Irom Sharmila, force feeding and women’s suffrage

This week saw the appearance in a Delhi court of Irom Sharmila, from Manipur in North Eastern India. ‘The Iron Lady of Manipur’, as she is known locally, started her fast in November 2000 in response to the killing of a group of civilians by paramilitary forces. She is demanding the repeal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) that effectively gives immunity to soldiers if they are acting against insurgents in ‘disturbed’ parts of India. She has refused to eat, drink or even clean her teeth in water in protest. In court, she was charged with trying to commit suicide under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. She is defended by lawyers from the Human Rights Law Network and argued that she wasn’t trying to commit suicide (still a crime in India) but was on hunger strike as a protest. The case has been adjourned until May 22. The wheels of justice move slowly in India – her case already having taken 7 years to come to a court since her arrest on Delhi in 2006.

Her case has several resonances. The first, and obvious one, is echoes of the force feeding of suffragettes here in the UK in their campaign for voting rights. I still remember seeing a TV drama about the suffragettes when I was younger, showing graphically their force feeding in prison with crude equipment and large tubes. This was not only painful and unpleasant but dangerous, particularly if the inserted tube was misplaced into the trachea, pushing food into the lungs rather than the oesophagus and stomach. The notorious Cat and Mouse Act 1913 allowed hunger strikers to be released to regain their health, only then to be re-arrested and put back into prison

Going on hunger strike was also a tactic used during the Indian Independence Movement, most notably by Gandhi, who fortunately lived long enough to see an independent India.

The World Medical Association updated its guidance on force feeding in 1991 (Declaration of Malta), which states unequivocally that force feeding prisoners who give an informed and voluntary refusal to eat is unjustifiable. According to the Declaration, even if it is intended to benefit, feeding accompanies by threats, coercion, force or use of physical restraints is a form of inhuman and degrading treatment.

This is the guidance followed in the UK today, and was the policy which led to the death of Bobby Sands and nine other Irish Republican paramilitary prisoners in 1981 all on hunger strike – to much public protest at the time.

In other cases in the UK, however, such as anorexia sufferers, force feeding has been justified. The justifications have either been that the person (if adult and over 18) lacks ‘capacity’ – so treatment is carried out in the person’s ‘best interests’ (held to be that of keeping them alive rather than letting them die). Otherwise, if under 18, even if that person is judged to have capacity and able to make their own decisions (such as an adolescent), the court will often intervene and say they need to be force-fed, by (reasonable) force if necessary, to keep them alive in their own best interests – at least until they are 18 when they can refuse any treatment as a competent adult. The Mental Health Act might also be used if a person is ‘sectioned’ under it. Ian Brady, the ‘Moors Murderer’ in the UK, for example, has been on hunger strike in prison since 1999. He has been forcibly fed through a tube to keep him alive since then, which is permitted as he is sectioned under the Mental Health Act so can be compulsorily treated – whether lacking capacity or not (although I believe he has also been judged to ‘lack capacity’).

In the US, the situation is slightly different and force feeding of prisoners on hunger strike has been allowed. There has also been much publicity and criticism around the force feeding of detainees in Guantanamo Bay which has been condemned by hundreds of doctors in other countries.

The other aspect to Irom Sharmila’s case is the charge of attempting suicide as a criminal offence. This has not been a crime in the UK since 1961 – relatively recently you might argue – but long enough for it, to my mind, to seem absurd to categorise it as a crime. It seems to me that, if someone really does try to commit suicide, the appropriate response is one of sympathy and treatment as they must be in despair to want to do this – not charge them with a crime.

On this International Women’s Day, I am remembering all those women here and worldwide who have campaigned for, and continue to campaign for, women’s rights. Every time I vote, I remember the suffragettes and their suffering which made it possible. I hope that Irom Sharmila gets the peace and resolution that she wants and deserves.