“TROUBLED AREAS”: Looking Away From the Lens of the Mainstream

“TROUBLED AREAS”:

Looking Away From the Lens of the Mainstream

Presented by Esther Tingsangthiem Gangte

B.A. History (Hons) - 3^rd year

This paper is an attempt to understand the position of women living in the ‘troubled areas’ of the North East of India, who have to fight for an equal space amidst the ongoing tussle between the male dominated insurgents and the masculine uniformed men of the Indian state. Highlighting how the enactment of extra-ordinary powers under AFSPA creates a precarious condition for fight. And also to understand how the women of the North East are trying to change this paradigm of women as ‘silent and submissive’ as seen in their efforts, through organisations and protests, to make their voices heard 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 ,influx of narcotics and small arms and diseases such as HIV too have affected the life of people and women in particular . The women here thus can be seen as sharing a common history of marginalisation due to factors like economic deprivation of the area , lack of healthcare facilities, public-use infrastructures, proper systems of governance and lack of development and representation in which both the outsider (or the Center/State) and the insider (their own Community ) can be responsible .

Necessary foreground for understanding women’s marginalisation is to include the discussion on Patriarchy¹ as “the manifestation and institutionalisation of male dominance over women and children in the family and the extension of this male dominance over women in society in general.” This implies an unequal power relation where men would hold the dominant position and social roles set 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 (argued here: since Governance is largely normalised as a male space majority of state policies are representative of men only and the lack/absence of women in governance hampers their representation in policies too) to the troubled area of the North East.

On 22^nd May 1958, the harsh Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) was enforced by the State in its attempt to supress the insurgent outfits present in the sates of the North East of India and to provide security to its people .

A pre-condition for deployment of troops in the area is declaring any area as ‘disturbed’ by any responsible officer (as mentioned in section 3 of the law).

Section4 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 any of these provisions:

•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 and right to enter and search any premise in order to make such arrests.

Section 6 of the Act mentions that Armed 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 .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 so as to uphold their morale .In this context one can argue that the state has overlooked the arbitrary provisions and unrestrained collateral damage upon civilians in the act of using such law and in some way 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 have to bear multi-layered consequences. They are direct victims of physical and emotional violence like rape, assault, molestations. The constant presence of surveillance by armed personnel is intrusive, fearing which women resort to reducing their mobility. This restriction on free movement has a negative consequence for women here who are often the economic sustainer of the family and the ones who go out in search of odd jobs – selling vegetables or other items, collecting firewood etc. to meet daily needs/expenditure.

Indirectly too the 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” also affects their family life and makes them more vulnerable . Men too are victim of arbitrary practices but the cases of women are disproportionately higher.

Interestingly, hence can be argued that the imposition of militarism and impunity has created a culture of violent degradation of women of tribes of North East many of whom were traditionally autonomous position holders in family- are now competing for an equal space in the society where even their own male counterpart themselves compete with state personnel for a share in say.

As a result of display of masculinity women eventually come to be subjugated, limited and their powers reduced further , or completely taken away thereby facilitating a space for gendered violence to manifest upon lowest power holder or the ‘easy targets’ . Drawing connections Jo Baker² highlighted how the

intersection of militarisation and violence against women only aggravates structural inequality and that perpetual repression hampers women’s movements, abilities and exercise of political and civil rights.

Unless there is an effort to change such structures/ systems with gender-just policies it will only result in cosmetic changes.

Quite interestingly testimonies bear evidence to the women’s overarching desire to survive as we see them trying to change this paradigm of ‘surrender’ forging a fight despite walking on egg shells – realising their own victimhood. One such testimony is by a Naga woman caught in the conflict who 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 from Manipur was the case of Thangjam Manorama who in July 2004 was subjected to “brutal and merciless torture” and raped, and subsequently killed by a 17 Assam Rifles team aroused and initiated mass protests women’s movements. 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?³

M

anorama’s case was seen as the breaking point of silence post which, 12 members of the Meitei women’s collective -Meira Paibis staged a nude protest in Imphal, 2004.

