People always talk about the western media being self-centred and ignorant of global issues, and I think this story makes the point particularly well. This article is from the 9th August last year, and was tucked away on the BBC News website under a niche section called 'Asian News'. It details the story of an Indian woman, Irom Sharmila, who has been protesting against security laws in Indian by undertaking a hunger strike for sixteen years.
Yes, you read that right. 16 years.
People in western countries undertaking short-term hunger strikes are reported on, with news institutes sympathising for the protesters and providing support towards their causes. I hadn't even heard about the Indian security laws until I came across this article, never mind this dedicated woman. The movement she had been so passionately protesting was the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives Indian soldiers authority to arrest people without a warrant, and even shoot to kill in some circumstances.
Not only did her protest go unnoticed by a proportion of the western population until recently, the Indian laws prevented her actions from gaining national traction by holding Sharmila under a law that makes attempting suicide a crime. Instead of listening to her protest, authorities made the decision to keep her in custody in a hospital, being force-fed in an attempt to keep her alive. She was released from custody in 2014, but re-arrested two days later when she refused to end her hunger strike. In August of last year, after sixteen years of no action being taken, she decided to break her fast by tasting honey (symbolic in India, as in history it has been given to a baby once being born, thus by making honey her first taste of food she symbolised being 'born again'). The only reason she broke her fast, the article says, is so that she is lawfully allowed to take part in local elections and protests in order to make her point a different way, in the hopes that her voice will this time be heard.
The way the Indian authorities have treated Sharmila is, in my opinion, barbaric, and reminiscent of the forceful treatment of the suffragettes in the early 20th century. Instead of being given the recognition that she needed to gain traction in society from the start, news reporters only began to show interest and report on her protest in 2014, 14 years after the beginning of her fast. It reflects poorly on the governing institutions in Asia, as well as representing women of colour as powerful individuals.
I chose this story as it ties in well with many other people's reports on the Woman's March in Washington this weekend, where many women showed their power and distain for the presidency and government by protesting in the masses (it is estimated that over 500,000 people turned up). Although both Sharmila and the Woman's March aimed to get their views heard by the authorities, the difference between their campaigns are drastic - Sharmila used peaceful, non-invasive methods of protest, while in Washington, although the Woman's March used peaceful techniques of using banners and chants to get their points across, the day before, isolated groups of activists opposing Trump used violent methods of protest, including setting fire to cars and demolishing storefronts. In my opinion, although peaceful protests often do not gain the same amount of media attention as violent techniques, protesters are far more likely to be taken seriously if they act rationally and in unity, rather than taking violent actions not unlike the techniques the police and government use that they are so ferociously protesting.
