Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! CounterPunch is entirely supported by our readers. Your donations pay for our small staff, tiny office, writers, designers, techies, bandwidth and servers. We don’t owe anything to advertisers, foundations, one-percenters or political parties. You are our only safety net. Please make a tax-deductible donation today.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Power of the Hunger Strike

by BINOY KAMPMARK

The hunger strike has a long political pedigree.  It combines sensationalism with moral anger, but it also minimizes harm to others who are not directly involved in the conflict.  “Collateral damage”, the military argot’s most vicious euphemism, is avoided – at least in principle.  Instead, harm comes to the person initiating the strike.  Privations are made public.  The demise is gradual.  There is no spectacular image of a man set on fire, or the instantaneous moment of bomb blast.  The hunger strike enables a narrative to be fashioned by the protester.

That said any political weapon has its limits.  Measuring the success of the hunger strike is no different.  Illusion can be as convincing as fact.  Legends are easily born – and a legend, claimed the habitually acerbic H. L. Mencken, is often a lie that has merely attained the dignity of age.

On Sunday, some 1700 Kurdish militants and supporters ended a 68-day hunger strike in an assortment of Turkish jails, urged on by their leader Abdullah Ocalan of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).  This occurred amidst of flurry of talks and discussions that have been taking place between Turkish MIT intelligence officials and PKK representatives.  Even Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan mooted the possibility that further talks were possible (Daily Times, Nov 19).

Fears by Turkish officials that Kurdish inmates might expire were genuine enough, despite sarcastic remarks by Erdogan that MPs from the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) were “in serious need of dieting” (The Economist, Nov 17).  In the words of Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc, “I hope we will not face such protests from now on.  Turkey is democratic country.”

It remains to be seen how successful the strikes will be. Some of the demands were modest enough: more teaching of Kurdish in schools and institutions being foremost amongst them.  Erdogan, mindful of that fact, has kept an eye on improving Kurdish cultural and language rights.  Others were more problematic – an end to Ocalan’s isolation on Imrali island south of Istanbul (read “better prison conditions”), and greater access to legal representation.  Speculation is now rife – will this pave the way to ending the decades-old conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 40,000 people?

Herein, we see the first legends taking hold.  Lies and variegated half-truths have been spun.  Was Ocalan shunning the lawyers to begin with, given a desire to move to house arrest?  Or did the Turkish government wish, via the lawyers, to send messages hoping to break the nexus between Ocalan and his fighters?

On May 8, 1932, Mahatma Gandhi gave the world an example about the hunger strike as a political weapon.  For 21 days, he would protest through self-privation in his cell in Yerovda Jail near Bombay, his target being the British authorities in India.  He did it, so he claimed, for those he called the Children of God – the Harijan or “untouchables”.  Figures such as the acutely insightful Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar had their doubts – was he really genuine about such protest, or merely making a spectacle of self-righteous purity within an immutable caste system?  By default, Gandhi was defending entrenched traditionalism, captured most strikingly by the archaic cult of the spinning wheel.  He would do the same thing India was partitioned, a protest against sectarian violence.  The more optimistic, rosy-tinted accounts suggest that it was a technique that worked.

Such a display was certainly powerful.  The hunger strike would be employed with an almost global sensationalism with the IRA prisoners who British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher refused to acknowledge – at least as Prisoners of War. They were merely a species of common criminal – albeit a bit higher up the food chain of crime. Ten IRA members, with Bobby Sands being the most conspicuous, paid with their lives in their common pursuit for recognition in the summer months of 1981.

Those sympathetic with the IRA saw the employment of this form of protest as the high water mark of IRA-British confrontation.  Sands was intent on making a lasting impression. “Everyone, Republican or otherwise has their own particular part to play. No part is too great or too small, no one is too old or too young to do something.”  Last year, the release of secret government papers suggested that the British were far from being in any position in terms of negotiating a “deal” with the prisoners.  There was to be no “hunger strike deal” (Belfast Telegraph, Dec 31, 2011).

