Irom Sharmila rebadges her strike and many are left holding the baby!
In the Oscar winning movie 'Forrest Gump' of Tom Hanks, in which he plays a simpleton who happens to do good, there is an interesting scene. The hero who was on a running 'campaign' spree through the United States of America has kicked up lot of public and media interest. It has grabbed lots of eyeballs and he is co-run by groups of people in different stretches. Differing interpretations are attributed to the run by the man who has managed to bring in a scholastic feel to the effort with the long beard which has grown on its own. But at one point, he just stops running for no reason. That is not true, actually he says he stopped because he was 'tired'. This jaw dropping act was embarrassing for the public and the media which were left wth their mouths and microphones open. Because, how can this be? (How)can someone deactivate a 'social movement' and walk off just like that?
In a movie which ironically walks the viewer down the key episodes of American History, this may be lost partially in the humour. But the questions surfaces in a serious form with the decision of Irom Sharmila to quit fasting and to enter political fray. Without taking the analogy to unnecessary levels, let us not lose sight of the fact that there are many who wanted Irom Sharmila not to quit what she is doing, especially those of us who are arm-chair activists who fight it proxy, those of us who don't have the nerve to involve but are happy to applaud from the distant safe sidelines. We all admired the gutsy northern woman who took on the state and central governments for the repeal of the controversial Armed Forces Special Provinces Act (AFSPA). The special provisions the Army enjoys on national security grounds have brought untold miseries to the people of the region, especially the women. That Irom Chanu Sharmila has dared the Central government with a fast that lasted 16 years has definitely shone light on certain draconian aspects of these provisions.
But the question that begs attention here is, can a person call of a strike, a movement, all on her own? Can someone hang the boots and call retirement! Iron Sharmila hasn't hung her boots though. She has switched to a new pair. She is going home and taking up politics as a tool to fight AFSPA. While it remains everybody's responsibility to fight unfair rules, why does it become the burden of a single person? There are those who do what is expected of them and those who don't, sure. But what has complicated the picture here is the rumour that Irom Sharmila's lover is behind her move to quit fasting. There are also rumours around that her family has tried to keep them apart. Can love make a evolutionary rethink her path of politics? Can love effect a rethink on modes of a social struggle? If a community fighter quits the cause and joins her lover, has she failed? Is she, even partially, betraying her cause? There is support for her new moves, but still the undercurrent of disquiet births these queries. Two banned insurgent groups have threatened to kill her if she gets married. A temple commune reportedly refused entry to her. So did a colony too. She had to get back to the hospital in the form of a patient finally, on the day of her announcement.
The woman who has been force fed baby food and fruit juices, the woman whose nose tubes symbolised the will of people against the militarisation of Manipur, struggled to taste honey while she broke her fast. She broke down in the process emotionally. Let the new chapter in Irom Sharmilla's fight be as stead fast and result driven.
Can Forrest Gump be simply released from his 'National Walk' just because he feels tired,a walk which he initiated just like that? Who knows, Irom Sharmila can emerge stronger in the new avatar. She should. But still the question would keep us thinking. It should. The pull of the heart against the thrust of the head. Is it the good old yeatsian 'stone in the midst of it all'.
In the Oscar winning movie 'Forrest Gump' of Tom Hanks, in which he plays a simpleton who happens to do good, there is an interesting scene. The hero who was on a running 'campaign' spree through the United States of America has kicked up lot of public and media interest. It has grabbed lots of eyeballs and he is co-run by groups of people in different stretches. Differing interpretations are attributed to the run by the man who has managed to bring in a scholastic feel to the effort with the long beard which has grown on its own. But at one point, he just stops running for no reason. That is not true, actually he says he stopped because he was 'tired'. This jaw dropping act was embarrassing for the public and the media which were left wth their mouths and microphones open. Because, how can this be? (How)can someone deactivate a 'social movement' and walk off just like that?
In a movie which ironically walks the viewer down the key episodes of American History, this may be lost partially in the humour. But the questions surfaces in a serious form with the decision of Irom Sharmila to quit fasting and to enter political fray. Without taking the analogy to unnecessary levels, let us not lose sight of the fact that there are many who wanted Irom Sharmila not to quit what she is doing, especially those of us who are arm-chair activists who fight it proxy, those of us who don't have the nerve to involve but are happy to applaud from the distant safe sidelines. We all admired the gutsy northern woman who took on the state and central governments for the repeal of the controversial Armed Forces Special Provinces Act (AFSPA). The special provisions the Army enjoys on national security grounds have brought untold miseries to the people of the region, especially the women. That Irom Chanu Sharmila has dared the Central government with a fast that lasted 16 years has definitely shone light on certain draconian aspects of these provisions.
But the question that begs attention here is, can a person call of a strike, a movement, all on her own? Can someone hang the boots and call retirement! Iron Sharmila hasn't hung her boots though. She has switched to a new pair. She is going home and taking up politics as a tool to fight AFSPA. While it remains everybody's responsibility to fight unfair rules, why does it become the burden of a single person? There are those who do what is expected of them and those who don't, sure. But what has complicated the picture here is the rumour that Irom Sharmila's lover is behind her move to quit fasting. There are also rumours around that her family has tried to keep them apart. Can love make a evolutionary rethink her path of politics? Can love effect a rethink on modes of a social struggle? If a community fighter quits the cause and joins her lover, has she failed? Is she, even partially, betraying her cause? There is support for her new moves, but still the undercurrent of disquiet births these queries. Two banned insurgent groups have threatened to kill her if she gets married. A temple commune reportedly refused entry to her. So did a colony too. She had to get back to the hospital in the form of a patient finally, on the day of her announcement.
The woman who has been force fed baby food and fruit juices, the woman whose nose tubes symbolised the will of people against the militarisation of Manipur, struggled to taste honey while she broke her fast. She broke down in the process emotionally. Let the new chapter in Irom Sharmilla's fight be as stead fast and result driven.
Can Forrest Gump be simply released from his 'National Walk' just because he feels tired,a walk which he initiated just like that? Who knows, Irom Sharmila can emerge stronger in the new avatar. She should. But still the question would keep us thinking. It should. The pull of the heart against the thrust of the head. Is it the good old yeatsian 'stone in the midst of it all'.
Comments
Post a Comment