The re-arrest
- Hueiyen Lanpao Editorial :: August 23, 2014 -

As we have pointed out through this column earlier, the re-arrest of hunger striker and anti-AFSPA crusader Irom Chanu Sharmila by the State police on Friday after she was released two days earlier from the judicial custody following an order passed by the Session Judge, Manipur East that dismissed the charges of attempt to commit suicide slapped on her under section 309 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) was only an expected move from the side of the State administration.

In fact, after the court order for releasing Sharmila, the State administration, which has been treating her like a criminal offender for nearly 14 years now by confining her in the security ward of Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences, has been in a tight spot.

The court order had made it clear that charges of attempt to commit suicide slapped on Sharmila could not be established and her more than one decade-long fast against prolonged imposition of Armed Forces Special Powers Act under which personnel of Armed Forces are given extraordinary powers with no accountability is not illegal, and hence, she should be released from judicial custody at once.

The court order has also put the onus of ensuring the health and safety of Sharmila in case she resumes her fast after being released.

With Sharmila steadfastly refusing to have even a medical check up (forget about tempting her to eat and break her fast) after being released from the judicial custody, on one hand, and the charges of attempt to commit suicide under which she could be kept isolated from the people no more applicable and the State administration yet to move the High Court for a possible stay on the order of the Session Judge, on the other hand; the only option left, perhaps, could be to cut short her freedom of two days by effecting the re-arrest for necessary medical examination and, of course, forced feeding of liquid diet through a nasal tube to keep her alive.

But the manner, in which the re-arrest has been forcibly effected even to the extent of causing injuries to Sharmila and with scant regard to her feminine modesty, has left very much wanting on the conduct of the State police personnel who could have accomplished the task with little tact and diplomacy.

Even if the State administration has the responsibility of ensuring the health and safety of Sharmila, what was really unfortunate in the whole farcical exercise of her release and forcible re-arrest after two days was the same old failure of looking at Sharmila as a victim and not as culprit, and then treating her accordingly as an equally responsible citizen of the country, who is fighting for a right cause, that of living a life with dignity and respect.