Other accounts show a different story. The Thatcher cabinet was “wobbled” by the actions of the hunger strikers, flustered by the use of starvation diets rather than armed weapons.  Compulsory feeding was proposed to prevent further deaths.  A “secret” cabinet paper release by the National Archives in Kew last year notes an “informal discussion” at the end of a cabinet meeting on July 2, 1981 (The Guardian, Dec 30, 2011).  “Many people now believed that a settlement of the complex problems of the area should be more easily reached by the Irish on their own and that continued British involvement could only mean the futile sacrifice of further British lives.”

The election of Sands as an MP was deemed transformative.  Other approaches were needed.  Thatcher herself summed up by concluding that further thought needed “to be given to all possible courses of action in regard to Northern Island, however difficult or unpalatable.”  If the Iron Lady can be swayed and wobbled by hunger strikes, those who advocate such weapons might well be on to something, whatever legends they might produce.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

Weekend Edition
September 30, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Charles R. Larson
Queen Lear? Deborah Levy’s “Hot Milk”
September 29, 2016
Robert Fisk
The Butcher of Qana: Shimon Peres Was No Peacemaker
James Rose
Politics in the Echo Chamber: How Trump Becomes President
Russell Mokhiber
The Corporate Vice Grip on the Presidential Debates
Daniel Kato
Rethinking the Race over Race: What Clinton Should do Now About ‘Super-Predators’
Peter Certo
Clinton’s Awkward Stumbles on Trade
Fran Shor
Demonizing the Green Party Vote
Rev. William Alberts
Trump’s Road Rage to the White House
Luke O'Brien
Because We Couldn’t Have Sanders, You’ll Get Trump
Michael J. Sainato
How the Payday Loan Industry is Obstructing Reform
Robert Fantina
You Can’t Have War Without Racism
Gregory Barrett
Bad Theater at the United Nations (Starring Kerry, Power, and Obama
James A Haught
The Long, Long Journey to Female Equality
Thomas Knapp
US Military Aid: Thai-ed to Torture
Jack Smith
Must They be Enemies? Russia, Putin and the US
Gilbert Mercier
Clinton vs Trump: Lesser of Two Evils or the Devil You Know
Tom H. Hastings
Manifesting the Worst Old Norms
George Ella Lyon
This Just in From Rancho Politico
September 28, 2016
Eric Draitser
Stop Trump! Stop Clinton!! Stop the Madness (and Let Me Get Off)!
Ted Rall
The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
Robert Fisk
Cliché and Banality at the Debates: Trump and Clinton on the Middle East
Patrick Cockburn
Cracks in the Kingdom: Saudi Arabia Rocked by Financial Strains
Lowell Flanders
Donald Trump, Islamophobia and Immigrants
Shane Burley
Defining the Alt Right and the New American Fascism
Jan Oberg
Ukraine as the Border of NATO Expansion
Ramzy Baroud
Ban Ki-Moon’s Legacy in Palestine: Failure in Words and Deeds
Gareth Porter
How We Could End the Permanent War State
Sam Husseini
Debate Night’s Biggest Lie Was Told by Lester Holt
Laura Carlsen
Ayotzinapa’s Message to the World: Organize!
Binoy Kampmark
The Triumph of Momentum: Re-Electing Jeremy Corbyn
David Macaray
When the Saints Go Marching In
Seth Oelbaum
All Black Lives Will Never Matter for Clinton and Trump
Adam Parsons
Standing in Solidarity for a Humanity Without Borders
Cesar Chelala
The Trump Bubble
September 27, 2016
Louisa Willcox
The Tribal Fight for Nature: From the Grizzly to the Black Snake of the Dakota Pipeline
Paul Street
The Roots are in the System: Charlotte and Beyond
Jeffrey St. Clair
Idiot Winds at Hofstra: Notes on the Not-So-Great Debate
Mark Harris
Clinton, Trump, and the Death of Idealism
Mike Whitney
Putin Ups the Ante: Ceasefire Sabotage Triggers Major Offensive in Aleppo
Anthony DiMaggio
The Debates as Democratic Façade: Voter “Rationality” in American Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Punishing the Punished: the Torments of Chelsea Manning
Paul Buhle
Why “Snowden” is Important (or How Kafka Foresaw the Juggernaut State)
Jack Rasmus
Hillary’s Ghosts
Brian Cloughley
Billions Down the Afghan Drain
Lawrence Davidson
True Believers and the U.S. Election
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]