Deepti Misri in her work⁴ studied that rather than staging their bodies as grounds of essential feminine vulnerability ,the Meitei women’s protest sought to emphasise their bodies as ‘sites of violence’ and their vulnerability to custodial rapes , as the , historical , legitimated and legislative product of a state in which gendered based modes of power converged in the AFSPA. While the women’s positioning of themselves as Manorama’s mothers certainly established a feminine relationship of care, protection and nurturance, the maternal here also symbolises the bonds of political solidarity with the dead woman rather than a natural-caregiving feminity.

This protest significantly helped to give an outlet to women in the area and put forth their viability as political actors instead of exhorting men of the State to relieve them from the burden of action. Hence the protest particularly refrained from appealing to a notion of chivalrous masculinity and used the iconic slogan ‘Indian Army Rape Us’ as their agency.

Another well-known protest was done by Irom Sharmila (Iron lady of Manipur) who carried on a 16 yrs. till 2016 long hunger strike against AFSPA and has been well regarded in the field of human rights for non- violent method . Having said this, recently when Irom decided to stand for elections in her state, her ability to politically voice herself was severely criticised and deemed incapable of politics (male space).

However despite such persistent voices numerous reports and complaints suggested that the guilty personnel were hardly convicted by delaying investigations, tampering with evidences and often intimidating the victims.

Thus we can clearly argue upon the flaws of AFSPA. 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 on 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 on 31st march 2012 UN asked India to revoke AFSPA saying it had no place in the democracy. Human Rights Watch has also termed the law as a “tool of state abuse, oppression and discrimination”.

Added further to discussion is a critical review of role of media as an agency that could bring significant focus to the area and the condition of women. To this the U.N. Special Representative Margot Wallstrom had aptly commented

“While Bullets, Bombs, and Blades make the headlines,

Women’s bodies remain invisible battlefields”.

We must therefore 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 following up on the Manorama rape case is an indication of nexus between State and Media houses as we know how the 2012 rape case was used by prime TV news channels as their personal crusade for justice⁵.

Thus making clear that one cannot challenge the Act enforced by the State especially when the larger argument is how State plays a major role in perpetrating those crimes.

In such a position media adopts a stance that maybe seen as perpetuating this masculine practice of the state and rather see the State being glorified for having done a ‘good job’, congratulating the successful implementation of counter-insurgency measures under the garb of nationalism and security. Thus a bias develops wherein media does not portray the misuse or atrocities committed under the law. Insensitivity and sheer ignorance of misogynistic State was reflected when the superior officials had nonchalantly commented often times that rape is ‘likely’ in any large army (rape is being used as form of collective punishment)⁶ and Gallantry Awards⁷ issued to Armed Forces adds to it.

Although Gender Based Violence is pervasive and systemic in our society the media however shows a one sided picture only. This way the mainstream media conveniently overlooks the victims of AFSPA cases from the marginalised North East or under-represents them.

What is Ironical is the simultaneous portrayal by media to integrate the Northeast through display of its cultural diversity, practices and food habits and as a ‘peaceful land’. However this is only one sided and the pertinent question that arises therefore is – ‘why human rights violation of the people of northeast not addressed?’

Hence we can see in this paper how in a measure to counter insurgents the State has turned a blind eye to the violence faced by women and the people, limiting their achievement for gender equality and development. Paula Banerjee⁸ reiterates in her work that the only way to deal with masculisation of space due to conflict is by making gender an intrinsic lens to understand conflict and shape conflict resolution keeping in mind the need to see women as primary stakeholders and actors in conflict areas .

(This paper was presented by Esther Gangte in the Student Seminar organised by the Women’s Study Centre of Jesus and Mary College on 6^th March 2019).

1 Gerda Lerner. The Creation of Patriarchy. New York ,Oxford University Press,1986

2 Jo Baker, ‘Sisters in Crisis: violence against women under India’s Armed Forces Special Power’s Act’

(A legal study ), School of Oriental and African Studies, London 2011

3 Article by Kavita Krishnan, The Wire , 26 April 2017

4 Deepti Misri. Are you a man? Performing Naked Protest in India. University of Chicago Press.2011

5 The Wire.2017

6 Saheli Women’s Resource Centre (SWRC).2005

7 TIME Magazine.2009

8 Paula Banerjee. New Conundrums for women in the North East India. Economic and Political weekly

(vol.49. )November1,2014