SOUTH ASIA AMIDST A NEW WORLD ORDER
Promoting Connectivity, Democratization,
Social Inclusion
and
Emerging Political Situation - Looking towards
2030
DR GEETA MADHAVAN
paper presented at 10th COSATT ( Consortium of South Asian Think Tanks)
at Kathmandu , March 2018
The process of democratization denotes the substantive
changes that are made for the transition from an existing regime wherein all or
certain rights are denied, to the securing of the basic rights previously
abrogated or withheld. The most obvious features of authoritarian or semi
authoritarian regimes are not only restricted liberty, lack of acceptable and
recognized opposition and a completely or partially controlled media but also a
defunct or partisan judiciary. In such situations
there can hardly be any institution or governmental agency that ensures or
upholds a citizen’s liberties or rights. Generally, the scope and authority of
anauthoritarian regime whether it be a government based on martial law or on
dictatorial dogmas, is vested in a single individual or the chosen elite. These
rulers are those who may be voted to power by suffrage who subsequently usurp
complete power or those who have wrested power in a coup or uprising. A
totalitarian or semi totalitarian state glorifies itself via propaganda and
retains power by crushing out any dissent.
The
etymology of “democracy” is associated with the Greek terms demos (people) and kratos
(rule) and therefore in its fundamental conception deals with the inclusion of
people in the ruling process. Inclusion in a democracy cannot occur without
systematic development of principles of discourse. Dissenting groups have to be accommodated
through negotiations and mutual talks. There is a need to allow spacefor
constructive criticisms and sometimes even protests in the form of public gatherings,
mass processions and civil protests. These demonstrations by sections of society
either directly affected or consisting of those who support securing of rights,
create the forum for curtailing the
arbitrariness of the rulers, thereby ensuring not only citizens’ rights to
hold, express and create an opinion but also protect the minority or the
marginalized sections of that society. Strategies by an opposition that highlight the wrong policies of the
government , that create a momentum that makes the authorities responsible for
actions which may adversely affect the people are necessary to create a robust
democracy. Socio cultural,religious, educational rights andthe right to dignity
of life, which tend to get side lined, can only survive if there is social
inclusion in the process of democratization.
In
the Indian context, the fundamental principle of inclusion is underlined in the
doctrine of local governance. Article 40 of the Indian
Constitution provides for establishment of Gram Panchayats at the village
level. In 1957 based on the recommendation of the Balwantrai Mehta Committee
three-tier Panchayat Bodies were installed all over India. The three-tier
pyramidal structures of Panchayati Raj institutions in India include Gram
Panchayats at village level, Blocks and Zilla Parishads at the Block and
district level respectively. By the 73rd Constitutional Amendmentof 1993 their
structure, composition and autonomy was further strengthened. The designated Scheduled Castes, Schedule Tribes under the
Constitution of India and Women have been given adequate representation in Panchayati Raj
institutions at all levels, thereby structuring
democracy at the rural level on the principle of inclusion. Social
inclusion was the vision of India’s founding fathers which they enshrined in
the Constitution giving it greater sanctity by preserving it for all times as
part of the inviolable Preamble. However, it is an undeniable fact that in
recent times under a more apathetic government, the fundamental elements and fringe
groups haveindulged in violence andthe rising intolerance for minority rights
is cause for great alarm. In the past
years especially there has been heightened violence towards marginalized and
vulnerable section of society and towards religious and ethnic minorities.
Another emerging
alarming trend is that apropos to “development”, there
is the organized and consistent abrogation of the rights of tribal rights
people who have been living in forest and mountainous areas which have been
designated as protected areas. Along with the destruction offlora, fauna and natural
resources in such areas ;their livelihood and security have been threatened. Similarly,
largely agriculture lands that have been the backbone of rural economy of India
are sought to be appropriated to be sold
or leased to multinational and corporate entities by the government leading to
large scale protests.Focusing on India’s economic architecture in the name of
“economic reforms” has led to constant assault on basic human rights. The intense discussions that have risen
in the public space and in the media along with citizen’s protests is because of a deepening disconnection between the agenda of democracy on the one
hand and that of development on the other . The two ideas seem to be pulling in
different directions.The intertwined nature of the democracy and development agenda has been
consistently ignored even while it is hoped that somehow the fruits of
development would seep downwards. This cannot occur without any concrete and
institutional changes being made in this regard. Without social inclusion,
large sections of society that were supposed to be uplifted or were supposed to
benefit from such development programs and experience prosperity have been
completely left out. Therefore, people are engaged in democratic struggles for
livelihood, water, city space, education in both urban and rural areas but
their protest movements are seen by the Indian state as disrupitonist and
undemocratic. Notwithstanding the impassive attitude of the government to these
protests, analysts regard these social uprisings as a consequence of the
failure of the inclusion policy and regard it as limited success of India’s
democracy. There is a new and changed response in the form of resistance to the
state and its sponsored “development” programs but the opposition to government
policy is not tolerated by the Indian state and is denounced as anti-national.
