Book Review of "Burning Bright: Irom Sharmila and the Struggle for Peace in Manipur"

Radha Kapuria *

Pradip Phanjeboum's otherwise noteworthy book review of Deepti Priya Mehrotra's Burning Bright: Irom Sharmila and The Struggle for Peace in Manipur (EPW, Vol. XLV, No. 6, Feb 6th, 2010, pp. 34-35) suffers from some serious unwarranted comments. First is the awkward assertion that the author's analysis of the conflict in Manipur places her squarely in the "liberal camp".

Such a blanket allegation is made by reading one or two stray comments, for e.g., 'Good governance needs to be instituted in the state. Corrupt and manipulative governance is a major factor contributing to escalation of insurgent violence' (pg. 63) out of their context from the larger argument that frames Burning Bright and is specifically reflected in chapters such as "Redefining Development", "Insurgency", "AFSPA, the Unlawful Law", etc.

By commenting that 'What is ignored in the process is the political nature of these problems, demanding political interventions along with the bureaucratic, with primacy given to the former' (EPW, Vol. XLV, No. 6, pg. 35), Phanjeboum is actually reflecting Mehrotra's central argument, which stresses the primacy of a political solution.

Indeed, one finds her analysis as being continually tempered with a concern towards building a more humane and just polity, and how she thinks Irom Sharmila symbolises efforts to achieve just that. Mehrotra's frequent invocations of Gandhi's methods and political tactics also reflect this.

Secondly, Phanjeboum seems to be suggesting that the core issue is not the undemocratic polity stimulated by years of the AFSPA 1958 in Manipur, but rather, 'moderating the brutalities of war' (EPW, pg. 35). This statement comes after Phanjeboum's clearly apologist tones for current day state violence in Manipur. He unwittingly seems to be stating that the road to peace in Manipur must necessarily be trod through violence, thus covertly taking a position vitally opposed to Sharmila's position/demand.

By accusing the author of falling short of addressing 'the core issue' (to wit, "the brutalities of war"), Phanjeboum neatly avoids voicing his own discomfort with Irom Sharmila's methods. For a book that is primarily a biography of the iron lady, uses her as the entry point to understand the conflict, and one which according to Phanjeboum's own excellent analysis succeeds in "middle voicing" the Sharmila story, this can hardly be a shortcoming.

Reproving Mehrotra for appearing like 'an activist campaigner against the controversial act' and exhorting her to 'give the devil (viz, the state) its due' (pg. 35), Phanjeboum assumes that any scholarly work has to necessarily stem from a pure-as-driven snow Neutrality/Objectivity.

Surely this contradicts his approval on the preceding page, of Mehrotra's success in finding the "middle voice" ('to a great extent') which is about the 'objective narrator and the subject of narration-sharing agency, so that the subject is allowed an equal perspective in which the narrator too can become a subject to interrogated and assessed' (pg. 34).

From this very La Capran perspective of the "middle-voice" which one thanks Phanjeboum for introducing us to, the book succeeds remarkably well. It is arguably the first incisive and insightful account of Sharmila and the larger struggle of the women of Manipur by a "mainstream" Indian, drawn to the Manipuri conflict courtesy only Sharmila.