``Was the hunger strike worth it?'' That is the opening sentence in the introduction to Gaol History, a document used to familiarise all POWs with the history of the H Blocks. It chronicles the struggle and sacrifices that were necessary to achieve the conditions we now enjoy and which allow us a quality of life suited to long-term political prisoners.

Taken out of context it is a contentious and provocative question. It suggests that someone dares question the worth of the sacrifice of those who died on hunger strike. The question could be asked of any aspect of our struggle and the answer as outlined in our Gaol History would be the same: ``One must understand not only what the hunger strike was about but why hundreds of republican POWs were willing to endure five years of absolute deprivation. At base our protest was about the fundamental issue of the illegitimacy of British rule in Ireland''.

The epitome of our active struggle is expressed in the hunger strike and the deaths of our comrades. The trauma of their deaths marked us all but we were also marked with a determination to struggle on in different forms to achieve what they died for. There was no sense of defeatism after October 3 1981. In terms of the internal prison struggle the deaths were proof of our determination to win what was rightfully ours but the fact remained that apart from the right to wear our own clothes we had not won our demands. Having used what appeared to be our ultimate weapon we still faced the question of how to achieve conditions that reflected our status as political prisoners.

In the years which followed we faced many challenges.

It is mistakenly believed that in the years following the hunger strike that we slipped into a quiet period where our demands were all eventually conceded without a struggle. Nothing could be further from the truth.

For a while after 1981 we existed in a vacuum. The physical and emotional scars of the years of abuse, deprivation and deaths had indeed left their mark. There were some who felt that we had achieved all we ever would. Some refused to consider anything other than remaining on indefinite protest, our numbers dwindling, a living testament to the refusal of republicans to be treated as criminals. There were those who realised that we needed to break out of our isolation, that our struggle inside was not over, in some ways it was only beginning. All of these elements were to form the basis of forceful debates in the H Blocks where the former blanket prisoners were held.

These debates were intense. Men agonised over what to do. Would moving into the system be tantamount to admitting that our years of protest had been in vain? What of our dead comrades and their families? Were we abandoning them or had we a responsibility to ensure that what they had suffered for was achieved by whatever means possible?

A nervousness permeated the discussions. Was refusing to do prison work a principle or was it a tactic? Who decided if it was one or the other? We were comrades who had experienced and endured almost unexplainable physical and emotions strengths and weaknesses, ``and in our nakedness we discovered enormous depths of resistance and forged unbreakable bonds of comradeship''. Each of us struggled with the arguments, but never suggested that a comrade with a contrary view may be denying everything we endured together. Change requires courage and we had not survived by being weak. We trusted each other. Once we began to accept the need for change we could begin to rationalise the arguments.

Had pure emotion been allowed to govern these debates then it is probable that effective republican resistance in the H Blocks would have petered out in a relatively short time. We would have fractured our unity and extinguished the spirit of resistance which our enemies had failed to do over the years.

The situation demanded leadership. It forced us to expand our strategy and tactics. We needed to focus on where we wanted to go and on how we were going to get there. The debates had to be brought to a conclusion. Decisions had to be taken. The diversity of views and feelings made none of this easy.

Five solid years of unparalleled prison struggle, culminating in deaths stretching agonisingly over a period of eight months had failed to win for us, in prison terms, anything other than our own clothes. We were expected to live in conditions created for criminals. We were censored, politically and culturally and subjected to arbitrary punishment. We were denied political recognition and the right to organise ourselves. We were expected to reject everything we believed in. But we had proved our determination to resist this from behind locked doors in tiny nine foot by seven foot concrete cells during the blanket and hunger strikes. Those cells had become our centres of learning. It was now time to apply that learning and meet the system head on.

We were set to move into uncharted territory and to shape an environment where we could begin to set about achieving our objectives. The crucial and pivotal element in this move had to be cohesion and being able to accommodate the diversity of views and opinions that existed was in itself a major undertaking. The willingness of the POWs to follow the leadership which was given ensured that our enemy was met with a unified, determined and strengthened body of resistance.

The escape of September 1983 was our response to what we had endured in the previous years. It was our response to the notion that republican resistance had been smashed into submission. The very system which had sought to subjugate us had been pulled inside out. The impact of this operation on our wider struggle was highly potent. The response within the H Blocks from the system was swift and brutal and heralded another set of circumstances which would again require a reappraisal of our strategy and tactics.

Over the course of the ensuing years new situations continually required new approaches. Today 22 years after the H Blocks were opened as the breaker's yard for republicans and 17 years after the hunger strike republican POWs are fully recognised as political prisoners. We have negotiated, argued, debated, and fought for every improvement and for every facilitity we now have. We have engaged with British ministers and with political representatives from Ireland, Britain, Europe and America. We can demonstrate that we have achieved more than we set out to achieve when the first blanket prisoners were beaten into a H Block cell in 1976. We do not and cannot allow any room for complacency always guarding against any attempts to destroy what we have won.

