Talk:Irom Chanu Sharmila
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Irom Chanu Sharmila article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content, or contact us if the issue is urgent.|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include Paid contribution disclosure, Conflict of interest, Autobiography, and Neutral point of view.|
Apart from a vandal who came and went. She has formed the political party PRAJA http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-afspa-is-a-political-issue-not-human-rights-will-fight-it-politically-irom-sharmila-2265569 google is your friend. If anyone wants to update the page feel free or not.
Request edit 21 March 2016 The date of the rearrest now accepted by wiki is 28 March 2016. Not sure how that has been verified since today is only the 21 March 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Request edit on 21 October 2015
Paragraph 2 in the section The Fast and its Responses contains an unverifiable untruth "However, Amnesty International and the World Medical Association both dispute that a hunger strike is equivalent to suicide as hunger strikers "generally hope and intend to survive" That statement can be found nowhere in the Malta Declaration of the WHA which is provided as a reference for this made up statement. What the the WHA actually states is "Genuine and prolonged fasting risks death or permanent damage for hunger strikers and can create a conflict of values for physicians. Hunger strikers usually do not wish to die but some may be prepared to do so to achieve their aims." Amensty International India is alone in its belief that Hunger Strikers will stop from fasting if they are not force fed on the grounds as they say they generally hope and intend to survive. Can someone look at this and correct the statement,
I appreciate you won't go in the reasons for hte importance of this false statement and reference. But my understanding is that you people take encyclopaedias seriously and you have provided a quotation without verification falsely attributing the WHA Malta Declaration as backing for Amnesty International India's unique position. My name is Desmond Coutinho 2 Abbey Court, Portumna, Co Galway, Eire I am Sharmia's fiance and I have been given sole authority via a signed power of attorney form to speak on her behalf. That's who I am if you check the quotation you will see that it is unverifiable.
If you attribute it solely to Amnesty International India and provide a better summary of the WHA position that would better in terms of your enyclopaedia.
Thank you. I hope no one is going to get offended and demand I be barred from making comments coz I find that tiresome. No one is updating her story but I am told if I do offer anything you aren't a newspaper so i no longer bother.18.104.22.168 (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I looked at the this. The sentence being where it was violated WP:SYN so I deleted it. Here is the sentence, if anyone wants to discuss:
Second request to edit in paragraph 3 of the fast and its responses you claim that under Indian Law anyone charged with IPC 309 "attempts to commit suicide ... shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year [or with fine, or with both] <redact> If anyone has an interest in updating please do so. I actually understand the case better than anyone else feel free to ask me what is going on or not. <redact> Desmond Coutinho22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not completely sure what your point is here. I removed the bit of content identifying the law, is it was just just tacked on by someone and cited only the Indian code - there was no source saying this is the section of the code under which she was arrested or tried. As to the rest of what you write, if you want to propose changes to the content, with sources, please do so. I have redacted the part of your post that is just venting about her case or about Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll give it a go here but in the past even if i post stuff here somebody tries to get me barred. http://e-pao.net/GP.asp?src=12..230216.feb16 This is the statement from the new Magistrate dealing with Sharmila's trial based on an arrest on 23 January 2015 This is a link to sectioin 436 CrPC which he quotes from adding 40 days to a putative maximum sentence. http://indiankanoon.org/doc/770661/
It doesn't make any sense. She has never been given bail. But I have sent two letters to the Metropolitan Magistrate in Delhi using my power of attorney form to dismiss vakalatnama of the HRLN lawyers defending her there and requesting the Magistrate take action against the illegal detention now of Irom Sharmila and obstruction of the course of justice by the Police there. http://www.india.com/news/india/irom-sharmila-unlikely-to-appear-before-delhi-court-903570/ Above is the Police statement asking again for another suitable date from the Metropolitan Magistrate but at that time they had no legal right to hold Sharmila.
This is the section that deals with IPC 309 for which the FIR was made on 23 January 2015 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1501595/
This is the full judgement of the District & Sessions Court of 19th August 2015. https://humanrightsmanipur.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/judgement-and-order-releasing-irom-chanu-sharmila/ If you read the full judgement or seek advice from any lawyer not involved in this case you will see that he does not make any ruling regarding the illegality of rearrest. The simplest way of explaining it is that he allows the motion to dismiss on the grounds that the police provided absolutely no evidence at all. The Manipur Government then appealed the decision to the High Court of Manipur which stayed the ruling of the District & Sessions court. However it being a third world country I can't find a press report about that by simple searches. I did find the following report that the Government was intending to appeal to the High Court but the actual press report about the High Court's staying of the original verdict has been removed from archives. The press is controlled in Manipur by the police. http://ifp.co.in/page/items/22755/state-to-challenge-sharmilas-release-order-source It's more complicated than this but your report is not accurate. It leads people to believe that the courts have repeatedly ruled that Sharmila cannot be charged with IPC 309 which would mean an end to force feeding and her death. Or as it is sometimes put she is given her democratic right to protest.
