Rapporteur, Satu Limaye

Back to Table of Contents

DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Given the fate of democracies in much of the rest of the world, South Asia is a success story. All of its countries are now governed by elected leaders, and a majority of the world's democratic citizens live in the region. In recent years, South Asia's two oldest democracies, India and Sri Lanka, have shown remarkable resilience by surviving <%-2>political assassinations, secessionist struggles, and violent insurgencies.<%0>

India is the world's biggest democracy and its general elections are the largest organized activity in the world. In Sri Lanka, democracy has endured despite unprecedented stresses. Early in 1994, elections were held for local councils, and in August of this year, in parliamentary elections, the Sri Lankan Freedom Party defeated the United National Party, which had held power for most of the last two decades. Presidential elections are scheduled for November 1994. Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal, after abortive earlier spells of elected government, have taken firm strides toward democracy. All three have held elections after years of military, authoritarian, or monarchical rule, and Nepal's citizens return to the polls in November 1994.

Yet the future of democracy in the region is by no means assured. Parliaments function less as deliberative bodies than as arenas for political warfare and manipulation. Political parties are mostly undisciplined and often appeal to narrow ethnic or religious interests. Judicial independence is inadequately safeguarded. All governments share a colonial legacy of overcentralized administration.

U. S. INTERESTS

With the end of the cold war, the United States has a stronger commitment and enhanced opportunity to support democratic governments and foster human rights. A world composed of democratic states would provide a secure environment for American interests and values. A region of South Asia's size under democratic rule will strengthen global support for America's ideals. Moreover, if the aspirations of the subcontinent's people are respected and met, the long-term prospects for political stability, economic and social development, and peace in the region will be bolstered. Consequently, U.S. economic, political, and security interests will be easier to pursue.

Though South Asians and Americans share aspirations toward democracy and human rights, these are sensitive areas of the U.S.—South Asian dialogue. South Asians complain that the United States acknowledges the emergence of democracy in their region only rhetorically and has scant appreciation for the difficulties and costs of maintaining and extending democracy. They argue that by two major post—cold war standards, democracy and market-oriented economic reform, their countries are moving in a direction favored by the United States and therefore deserve greater attention and concrete assistance. We believe that South Asians make a compelling case for heightened American awareness of, and support for, South Asia's democratic achievements.

DEMOCRACY

South Asians are generally neither complacent about the future of their democracies nor unaware of the many challenges they confront. So far, the region has shown that democratic politics is not dependent on high per capita GNP levels, but rather rests on cultural roots, traditions of tolerance and social equality, respect for law, and experience in operating democratic systems. The rapid economic growth that is projected for the region in the next few years may, paradoxically, pose a challenge to these already fragile democracies as new resources and forces enter the political arena.

Meeting the People's Demands

The election of democratic governments in South Asia has gone hand in hand with raised expectations by citizens of the region for a better life. Indeed, a key feature of the transition to democracy among India's and Sri Lanka's neighbors is that the pressure for change has come from the populace. Hence, a failure by elected governments to deliver the economic and social benefits sought by their citizens could undermine faith in democracy in South Asia.

Some South Asians express skepticism about democracy's ability to improve social and economic conditions, but they indicate a willingness to give democracy a chance. The alternatives, they note, have already proved incapable of improving living conditions. In Nepal, for example, we heard that the new, democratically elected government is not producing any better results than the old royal regime, and that corruption is widespread and growing. Nevertheless, Nepalis told us that popular reaction is not yet strong enough to bring about a push for more effective and responsive government, that expectations for politicians are low, and that most people's lives, if they have not improved, have not deteriorated much either. Similar attitudes prevail elsewhere in South Asia. <%4>Although such views do not represent a ringing faith in democracy, they do challenge elected governments to prove their effectiveness by meeting popular expectations.

Ethnic, Religious, and Subnational Conflicts

Ethnic and religious conflicts pose the most serious threats to democracy in South Asia today. In addition to creating law-and-order problems, increased human rights violations, and a heavy reliance on security forces, such conflicts divert the attention and resources of governments from urgent social and economic needs, undermining their ability to satisfy the demands of their electorates. This in turn aggravates public frustration and political instability.

India is trying to quell conflicts in Kashmir, Punjab, and the northeast of the country, and law and order are not secure in several large rural areas. The Indian government spends an estimated $9 million per day to maintain nearly half a million security forces in Kashmir alone. While these conflicts are unlikely to lead to the col<%-2>lapse of India's resilient democratic system, they place awesome burdens on the government's pursuit of the social and economic development that is vital for the long-term consolidation of democracy.