Throughout, what has never been in question or up for debate were our objectives and our duty as republican prisoners. Our commitment was and is to the ending of British rule in Ireland and to the ending of partition. Our primary objective is for the establishment of a 32 county democratic, socialist republic.

We did not travel this road alone or without periods of concern and uncertainty. Our families, comrades, and friends have given us the support we needed in time of crisis.

The events of recent years and those of recent weeks have their similarities between where the POWs found themselves in1981 and where we as republicans find ourselves in1998. Our struggle is far from over. We have advanced our struggle. We have taken wider views of our strategy and tactics.We all know where we want to go. We need to decide on how we get there but most importantly we must go there together.

On Saturday October 3 1981 the POWs issued a lengthy statement summarising the background to the hunger strikes of 1980 and 1981. We outlined in detail the reasons for ending the hunger strike. We concluded by stating, ``lastly, we reaffirm our commitment to the achievement of the five demands by whatever means we believe necessary and expedient. We rule nothing out. Under no circumstances are we going to devalue the memory of our dead comrades by submitting ourselves to a dehumanising and degrading regime''.

Was the hunger strike worth it? Yes. Is this struggle worth it? Yes. Is this struggle over? NO!! Beirigi Bua.

Remembering the hunger-strikers

The Annual Bobby Sands Memorial Lecture was delivered by Eoghan MacCormaic, who was in the H-Blocks during the blanket protest and the hunger strikes. As republicans once again face difficult decisions, Mac Cormaic said ``people are feeling the same frustration, the same anguish, the same questioning now as they did at the end of the hunger strikes.''

``The conflict in the H-Blocks came to a head with first hunger strike in October 1980. It lasted 53 days, ending on December 18th 1980 with a 30 page document, said to contain a resolution to the protests. Whether it contained the seeds of a resolution or not, it wasn't in the detail. What was lacking, was the political will. By January 1981, that became obvious. Republicans needed to move the process on. Working with the best strategy and intelligence we had, we decided to do things that wouldn't have been countenanced a month earlier. To wash, to go through the motions of being part of the sytem. The buzzword - flexibility.

``At the end of the second hunger-strike we were deluged with propaganda and documents. And I put my hand up, I also pored over the documents, line by line. We were dazzled by the fine print. Trying to work out how we could put political status into the document. But that was the wrong thing to do. You can't fit what you want into the words that someone else has given you. We focused on what we wanted. We wanted POW's out. We wanted political status. We had to swallow a couple of pills that weren't exactly the sweetest in the short-term. We went into the mixed wings and won segregation, we went into the workshops and brought the system to a standstill. Most of all we kept our eye on the ball and although it took time to achieved our objectives, achieve them we did. In the aftermath of the hunger strike nothing was accepted as final.

``Everything offered was tested against our own agenda. We took advantage of the rules, subverting them, turning them in on the system. We challenged the denial of rights and we took advantage of every opportunity. We educated, we agitated and we prepared. People are worried about the Good Friday document, and ask if it's enough. Of course it isn't, it isn't a republican document. It does not offer a solution. People ask how we can square it with our republican principles. We can't. But like the document on offer during the prison protests, we shouldn't try to square our principles with this document. We should look at the document as something that moves the process on and take advantage of that. We must keep our eye on the goal, not the detail of the document.''

``I am proud to be a subversive, we are all subversives. It is our duty. We are the agents of change and we want an end to British rule in our country. We will come to the document on that basis,'' said Sinn Fein President, Gerry Adams in remembering Bobby Sands and the 10 hunger strikers who died in 1981, the women of Armagh and the 50 people who died on the streets that summer. He was addressing thousands of people in Dunville Park on 3 May.

Of the Good Friday document, the Sinn Fein President said there was nothing to fear, and that while republicanism was undefeated unionism was divided. He said, ``Trimble will now have to business with us, not on his terms but on our terms. We will meet him on the basis of equality. We are prepared to reach out the hand of friendship to help manage change.''

Bik McFarlane, O/C of the Blocks during the second hunger-strike, told the crowd, ``the deaths of those men was the cornerstone for wider political development.'' Quoting Bobby Sands, he said, ``If they are not able to break the will of the Irish people, the desire for freedom. They will not win.''

Six-County Saoirse Chairperson, Martin Meehan said: ``Like a wave coming in, we cannot be stopped.'' He called on everyone to play their part in the mass mobilisations across the Six Counties in the coming months.