the law of the land, Sharmila may be punishable 'with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both under Section 309 of IPC (attempts to commit suicide)'.

But what about this annual ritual of releasing and re-arresting Sharmila that is being enacted regularly after the end of her term every year for the last 12 years?

Doesn't this say something absurd about the application of the same IPC section in the present case which date back to 2006?

For Sharmila, who has stood steadfastly against prolonged imposition of AFSPA, which gives extraordinary power to the armed security personnel to arrest, torture or kill anyone on mere suspicion without any room for accountability or questioning, another term for imprisonment would mean nothing.

What Sharmila wants is an end to the terror of this Army Act, which is actually a remnant of the British colonial era, enacted to suppress Indian freedom fighters of that time, and she is only following the footstep of Mahatma Gandhi, who employed the non-violent protest of fast to bring the British colonial rulers to their knees.

Here, we could not help but wonder what Mahatma Gandhi would be think if he were alive and was to be dragged to the Patiala Court for fasting against the same archaic legislation of British colonial era being endorsed and imposed by the Indian Government in some selected parts of the country, all in the name of countering the insurgency problem but in actuality giving a free hand to the armed security personnel to do whatever they like.

By the way, when the Government can hold talks with fasting Donghis like Baba Ramdev, what is it stopping from listening to the heart-wrenching cries of Sharmila?

We could only hope that Sharmila's visit to the National capital for appearance in yet another court drama, acts as a blessing in guise, for a cause that she has sacrificed everything.