India’s Human Rights Challenge

In many parts of its rural hinterland, India’s democracy faces a major challenge. Over the past few decades, in many of the poorest and most isolated districts in the country an armed Maoist movement known as the Naxalites has battled the Indian government in the name of some of India’s poorest and most exploited citizens.

In parts of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh there are multiple threats to Indian democracy – extreme poverty, political disempowerment, unfair and exploitative economic relationships, lack of health care and education, sexual exploitation, lack of recognition of local rights to land and resources, and others.

In addition to these causes for Naxalite sympathy, support, and success in these areas, the actual violence of the conflict between Naxalites and the Indian state affects locals in many negative ways – killings, rapes, kidnappings, torture, hostage-takings, property stolen or destroyed, livelihoods ruined, villages displaced, families split in a state of near civil war. More recently, growing interest in these resource-rich lands by the Indian government and the private sector have led to an escalation in the conflict and to the further disempowerment of poor locals.

The Indian government’s response to these injustices and the resulting violence has been inadequate and unsuccessful. One tactic used, especially vigorously in the state of Chhattisgarh, has been to attack and silence non-violent human rights activists who speak out about the violence perpetrated by state governments and private militias against innocent citizens – overwhelmingly poor adivasis (indigenous people).

The highest profile case has been with Dr. Binayak Sen – a noted human rights activist and a pediatrician working with many of the states’ poorest families. Chhattisgarh’s High Court recently upheld his shocking life sentence for sedition and treason despite a lack of evidence that he conspired with Naxalites to commit violent acts. The state’s draconian and undemocratic laws put in place to fight the Naxalites, the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act of 2005 (CSPSA), and similar to laws in Kashmir and the Northeast used to fight separatists make this type of persecution possible.

Less well-known individuals also have been accused of aiding the Naxalites and thrown in jail, including activist Kartam Joga, cinematographer TG Ajay, and Kolkata businessman Piyush Guha. Other human rights defenders and organizations have been forced to flee Chhattisgarh due to threats and harassment by police and district authorities. The Indian Supreme Court has been the one official body that has dared to intervene, releasing Dr. Sen for lack of evidence once already, hearing a petition against the Chhattisgarh government submitted by Kartam Joga and two other activists, and reprimanding the Chhattisgarh government for its failure to rein in anti-Maoist militias who have been accused of extensive human rights abuses.

As these cases wind their way through the courts, attract international concern, and spark protest and outrage in India, one should be concerned for India’s future. Perhaps fueling the fire, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in 2007:

Left-wing extremism is probably (the) biggest security challenge to the Indian state. It continues to be so and we cannot rest in peace until we have eliminated this virus….We need to cripple the hold of Naxalite forces with all the means at our command.

In reality, the Naxalite threat to the Indian state, though widespread and growing as well as disruptive, remains far from toppling state governments, let alone the central government – its goal by 2050. At the risk of disagreeing with Dr. Singh, the bigger threat, as I see it, is how the Indian government responds to the Naxalites – not so different from the dilemma facing the United States in its war on terrorism.

Naxalites pose localized threats, and the murders, kidnappings, and other violent acts they commit must be condemned. However, they do not threaten Indian democracy as a whole. At least not yet. However, if the government – at the local, state and national level – responds clumsily, disproportionately, or unwisely to the threat, these blunders could do far more to harm the legitimacy of and faith in the government and the democratic system as a whole. Jailing non-violent activists attempting to improve the lives of people stuck in these conflict zones sends the wrong message and runs counter to the government’s own interests in these areas.

For now, the use of laws like the CSPSA is an exception to the rule (which is certainly not to say that India’s justice system is otherwise without problems). In much of India there is a healthy respect for human rights and the rule of law and an independent and respected judiciary. Or at least those ideas are given lip service.

And in other parts of the country,  the political system – for all its faults – is far more responsive to and representative of its citizens than those in the feudal backwaters where the Naxalites thrive. The silencing of human right defenders is fortunately rare, but Chhattisgarh foreshadows a darker and more authoritarian India struggling to overcome serious threats to its national integrity while promoting reliable security and economic development for its people.

The Dilemmas of Democracy: Responding to Tainted Elections

After following Asian elections for the past year, I have noticed an emerging pattern that we are likely to see more of in the coming years around the world. Elections in Iran,  Afghanistan, and Sri Lanka have presented the international community with a thorny dilemma.

On the one hand, these elections were held under less-than-ideal circumstances. They were marred by inexcusable corruption, violence, vote rigging, and the silencing of opposition voices in the media and on the streets.

On the other hand, they also represent a process and an outcome that the international community and those living in these countries appear to have largely accepted and agreed with. While elections were not as free and fair as most would have liked or expected, they were elections that – for all their flaws – appear to have granted victory to the candidate who the most people voted for.

Yes, Ahmendinijhad in Iran, Karzai in Afghanistan, and Rajapaksa in Sri Lanka are all pretty unsympathetic figures and definitely played dirty to win the presidency in their respective countries. Yet there seems little doubt that they all won far more votes than their challengers – even given the doubts about the legitimacy of many of those votes. Even in Iran, Ahmendinijhad’s support has been widespread and not limited to rural areas.

So, what do we make of such elections? Foreign critics and the domestic opposition have good reason, as well as the right, to complain about the flaws and undemocratic tactics used by the winners to secure power. Their concerns after elections should certainly be heeded and investigated. Winning an election should not give the victor absolute power or the right to repress and persecute critics and minorities.

Yet, in the absence of evidence that an election was clearly stolen, the elected government – however odious – should also be respected and acknowledged as the legitimate voice of the people of that country. America’s strategic interests will surely color how the US government and public see such leaders (Ahmedinijhad = bad, a threat, Karzai = corrupt but tolerable, a needed partner, Rajapaksa = who cares?), but there should always be an awareness that elections often are contested, dirty things even the most robust democracies (in the US too – Florida 2000 anyone?).

The precarious balancing of these two realities will, I suspect, become essential as more countries embrace elections without being interested or even understanding the civil and human rights that many developed countries have traditionally expected to naturally go along with democracy. While the outcome of elections in places like the US, Canada, Europe, Japan, India (along with others) are not generally called into question, elections in many parts of the developing world are not as clear cut.

As citizens and as part of the international community how will we respond to such elections? How do such elections potentially change our relations with certain countries? Will the US government recognize such elections? How should we engage with corrupt leaders with no respect for the rule of law or human rights who have also won have seemingly won elections? How do we balance the importance of the process of having a free and fair election with the actual freedoms on the ground if one does not necessarily imply the other?

To deny the legitimacy of an seemingly fair election seems condescending and ignores the voices of millions of people who may legitimately disagree with us. To accept their legitimacy seems to deny the very real flaws of such a system and the hardships faced by its challengers. Such complex and obfuscated elections in many parts of the developing world who are beginning to experiment with democracy will undoubtedly complicate US (and other countries’) foreign policy in years to come.

Upcoming elections in places like Burma, Tajikistan, the Philippines, Sudan, Iraq, Egypt, Ukraine, and another in Sri Lanka, will test how the international community responds to potentially complicated and fraudulent elections. Democracy is far from robust in many of these countries, but it is still largely democratic compared to many neighboring countries. To challenge the legitimacy of these elections may risk indirectly leading to a collapse of any hope for future votes.

Of course, each election must be evaluated and responded to on its own terms, and it is important to consider democracy an ideal to strive towards, not a simple definition that invites a conclusive yes or no answer. Democracy is not black and white – there are many shades of gray. Elections serve a purpose, but are always flawed and complicated. Get used to it.