This is a link to a twenty minute video diary by Irom Sharmila which quite plainly states she has never campaigned for the repeal of IPC 309. She seeks only the repeal of the AFSPA and she condemns those groups which have tried to shift her campaign away from the AFSPA to the repeal of IPC 309 http://www.minoritiesofindia.org/15-year-hunger-striker-irom-sharmila-repeal-indias-afspa-or-i-die-of-starvation/
This is difficult. I am not a lawyer. I am her only friend and if the truth matters let a lawyer read the above and try to make sense of it. For the past fifteen years Sharmila has been detained for one year stretches you can read the justification for that in the District & Sessions Court Judgement. There have been successful appeals to the Indian Judiciary in her case removing for example one of the isolation orders for about a year but it has come back. The legal case has become very twisted. If you don't understand it then leave the comments here. In the past everything I write about the legal case has been removed by experts here might even have been you. You may or may not be surprised that since trying to find out actual legal judgements in a third world country where it's now effectively a police state run by police death squads most lazy scribes merely repeat what you say here and it is misleading.
The police should not be able to detain someone indefinitely because the low level magistrates are too afraid to say no to them. All they had to do was to release her and rearrest and it would become difficult to prove they had done anything wrong. So I am saying if you read the above you will see that they have moved on now. There are reasons for the haste. There are reasons for the attempt to cover up. But you have not understood that there are now still two or three trials concurrent and if the police had released and rearrested her we would be up to four trials concurrent. And that fact has been glossed over by this article.
I can provide a full account of how the first isolation order was removed in 2013 and how it is has been restored via the back door. But if you keep offering to accept evidence and then delete it I'll leave it to those who understand how to use google and are prepared to make the effort to find out for themselves. Oh yeah wiki's wonderful and you are cool you can delete that but leave the actual references to the trial maybe archive them in case they get deleted thanks Desmond Coutinho 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- it is not clear what changes you would like to see made in the article. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- What your article says for now is:
- "In March 2013 she was put on trial again for attempted suicide. The prosecution's case was closed in June 2015 and Sharmila was scheduled to testify in August 2015"
- I am not going to give you any more references because Google is your friend. But I suggest that the above is below the standard of an encylclopedia given that it contracts a very complex set of trials and detentions without trial into two sentence non-sequiturs. It's your encyclopedia you ban me if I try to post anything and sometimes you try to ban me from posting anything even on talk. But you asked so assuming goodwill I answer.
- The March 2013 is in reference to the arrest referred to earlier in that section "On 6 October, she was re-arrested by the Delhi police for attempting suicide..."
|tldr, no sourcing|
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
In India when an officer makes an arrest he files an FIR or first information report which he has to present before a magistrate within 24 hours. The Magistrate then determines whether there are grounds for an arrest if so the arrestee can be detained for up to 14 days (in Indian English every fifteenth day so 15 days but in US and English English we usually say fortnightly) on either police or judicial remand. Most of India's detainees in prison are on this kind of pretrial detention. I know this is complicated and if you have little or no legal training you may get bored. But this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. So if it's too difficult leave it for someone else please don't delete.
They detained Sharmila at two Delhi hospitals for around six months. And then in September 2012 this FIR came to trial ie a Charge Sheet was framed by the Police agreed to by the Court Prosecutor and then the trial in Delhi officially starts. Without giving you too many details this is the trial you refer to by the nonsequitur "In March 2013 she was put on trial again for attempted suicide."
Again would imply that she had been put on trial before. But that is not true. In Imphal what the police were doing were making FIRs annually. But they never followed through with an actual Charge Sheet so no trial actually began. A trial under Indian Law begins when the Charge Sheet is filed before a Judge or Magistrate which includes the FIR but also has prosecution witnesses and all the documents and things used as Evidence (Exhibit etc A if you watch TV law dramas)
What they did in Imphal and continued until the trial started in Delhi at the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate was hold her for 365 days and then release her then file another FIR a day or so later. It is complicated but you haven't understood it.
So from September 2012 till present there has been a trial in Delhi at the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate based on the FIR of 6 October 2006. And from time to time other trials began and were stopped in Imphal.