Thus, the state’s coercive might is employed against its own citizens which isa
complete violation of the fundamental understanding of democracy.The policy of
privatization and globalization has nothing to offer to the very poor and the
marginalized sections as there has been no inclusion of these sections in the
process of economic development and is emphasized as a severe limitation of the
experience of Indian democracy.
Although democracy does not automatically lead
to development of a state, there are greater chances of economic development under
it .With social inclusion, developments can be sustained in a democratic climate
because democracies tend to be more resilient compared tothe swift changes in
authoritarian regimes. In any democratic situation the changes come through
suffrage or judicial declarations striking down undemocratic policies. Therefore,
stability with inclusion and space for dissent promotes growth along with other
social factors like literacy, education and health index.Good
governance is defined by the Asian Development Bank as the manner in which
power is exercised in managing a country's social and economic resources
towards development.
The
emerging trends in South Asia has caused
global consternation especially
in the context of China’s regional posturing as a political power spurred on by its global economic ambitions. However,
I do not see the rise of China as a hegemonic power in South Asia as an eventuality ; any space China creates for itself in South Asia will be consistently
and subtly negated by the well concealed regional ambitions of Russia. Europe
and the US have still not seen the rise of Russia or its policies for South
Asia as a threat but if more regional countries shy away from China, learning
from the disastrous Sri Lankan experience, the influence of China in the region
will quickly be replaced by the Russians. Not only the huge but wasteful and
almost unused infrastructures at the Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka but the
building of the port facilities in Colombo along with other Chinese infrastructure
investments has damaged Sri Lanka’s
economic policies . Harsh voices criticizing the moves are rising both within
and outside the SriLankan establishment. The Hambantota port fiasco has led to financial problems in
Sri Lanka due to the high interest rate of loan given by Chinese, leading to
assets transfer to China.
It would be pertinent for other states in the
South Asia region, especially Pakistan who leans towards huge Chinese
investments for building infrastructure to face
the reality that globalization has to be conjoined with state sovereignty. Sovereignty
is the sacrosanct doctrine of the nation entity and maintaining political and economic
autonomy gains supremacy over foreign investments that threaten these principles.In
this context, China’s attempt to promote regional development by its One Belt
One Road(OBOR), now redesigned as Belt Road Initiative (BRI) to make it look less hegemonic and less threatening initiative has also become suspect.
Nepal cancelled the Budhi Gandaki Hydro Electric Dam Project in November 2017 on
the grounds that it was “marred by irregularities”. The project had been
contracted to a Chinese company, Gezhouba Group. Nepal’s decision follows the
cancellation by Myanmar of the $ 3.6 billion Myitsone dam which had been contracted
with China by the former Myanmar President Thein. Myanmar has also terminated the refinery contract
to China after financing issues arose. Meanwhile, Thailand High-speed railway
was cancelled in 2016 for not subcontracting sufficient work to Thai companies.
These actions have far reaching consequences in the region. Pakistan,however,
with its intense desire for upmanship with regional states like Bangladesh, Nepal
and Bhutan and its bitter relationship with India deludes itself that China is
the route to its economic growth and stability.
The period starting 2020 and continuing into a
decade or two could well be the period of the decline of China’s influence in
the region and downward trend of regional dependence on China. As China’s
intentions and ambition are being viewed as excessive economic imperialism with
political repercussions,the inclination towards Russia will become more pronounced.
Russia has also clear plans to increase its influence in the region in various spheres.
Russia is turning clearly towards India and ASEAN countries for regional economic
and strategic ties ; and in the future Russia and India will be seen
working together to promote political
stability and economic development in the region. India could be also be a
model of democracy for the countries in Central Asia balancing the powers in
the region skillfully. Close ties between Russia and India will also counter
the possibility of fruition of Chinese maritime ambitions. With the US developing
a broader Indo-Pacific approach to maritime policy, China’s emergence as a naval
power will also be severely curtailed. The shift of the axial incline away from
China can only benefit all the countries in the South Asian region and lead to
greater regional cooperation. The shift will also resonate in the economic and
trade ties of South Asian countries with Europe. This would undoubtedly usher an
era of more significant and definitive ties based on trust and mutual benefits
among the countries of South Asia.
