Criminalization of Hunger Strikes

Hunger strikes are one of the most popular peaceful forms of protest. It is an ultimate act of suffrage and manifestation of the desperate state of the people protesting. 

Early records of the tactic can be traced to India, occurring between 400 and 750 BC, and were highly popular during the independent struggle of several nations. It is often associated with the Sathyagraha movement pioneered by Gandhi.

Over the years there have been several instances in India where persons engaging in hunger strikes have been arrested and branded as criminals. It has been the practice in India to charge persons going on hunger strikes under Section 309 – attempt to suicide of the Indian Penal Code. The maximum punishment for such offence is a one year imprisonment, during such time the person is force fed through a tube and when released, if they refuse to eat thereafter they are again picked up and placed in judicial custody.

One of the leading examples of this draconian practice is the recent re-arrest of Irom Sharmila of Manipur, India. She has been on a hunger strike for over the last 12 years demanding the repeal of the repressive Armed Forces Special Powers Act, AFSPA and the human rights abuses carried out there under.

In 2000 the authorities in Manipur arrested her; since then, she's been force-fed through a tube in her nose. Since then she has been released and rearrested several times. In 2006, Sharmila attended a protest in the India capital, New Delhi. Police there took her from the venue to hospital, and registered a case of attempted suicide against her.

Force feeding, judicial custody and arrests are common oppressive measures the state resorts to while trying to douse such attempts by individuals or groups.

The question to be analyzed is whether the state has the right to force feed hunger strikers? If yes, can will that right not suffice should they be imprisoned and charged with criminal provisions?

Force feeding is done by administering a feeding tube through the nasal passage to ensure that the person protesting continues to receive nutrition. The state does so under its right and obligation to protect life. However, there have been objections to this practice as it is regarded as a form of torture as well. For instance Article 5 of the 1975 World Medical Association Tokyo Declaration states that force feeding hunger strikers is never justified as the recipients almost always are capable of unimpaired and rational judgment to refuse treatment. This arguably also constitutes a human rights violation.

The sociological and psychological angle to this debate also lies with the very criminalization of an attempt to suicide, in cases not involving hunger strikes. Persons who attempt to take their lives are often in a disturbed and vulnerable mental state. They thus require care, attention and rehabilitation. By branding them as criminals, the state is only further worsening their condition. The pitiable condition of Indian prisons is no great secret. Clearly the prison system is not equipped to help these persons. The very criminalization of attempt to suicide is thus an inhuman and draconian provision, not in line with present day human rights obligations.

The Government of India has not made a sincere effort to address this issue. The Law Commission of India recommended the repeal of this section as early as 1971 and, once again, called for decriminalising the attempt to suicide in its 210th report in 2008. On September 21, 2011 the Central Government informed the Delhi High Court that it was seriously contemplating decriminalizing an attempt to commit suicide. However, since, no efforts have been made in this direction.  

India along with Pakistan and Bangladesh are the only South Asian countries still clinging on to this irrational and outdated provision of law, which serves no good other than to be used as a weapon to silence and further harass the victims. Section 325 of Pakistan Penal Code and Section 309 of Bangladesh Penal Code states that whoever attempts suicide and does any act towards the commission of such an offence shall be punished with a simple imprisonment which may extend up to one year and/or fine.


The provision also provides an easy exit for the state authorities, who instead of addressing the issue for which the hunger strike is being carried out simply busy themselves with filing out criminal charges against these human rights defenders.  

While most of the focus of the discussions surrounding Irom Sharmila has been on the issues relating to AFSPA and a demand to repeal it, here is an opportunity to examine the angle of criminalization of hunger strikes as a method used by the State to silence Human Rights Defenders.