Sri Lanka's democracy remains overshadowed by the Tamil-Sinhalese conflict and the possible revival of Sinhalese militancy. These conflicts have stymied the government's economic reform efforts and polarized political debate. While Sri Lanka has weathered these ethnic conflicts largely within a democratic framework, there is no guarantee that it will be able to do so in the future.

In Pakistan, the conflict in Sindh province between ethnic Sindhis and those residents who migrated from India following partition has, according to many Pakistanis, made the province, especially its capital, Karachi, virtually ungovernable. Other ethnic tensions in Pakistan are latent, but could erupt. Such actual and potential conflicts distract the government in Islamabad and absorb resources needed for social and economic development.

Sectarianism and Religious Conservatism

Given the deep religious cleavages in South Asian societies, intolerance by the dominant religious group could well undermine the protection of minority rights essential to the maintenance of democracy. Moreover, elements that pursue a narrow, often conservative religious agenda could prevent the emergence of the strong, accommodating civil society upon which democracy ultimately rests.

In India, Hindu nationalists believe the country should remain a democracy but with a religious focus. Opponents express concern that Hindu nationalism could, by undermining secularism, erode democracy. Indians are uncertain about the future of Hindu nationalism, and there is some evidence that its impact is already subsiding, but they agree that it has exacerbated already delicate communal relations in the country.

Conservative religious elements appear to be the most powerful in Pakistan. Though Islamic parties did not fare well in recent national elections, religious conservatives persist in challenging personal and civil liberties, and exert a powerful influence in areas such as law and education. For example, discriminatory provisions in some of Pakistan's laws contribute to tensions among religious groups. Some Pakistanis see these elements as a challenge to the humane and tolerant Islam of the founding fathers of the state, who accepted internal diversity, provided strong protection for minority religious rights, and were open to an enhanced role for women.

Religious conservatism in Bangladesh, while less acute than in Pakistan, is evident in attacks on women's groups, prominent nongovernmental organizations such as the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee and the Grameen Bank, and intellectuals. Religious fundamentalists have called for the murder of a prominent Bangladeshi writer, Taslima Nasrin, for alleged blasphemy against Islam. In Sri Lanka, religious chauvinism, intensified by the corrosive effects of years of civil war, is powerful and erodes the tolerance that is vital for maintaining the country's democracy.

The Weakness and Malfeasance of Governing Institutions

In all five countries political and governing institutions are weak, especially where the institutions themselves are new. Political parties in South Asia tend to lack organization, discipline, and vigor. Even more troubling, they appear increasingly to appeal to narrow sectarian, ethnic, or religious interests, thus sharpening polarization in already deeply divided societies.

Parliaments in South Asia pay inadequate attention to legislative duties and are too often arenas for squabbling, and even violence. We often heard complaints that parliamentarians are more concerned with making money during their terms of office than with making good decisions for the country. A Bangladeshi described parliamentary politics in his country as "an all or nothing game among irreconcilable elites."

Parliaments also lack independent institutional capacity for research and analysis to support policy debates and decisions. On a positive note, nongovernmental organizations such as the Society for Constitutional and Parliamentary Exercise (SCOPE) in Nepal have begun to help build parliamentary capabilities and provide legislators with information on the workings of legislative bodies in other parts of the world.

The judicial systems are inefficient, cumbersome and, some argue, lack independence. In India the courts are so overburdened that persons accused of crimes often languish in prisons for six years and more awaiting trial. The Indian government's tendency to delay appointment of judges to permanent posts, its ability to reassign judges, and the high turnover rate on the Supreme Court of India all contribute to the sense that the courts lack independence. The Indian bench and bar are open and vocal about the shortcomings of the system and are advocating improvement.

In Pakistan the administration of justice is shared by civil and Islamic courts. As a result of a series of constitutional and statutory provisions enacted over the last two decades, Islamic law and the Islamic "Sharia" Court have gained increasing influence, frequently to the detriment of ethnic and religious minorities and women. A positive sign of judicial independence ocurred during Pakistan's recent transition to democracy when the country's Supreme Court moved to curb presidential power to dismiss elected governments.

Decentralization

The colonial legacy in the subcontinent has contributed to a tradition of centralized government. Supporters of greater decentralization argue that it gives people experience of democracy and problem-solving at the grass-roots level, precisely where intolerance may be most intense, hierarchy most venerated, and discrimination strongest. At the same time, concerns remain that decentralization could lead to a breakup of existing states, given the depth of religious, ethnic, and linguistic schisms.

