Freedom and imprisonment obviously do not make much of a difference to Irom Sharmila Chanu. Nor can the supposed symbolism of her release from a prison in Imphal on International Women’s Day mean anything to her. But her 10-year-long hunger strike, intermittently broken by the authorities force-feeding her, has given a new meaning to the power of democratic dissent. The government has not conceded Sharmila’s demand for the repeal of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. She is perhaps reconciled to the fact that the act will be in force in Manipur for many more years. That she continues with her fast despite this knowledge makes her protest even more potent. The government has its own arguments for continuing with the act, but it is clearly uncomfortable with the moral strength of her protest. Sharmila has always wanted to do precisely that — make the government answerable for the excesses committed on innocent people in the anti-insurgency operations in Manipur. If that goal is even partially achieved, her campaign will have been largely successful. The way she has inspired large numbers of women in Manipur to raise human rights issues is also a measure of her success.

However, Sharmila’s protest has its lessons far beyond Manipur. Secessionist rebellions in the Northeast or in Jammu and Kashmir, and Maoist revolts in other parts of India have repeatedly pitted the State against human rights groups. For all its moral strength, Sharmila’s protest does not answer crucial questions about the State’s response to armed rebellions. Excessive use of force by the State is not only morally wrong, it is also a bad battle strategy that alienates the common people from the law-enforcing agencies. But the terror tactics of insurgent groups in Manipur and elsewhere make the debate on human rights abuses very complicated. Manipur’s armed insurgents threaten not just the Indian State but also the common people who value peace and democratic politics. Ultimately, Sharmila’s message is all about freedom from fear.