“TROUBLED AREAS”: Looking Away From the Lens of the Mainstream
“TROUBLED AREAS”:
Looking Away From the Lens of the Mainstream
This paper is an attempt to understand the position of women living in the ‘troubled areas’ of the North East of India, having to fight for an equal space amidst the ongoing tussle between the male dominated insurgents and the masculine uniformed men of the Indian state. And also to understand how the women of the North East are changing this paradigm of women as ‘silent and submissive’ in their effort to make their voices heard through their organisations and protests against gendered violence.
The North East of India is a region of myriad complexities. Women’s lives here are extremely complex. They are affected both by immigration as well as securitisation of the area , increased trafficking in women , children , narcotics and small arms and diseases such as HIV . The women share a common history of marginalisation both by the outsider (or the state) and the insider or their own community.
A possible reason for women’s marginalisation here has to include the discussion on patriarchy as defined by Gerda Lerner as “the manifestation and institutionalisation of male dominance over women and children in the family and the extension of male dominance over women in society in general.” She implies that men hold the dominant position in this unequal power relation and their set- social roles overtime will define their agency, and participation in spheres.
It is in this scenario that the State may be seen as a male dominant extending its paternalistic benevolence (since majority of state policies are shaped by men who are in governance)to the troubled area of the North East and implements the harsh Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA)on 22nd May 1958, in their attempt to supress the insurgent outfits present in the sates of the North East of India.
Section 3 empowers any responsible official to declare any area as disturbed, (which is a pre-condition for deployment of troops in the area) and impunity provisions to operate. Section 4 empowers any commissioned officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or any other person of the equivalent rank in the armed forces in the disturbed area to carry out brutal and arbitrary policy as those mentioned below:
• After giving due warning fire upon or use other kinds of force even if it causes death , against the person who is acting against the law ….for maintenance of public order
• To arrest without a warrant anyone who has committed cognizable offences or is reasonably suspected of having done so and may use force if needed for the arrest
• To enter and search any premise in order to make such arrests
• Army officers have legal immunity for their actions. There can be no prosecution, suit or any other legal proceeding against anyone acting under the law, nor is the government’s judgement on why an area is found to be disturbed subject to judicial review (Section 6
• PROTECTION of persons acting in good faith under this act from PROSECUTION and other legal proceedings, except with sanction of central govt.
The Counter- Insurgency measures under AFSPA may be seen as product of hyper masculine practice of the state that defends armed officials under the Act to uphold their morale .In this context one can argue that the state overlooks the arbitrary provisions and unrestrained collateral damage upon civilians in the act of using such law and in some way becomes conducive in creating a ‘Space For Violence.’ The blind eye of the state has majorly proved discriminatory towards women who are caught in the middle and become direct victims of violence of assault , rape , molestations and indirectly by treatment meted out their men-folk by arbitrary practices like forced disappearances, cold blooded fake encounters, massacres, illegal detentions and killing as a result of “mistaken identity” .The armed men as well as the insurgents both are vying for the dominant position as a result there is a display of masculinity and thus this makes that space of competition violent .hence we can say that in that space of limited opportunity for the men-folk itself women thus eventually come to be subjugated and their powers reduced further , or completely taken away . Sometimes violent practices on women is used to dishonour entire communities, with the result that men of the community try to retrieve their masculinity by subordinating their women. That troubled area of competing masculinity as a result becomes the land for gendered violence to manifest itself upon the lowest power holder (women) and protection of the personnel by the Act leads to a further marginalisation of the woman’s rights and their voices.
Unless there is an effort to change such structures/ systems with gender-just policies it will only result in cosmetic changes. Conflict zones as a result produces hierarchies instead of resolving the tensions. Testimonies bear evidence to the multi-layered gendered nature of violence – physical, emotional and social. It also portrays women’s overarching desire to survive as we see them negotiating between the armed forces (state) and the insurgents (men of their community) and often walking on egg shells – realising their own victimhood.
Narratives of women from that area highlight the very point made above. One such testimony is by a Naga woman caught in the conflict said:
“We are three sisters. My father was a Head teacher. He was taken away to a detention center in July- August 1990 with 13 other men of whom all of them were detained for 3 days while my father was detained for 5 days.
Army grouping was a common feature. Whenever we heard the noise of vehicles we ran away. But notwithstanding all our resistance the sad part is that even our culture does not treat us as equals .It is with great difficulty that I could inherit some property after I fought for my case in the Tangkhul Naga Long Court. Our culture does not accept women taking up decision making rules. While on the other hand the case of Thangjam
Manorama in July 2004 was subjected to “brutal and merciless torture” and raped, was subsequently killed by a 17 Assam Rifles team.
She was raped and shot in the vagina apparently to destroy the evidence. Despite of having collected strong evidence the accused men were not tried in the court of law – all because they were under the impunity of AFSPA Law. To this particular case important question arise such as this, “are we not suggesting that “our men” representing “our nation” have a right to rape women if they are part of an “enemy” community or nationality? What does this say about our notions of nationalism?
Numerous reports and complaints suggested that the guilty personnel were hardly convicted by delaying investigations, tampering with evidences and often intimidating the victims. Several non-state actors such as United Nations in 1991, upon presenting its second periodic report to the UN Human Rights Committee members of the UNHRC India was asked numerous questions on the validity of AFSPA and questioned its constitutionality. Also in 23 March 2009, UN Commissioner for Human Rights – Navanathem Pillay asked India to repeal the act and termed it as ‘dating to colonial era’ that breached contemporary international human rights standards. Similarly in 31st march 2012 UN asked India to revoke AFSPA saying it had no place in the democracy.
Human Rights Watch has termed the law as a “tool of state abuse , oppression and discrimination”.
In this context it can be argued that gender based violence therefore is a visible manifestations that keeps women in a very compromising position and situations, where they don’t find a space for themselves and thus they recollect themselves into a organizations such as the Meira Paibis acting as vanguard to secure social justice and equality and basic human rights.
When it comes to rape by men in uniform, the media forgets that the victim is also part of the ‘Nation’.
We must also question the role of our media in ensuring impunity in rapes committed by members of the armed forces. Most of media (with few exceptions) fail to do their duty of keeping citizens informed about the course of struggles for justice in such rape cases. The lack of prime time debates and regular news programs for instance did not follow up on the Manorama rape case. In fact the media maybe seen as perpetuating this masculine practice of the state as we see the State being glorified for having done a ‘good job’. And successfully implementing counter-insurgency measures under the garb of nationalism and security. However this bias of the media is when it does not portray the misuse or atrocities committed under the law. Although Gender Based Violence is pervasive in the society and often times systemic the media however shows a one sided picture only. So the mainstream media conveniently overlooks the victims of AFSPA cases from the marginalise North East.
Ironically simultaneously the media attempts to integrate the Northeast through display of its cultural diversity, practices and food habits. However this is only one sided and the pertinent question that arises therefore is why human rights violation of the people of northeast not discussed and not address the real issue?
Comments
Post a Comment