In India we heard complaints that the rhetoric about increasing the power of states and localities has far exceeded its implementation. Particularly under the rule of the late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the central government increasingly intervened in state politics by invoking the right to declare president's rule. A widely welcomed move toward enhanced local rule has been the passage of legislation to strengthen panchayats, or village councils.

Sri Lanka's ethnic conflicts shape debate about decentralization and effective reorganization of the country. Following the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord in 1987, Colombo agreed to devolve greater powers to provincial councils, conceding Tamil separatists' demands for greater self-rule. Most provincial councils have been elected, but power-sharing agreements have yet to be fully worked out. A promised referendum on the Tamil demand for the merger of the northern and eastern provinces has been repeatedly delayed because of Sinhalese resistance to subjecting the Sinhalese minority in the northeast to Tamil rule.

Role of the Military

A welcome aspect of South Asia's democratization has been the supportive role played in recent years by the military establishments. Many Bangladeshis credit the military for ensuring free elections in 1991 and welcome its new role in international peacekeeping and national disaster relief because it generates financial support and contributes to economic development. However, Bangladesh's military continues to hover in the background of national politics, and prolonged political instability could lead it back to power.

Despite the Pakistani military's extensive involvement in the country's post-independence politics, it appears willing, for now, to support democracy. Many Pakistanis claim that its neutrality and assistance were crucial to ensuring free and relatively peaceful voting in the 1993 national elections. Pakistan's military remains the single most powerful institution in the country. If elected governments fail to address fundamental economic, social, and security problems, the military could again take on governing duties. As in Bangladesh, Pakistan's military intelligence agencies reportedly exercise an important influence in national politics.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Institutional and legal bases for the protection of human rights are relatively strong in South Asia. Systematic or widespread human rights abuses are rare, though violations of many kinds often occur. South Asians ask Americans and others to distinguish between their countries, where the concept of human rights is accepted and legally protected even if violations persist, and those countries in which the very concept of human rights is not accepted.

South Asian nongovernmental organizations have been playing an increasingly active role in human rights issues, primarily through educational activities and the investigation and reporting of abuses. These organizations face considerable obstacles from suspicious governments, but have nonetheless made impressive strides in fostering an awareness of human rights conditions in their respective countries.

South Asians do not deny that their countries have human rights problems, but they do reject certain American perceptions about and policies toward these problems. For example, Americans are viewed as excessively preoccupied with civil and political rights as against the basic human rights more immediately relevant to the underdeveloped countries of the region, such as the rights to adequate nutrition and shelter. South Asians also strongly oppose U.S. attempts to link human rights with other issues in bilateral relations, such as trade and the provision of development assistance. Suspicions that other linkages exist run deep. In India, American criticism of the country's human rights record was described as an "intellectual's method of pressurizing India into conceding something in relation to either Kashmir or nuclear nonproliferation." American human rights pressure in such areas as labor standards, including child labor, is often perceived as a form of neoprotectionism designed to deny underdeveloped countries the benefits of comparative advantage based on lower labor costs. We do not believe these perceptions are correct, but they are widely held.

The dissonance and imbalance in the U.S.—South Asian dialogue on human rights is stark. It is also inappropriate and unhelpful when democracies are trying to work together on an issue of common concern. Americans need to listen, not preach, to South Asians. South Asia offers important lessons, both positive and negative, about the management of complex societies.

Human Rights Abuses and Civil Conflict

Violations of human rights in India and the neighboring countries tend to be highest in areas and periods of acute civil and ethnic conflict. Most human rights violations are committed by the police and paramilitary forces, not the regular armed forces. Separatist and terrorist groups too have engaged in violations.

In India, human rights abuses have taken place in Kashmir, Punjab, and the northeast territories, areas where the government is seeking to suppress secessionist movements. The Border Security Force (BSF), not the Indian army, has been blamed for the majority of human rights violations in the context of these ethnic conflicts. In one case, the Indian army reported human rights violations by the BSF. Relative peace in the Indian Punjab has reduced a major source of concern about human rights violations in India.

The ethnic conflict in Sindh province is the main source of human rights violations in Pakistan. Arbitrary detention and arrest, torture, and other abuses reportedly continue in the region, though some decline in extrajudicial killings was reported during 1993. Paramilitary security forces, the army, and private death squads operating in the province have all committed violations.