This is for background information I am not supplying google references because you find it too difficult to follow. The first set of trials began around May 2013 in Imphal led by a new lawyer who turned up Mr Khaidem Mani he is cited in the references above as appealing to the High Court in Imphal. His policy was to have the trials dimissed on the grounds that a political hunger strike is not an attempt to commit suicide, he cited double jeopardy and various Supreme court directives. He took the argument to the judicial magistrate first class Imphal East who refused to allow the motion to dismiss. He then appealed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Imphal East who also stated that there were grounds for trial. Finally he took the case to the District & Sessions Court which in August ruled that he wasn't going to look at the legal arguments because in the charge sheet filed by the police no evidence had been supplied. He did rule out double jeopardy though. Then you weren't the only people to become confused. The Government of Manipur appealed to the High Court because they wished to rearrest Sharmila and were not sure if the District & Sessions Court Judgement actually prevented that. The High Court of Manipur stayed the verdict of the District & Sessions Court and awaits deliberations of counsels prosecution and defence.
Sharmila was then rearrested in August when I turned up in Imphal and using my power of attorney form met with Sharmila weekly till Xmas 2013 fighting the Defence Counsel's strategy because unconditional release would end force feeding and Sharmila would be allowed to die within 20 days (also in the opinion of the District & Sessions Court Judge) and I did not want her to die. I was beaten up by the SP of the Jail while presenting my last court order to meet with Sharmila, but I was actually arrested for being beaten up by Police sponsored mobs though when and where is still disputed. That trial never took place either but I was detained for 77 days concurrently with Sharmila.
The Judicial Magistrate 1 Class released Sharmila on 22 January 2015 in response to the motion to dismiss again on the grounds that the Police hadn't brought any evidence to bear in their charge sheet of the latest arrest.
The final case if I am boring you please don't delete has gone through four presiding magistrates. First the CJM Imphal West because the arrest took place in a different area of Imphal from before. She was promoted after the prosecution rested. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Imphal East took over the case and didn't know what to do with it so he passed it to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Imphal East. She declined to allow Sharmila to depose evidence and assisted the police in driving away the 16 witnesses who had agreed to stand in her defence. Finally a new magistrate promoted from another area of Manipur took over the case and on 24 February claimed he could reach a judgement after briefly hearing summation from prosecution and defence. She has for this FIR served 402 days of a putative maximum 365 days. The Magistrate had no right to detain her and he hasn't worked out like the Magistrate in Delhi has that while hte trial can continue indefinitely the detention is limited to 365 days for this charge. Clearly the current trial is a mistrial. The only real legal option for the magistrate is to declare a mistrial and offer the prosecution a chance to refile. In any event she cannot be detained any longer and will be released on 1 March. She will be arrested again probably that day possibly on a new charge.
The Magistrate in Delhi has issued a fresh summons for the trial begun in September 2012 these dates are 29th and 30th March 2016.
This is a very brief summary of the legal proceedings. If you read what have in your encylcopedia you will see there is not the slightest resemblance between what you say and hte facts as I have described them. I appreciate you are not a newspaper. But based on what you have written in what sense are you an encylopedia. I am deliberately not mentioning Sharmila's support for arrest of the police death squads one of whom confessed in open court that are run by the CM and retired Chief of police because that story is really surreal.
moving this here for now per the note above. apparently not accurate, so better to say nothing til it is straightened out.
- In March 2013 she was put on trial again for attempted suicide. The prosecution's case was closed in June 2015 and Sharmila was scheduled to testify in August 2015. In November 2013 she gave an interview to NDTV in which she discussed tensions with her organisation, the Just Peace Foundation, in which she claimed that members had made honour killing death threats against her due to her relationship with Desmond Coutinho, a British citizen, and complained that the foundation was preventing her from giving prize money she had been awarded to people or causes she wanted to help. The foundation replied that her imprisonment had made communications difficult, and that NDTV was trying to rouse hatred between Sharmila and the organisation.
- Jytdog (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC) I figure if it's truthful and verifiable I can't be the only person on line who knows how to google. One more correction for now the article claims at the end of the Fast and Responses section penultimate sentence "She has only met her mother once since the start of the fast as seeing her mother's anguish may break her resolve." She has met her mother at least three or four times that I know of and which were reported after her imprisonment. There are photos of her mother walking beside her on release available on line and on the penultimate occasion her mother gave her a long speech on why she must never abandon her fast not that Sharmila needed the speech. It may be a minor point but your version is not true and easily checked. I presume it comes from a statement she made to Mx Mehrothra who wrote her first English Biography in the previous decade and these visits occurred in this decade. That phrase is then repeated although circumstances have changed. Thank you for responding. If anybody is interested in sorting out the mess good for them. Desmond Coutinho 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)