THE FURIES COME TO LIFE
By M.S. Prabhakara

July 30, 2004 - (The Hindu) For years, public opinion in the Northeast has protested against the Armed Forces Special Powers Act but to no avail. WHAT LESSONS, and what message, does the unprecedented demonstration by a group of Manipuri women in front of the headquarters of Assam Rifles in Imphal on the morning of July 15 have for the rest of the country? What lesson, indeed, does it have closer home, for the men and women in Manipur itself?

The use of the clichéd `unprecedented' is fully justified to describe what happened that morning. A dozen women, 11 of them from various parts of
Imphal and one from Bishenpur, about 40 km from Imphal, young and old, all of them office-bearers of several identifiable women's organisations, themselves wives and mothers (and grandmothers), arrived in a group at Kangla, the historic seat of Manipur kings. Stopping in front of the gates of Assam Rifles headquarter housed in that heavily guarded fortress, they stripped off their clothes, every stitch, shouting slogans and holding up two screaming banners: `Indian Army rape us; Indian Army take our flesh.' The slogans inscribed in large red capitals on a white sheet had the words `rape' and `flesh' represented as if blood was dripping from each of the letters. The striking, indeed fearsome, photographs that appeared in the morning newspapers of July 16 showed the women holding up the sheet in front of them, barely covering their midriffs. However, this concession to modesty seemed only to accentuate both their vulnerable nakedness and helpless rage, forced to use their very vulnerability as a weapon. Truly, they wereenacting an ancient drama, as avengers of crimes against ties of gender and kinship. [...]

After making their protest in front of Assam Rifles, the women, still naked and still holding the banner, marched in full public glare to the Raj Bhavan gates, about half a kilometre away,from where they were finally taken away by women police in a van. Those familiar with Imphal will know that these complexes are in the heart of the office areas, and adjacent to the commercial areas, of the city.

The women were protesting against the alleged torture, rape and murder, while under the custody of Assam Rifles, of Thangjam Manorama, a 32-year-old Manipuri woman, in the small hours of July 11. The basic facts, as reported and not countered in their essentials by the authorities, are as follows. Manorama, who the authorities claim was an active cadre of the outlawed People's Liberation Army (PLA), was taken into custody from her home very early that morning by three havildars of Assam Rifles. A few hours later, her body was found about four km from her home.

However, the finer details of the circumstances of her arrest and death as well as the interpretations put on these facts differ wildly. There are also contradictions between what the arresting authorities are believed to have said in their `arrest memo', about not finding any incriminating evidence during the search of the house, and what the superior authorities later claimed as having been found during the search. Given the long history of insurgency and counter-insurgency operations in Manipur and the operation of the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958, these conflicting versions are unlikely to be reconciled.

Indeed, according to the protesters Manorama was tortured, raped and killed by those who had taken her into custody. They claim that the body bore torture marks; that the bullet wound suggested that she had been shot while facing her captors, not while fleeing from them. The Assam Rifles authorities' account follows, to the text, the by now well-established accounts of several such encounter killings not merely in Manipur and
other parts of Northeast but also other parts of India.

Thus, in the version that is being put out in leaks and briefings from army authorities in Shillong and Delhi, the woman was arrested, seemed to be cooperative in answering questions, and was willingly leading her armed escorts to a PLA hideout. On the way, allowed to move away on her plea of wanting to answer a call of nature, she tried to flee, heedless of the warning of her escorts to stop. Put simply, she was shot and killed while trying to escape.

That the initiative to protest in such a frighteningly original manner should have come from women's organisations in Manipur is not surprising given the militant interventions that Manipuri women have made at so many crucial moments in the history of this land. Even so, the intervention of July 15 was exceptional; and may well be seen by future historians as one of those defining moments that shape a people's history, their destiny. One should also reflect on the impact the intervention is likely to have on the self-esteem of the other half of Manipur, shamed into passively witnessing a scene where their women had to shed their clothes to defend their honour. There have already been at least two attempts at demonstrative martyrdom: an aborted attempt at self-immolation, and a more gruesome incident where a young man cut off one of his fingers.

This is not the first incident of its kind in Manipur or in the rest of the Northeast. Nor will this be the last as long as laws such as The Armed Forces Special Powers Act remain in force. This terrifying legislation, formerly The Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958, has been in operation in the State without a break since September 8, 1980 when the first notification under the Act declaring the State `disturbed' was issued.

The Act and its subsequent amended versions are now applicable to the whole of the Northeast and can be enforced anywhere by simply notifying an area, a sub-division or a district, or if necessary the whole State, as `disturbed'. Such a notification confers upon the members of the armed forces extraordinary powers with virtually no accountability. They can enter and search premises and arrest persons without warrant; and also kill with impunity persons considered to be acting in contravention of the law in force in the area notified as `disturbed'. The Act allows any commissioned officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or any other person of equivalent rank of the armed forces in an area notified as `disturbed' to enter and search any premises without warrant, arrest without warrant any person who has committed a cognisable offence or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists (in the mind of the arresting person) that he has committed or is about to commit a cognisable offence, using such force as may be necessary to effect the arrest, destroy structures if in the opinion of the persons engaged in the operations the structure is being used or is likely to be used as a hideout `by armed gangs or absconders wanted for any offence'.

Finally, "if he [this sword arm entrusted with the security of the country and its people] is of opinion that it is necessary to do so for the maintenance of public order, after giving such due warning as he may consider necessary, fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, against any person who is acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force in the disturbed area prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons or the carrying of weapons or of things capable of being used as weapons or of firearms, ammunition or explosive substance."

Clause 6 tops this all. "No prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government, against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of powers conferred by this Act." In the words of
a very different kind of Fury, I will be the judge, I will be the jury, and I will try the whole case and condemn you to death. Only, this is not the wonderland of fantasy, but one of the States of the Indian Union bleeding for decades, along with other States in its vicinity in the Northeast, because of this fearsome legislation.

Thus, in the final analysis, nothing will happen to those who took Manorama away from her home in the dead of night, and claim that she was shot
dead while trying to escape. For years public opinion in the Northeast has protested against this legislation, to no avail.

At every stage of the operation of this law, only the subjective satisfaction of the officer in charge is required. The authorities have claimed that such protests as took place are contrived to coincide with an impending renewal of the periodic notifications required to be made under the Act.

From the perspective of one living in the Northeast, one is struck by the fact that while democratic opinion in the rest of the country is rightly exercised over that horrible legislation, POTA, and is expecting with some hope that it would be repealed - though those opposed to POTA may have to be content with a modified `POTA with a human face' - there has hardly been any such concern, even of a kind that would demand and be
content with an `AFSPA with a human face'.

From: www.thehindu.com/2004/07/30/stories/2004073001431000.htm