Human rights violations in Sri Lanka also stem largely from the country's ethnic and civil conflicts. Just a few years ago, the Colombo government was fighting two civil wars; one in the north against Tamil militants and a second in the south against Sinhalese militants. While the Tamil conflict continues, the suppression of the Sinhalese insurgency has led to a notable improvement in the human rights situation. For example, disappearances have declined from 2,000 to about 80 per year. While this figure is still alarmingly high, progress is being made.

Political Rights

The abuse of political rights has declined considerably with the spread of democracy in South Asia. All the countries today have moved toward greater freedom of expression, the press, and organization. Still, given the rough-and-tumble character of the region's politics, violations of political rights do occur. Police abuses are also a problem, particularly in rural areas, but as with violations of political rights, they do not appear to be systematic. Rather, they stem from poverty, illiteracy, and local disputes. Efforts are being made to investigate and punish such abuses more stringently.

Women's Rights

Throughout South Asia women are subject to discrimination. By any standard–educational level, employment, or legal protection–women are subordinate to men. The lack of access to education for women in South Asia, apart from being discriminatory, has negative effects on population planning and social development. In addition to educational and social discrimination, South Asian women are sometimes victims of practices such as bride burning and female infanticide. The use of prenatal diagnostic tests to abort female fetuses has apparently contributed to sharply lower female:male sex ratios in a number of areas.

At the same time, some South Asian women have long enjoyed opportunities not readily available to women in many other societies. Urban middle-class and upper-middle-class women gained at least limited access to professions such as law and medicine well before many of their Western counterparts. Women have been active in politics and government for decades, as is reflected in the fact that four of the five South Asian countries we visited have had women as heads of government, three of them more than once.

These very limited advantages have been critical in efforts to improve the status of women in South Asia. Educated women have taken the lead in forming local and national NGOs that are addressing a variety of women's issues and raising awareness in the broader society of the need for action. Organizations such as the Self Employed Women's Association (SEWA) in India's Gujarat State, which created new employment opportunities for women, became a model for similar efforts around the world. The political influence of women has been instrumental in bringing about legal and policy changes such as legislation in India to prohibit the use of prenatal diagnostic tests for sex determination.

Government Responses to Human Rights Violations

Governments in South Asia have moved to address human rights concerns, albeit slowly and partially. India has established a Human Rights Commission. Its members indicated to us that they will have the power to investigate abuses of all kinds and that a priority will be to expand cooperative activities with Indian human rights NGOs. India has also allowed a team from the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit Kashmir and invited Amnesty International to meetings in New Delhi. Investigations of and actions against human rights violations by the army and other security personnel have been stepped up, although human rights groups point out that the response has been insufficient. Greater emphasis will be placed on human rights training for security and police personnel.

Sri Lanka, which has been heavily criticized by international human rights organizations, has nevertheless sought to maintain ties to these groups, and allows the International Committee of the Red Cross to operate from Colombo. But strong sensitivities remain among Sinhalese to certain human rights nongovernmental organizations because of a perceived favoritism to Tamil militants. Other Sri Lankans point out that many Sinhalese became more receptive to human rights organizations during the southern insurgency in which thousands of Sinhalese youths were killed by paramilitary forces. Overall, while the number of human rights violations in South Asia remains high, these developments suggest that violations are being acknowledged and addressed more frequently.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To support democracy and human rights in South Asia, the United States should:

• Highlight South Asia's achievements in strengthening democracy and human rights. In this context, the United States should recognize the uniqueness of South Asia's experiment in managing complex, multi-ethnic societies and be willing to learn from the region and even to adapt some of its ideas to the American context.
• Address concerns about human rights in South Asia primarily in the context of multilateral dialogues sponsored by the United Nations and other organizations. The United States should enjoin the countries of the region to abide by their international commitments concerning human rights, while continuing to express concern directly when major abridgements of human rights occur.
• Offer to help improve the existing institutions that have shown themselves most willing to address demonstrated human rights violations. In this regard, the U.S. government should be willing to help strengthen the judicial systems, while American foundations should be encouraged to support indigenous nongovernmental organizations dedicated to the protection of human rights through democratic processes.
• Urge South Asian governments to allow representatives of international and U.S. human rights organizations to conduct independent investigations in cooperation with local groups. Excessive constraints on international access to South Asian countries only heightens suspicions about the human rights situation.
• Establish exchanges between American and South Asian legislators. Members of the U.S. Congress have already voiced support for such an initiative. Parliamentary exchanges could help broaden mutual perspectives on the importance and nature of legislative work in the respective countries and provide a useful forum for sharing views on a number of bilateral, regional, and international issues.