As Irom Sharmila Chanu breaks her sixteen-yearlong fast on August 9, 2016, struggle for peace in India’s Northeast seems to have turned a full circle. On the one hand, her battle against the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act 1958—the law that empowers even a noncommissioned army officer to open fire on a civilian and in the process kill her with impunity, that is to say, without ever being tried in a court of law—by all accounts made her the “iron lady” and “the Face of Manipur” to the world. On the other hand, notwithstanding her indefinite fast—widely believed to be emblematic of the “collective moral outrage” against the Act—persistent appeals made by a host of national and international human rights groups, eminent public intellectuals, and the recommendation of the respective Committees in favor of repealing it, the Act remains very much in force in parts of Jammu and Kashmir and in the Northeast even after fifty-eight years of its enactment, resulting in the death of hundreds of civilians. This article seeks to explain the implications of this paradox for peace politics in the region. Why does Sharmila have to take the otherwise painful and albeit difficult decision of breaking her fast even when there is little sign of repealing the Act? Insofar as she takes the difficult decision of breaking her fast, she realizes that her prolonged fast becomes subjected to a variety of technologies of governance: first, by calling for the complete sacrifice of her private life, second by turning her fast into a public spectacle rendering it both “unsuccessful” and necessary—significantly both at the same time—and finally by inculcating in her and in many of us the intense desire of pursuing peace through the established political institutions, particularly electoral institutions.

中文翻译：

---

和平囚徒

随着 Irom Sharmila Chanu 于 2016 年 8 月 9 日打破她长达 16 年的禁食，印度东北部的和平斗争似乎已经转了一圈。一方面，她与 1958 年《武装部队（特别权力）法》的斗争——该法律甚至授权一名士官向平民开火，并在此过程中杀死她而不受惩罚，也就是说，永远不会受到惩罚。在法庭上受审——据说使她成为世界的“铁娘子”和“曼尼普尔的面孔”。另一方面，尽管她无限期的禁食——被广泛认为是对该法案“集体道德暴行”的象征——但许多国家和国际人权组织、著名的公共知识分子和各自的建议提出了持续的呼吁。赞成废除它的委员会，即使在颁布 58 年之后，该法案在查谟和克什米尔的部分地区以及东北部仍然非常有效，导致数百名平民死亡。本文试图解释这一悖论对该地区和平政治的影响。即使几乎没有废除该法案的迹象，为什么 Sharmila 必须做出其他痛苦且困难的决定，即打破她的斋戒？就她做出开斋的艰难决定而言，她意识到她长期的禁食受到各种治理技术的影响：首先，通过要求完全牺牲她的私人生活，