SAARC-ing democracy

The biggest challenge is the constraints on democracy in varying degrees in Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and the Maldives which along with Sri Lanka and Bhutan comprise the SAARC. Whatever name the nations may give to their polity, it is deficient in freedom and restricts people's say. The system is authoritarian in tone and tenor and caters to fundamentalism or other lesser instincts of man to justify itself.

It is not that one was not aware of such distortions, but the half-yearly bureau meeting of South Asian Human Rights (SAHR) at Delhi a few days ago brought home the truth once again. The bureau members from different countries made no secret of the fear and the sense of insecurity in which they lived. They admitted that their government was all time lessening space for people and imposing ever-new draconian measures to suppress freedom.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

In SAHR they have a forum transcending borders and religions to voice their grievances collectively and help one another to get back their dignity and liberty. The organisation is roughly five years old. Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen talks about it in glowing terms in his latest book, The Argumentative India. He says, "these citizens' meetings, whenever organised, tend to attract extensive participation. Just as India and Pakistan seemed to be heading for a violent military confrontation."

At the two-day meeting of SAHR last week, one could feel the participants' intensity of pain as they told their tale of woes. It was the same story in every country -- the story of nexus between anti-social elements and the rulers, between the corrupt and political bosses.

Still all eyes were fixed on India which they considered an oasis in the desert of their blighted hopes. A Pakistani delegate said: "Good relations with India may bring us back democracy." India's open society, despite the welter of confusion and conflict in which its people lived, made them believe that they could also one day move away from the military or the monarch-guided democracy to real democracy. What was heartening about their anguish was the note of optimism in their observations.

The delegate from Bangladesh, who initiated the discussion, singled out two developments for the deterioration of the situation in her country. One, she said, was the rise of terrorism and religious extremism and, two, the incidence of extra-judicial killings. This was over and above the traditional political intolerance, repression on the opposition and politicisation of government servants within the overall environment of widespread corruption.

The Pakistan delegate felt that the governance by Musharraf would become rather difficult since people felt that the army failed to provide aid to the quake victims when it was needed most. Musharraf was giving more and more space to the mullahs to retain his uniform. The delegate said that people enjoyed no freedom and lately even the press was under pressure. The delegation from Nepal quoted extensively from the report of the office of the High Commission for Human Rights. The country had been experiencing "a grave human rights crisis" for a long time. There were extra-judicial executions, indiscriminate shooting or bombing leading to the deaths of civilians, threats to members of the local population accused of providing the Maoists with food or shelter and the use of civilians under duress as informers, thereby placing them at risk of facing reprisals by the Maoists.

"Arbitrary arrest and detention, closely linked to cases of disappearance, were among the most common violations," said the three-member delegation. The king was seen a problem, not a solution. New Delhi was accused of playing a double game, giving military assistance to Kathmandu on the one hand and offering assurances to political parties for democratic structure on the other. The delegation conceded that

the political parties in Nepal had yet to iron out their differences.

Sri Lanka's representative said that the demise of democracy in his country was taking place because extremist elements among the Buddhist monks were joining politics. It was conceded that the distance between the Sinhalese and the Tamils had not been spanned, although both increasingly felt that they had to live together. India could do a lot and "put pressure on Tamils" said the Sri Lankan delegation while underlining the "indifference of New Delhi. If ever there was any settlement, it would have to be

through India."

The Indian delegation admitted that the problem of fundamentalism, terrorism and political opportunism beleaguered them as much as it tormented other countries in the region. It had a free society but it was becoming increasingly lawless because of power politics. The economic growth of 8.1 per cent had not licked poverty, although a new legislation for full employment assured half of rural India 150 days of job in a year.

Discussions at the SAHR bureau conclave did not throw up any collective idea to check the violation of rule of law or human rights in South Asia. Nor was there any confidence that democracy could be restored in all the countries in the region. Yet, there was a resolve to deepen democracy in South Asia, SAHR's priority till the end of November 2006 when its general body meets at New Delhi.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.