Columns

One must confess to being a tad amused in the wake of India’s National Security Advisor (NSA) Mr Ajit Doval proclaiming this Friday, clenched fists and all, that ‘weak governance’ had led to ‘regime change’ in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and others.

 Hardly the best way to celebrate ‘national unity’

This was while hailing the ‘governance model’ of his Prime Minister Mr Narendra Modi in a speech delivered to mark the country’s National Unity Day, the Indian media exuberantly reported. The Indian National Security Advisor may possibly have been ‘advised’ before-hand by his Government to refrain from offering gratuitously patronizing assessments of India’s neighbours.

This is hardly the best way to celebrate national unity in a way that endears itself to others in the region. Rather, such verbal excesses only results in the denting of India’s so-called regional ‘soft power’ and antagonises countries that have, with good reason, long accused their ‘big brother’ of ‘interfering’ with their internal political dynamics.

In fact, statements such as these only evoke the ready lie to claims of discarding the mantle of hegemonic big bully in South Asia which Mr Modi has been at pains to emphasise in recent years. This warning has particular importance for Sri Lanka with its current political leaders regularly salaaming New Delhi with beamingly grateful appreciation for every titbit thrown their way.

The ‘aspirational common man’

But leaving that aside, there is more to this gem of Doval-given advice that invites a suitably caustic response. Some assertions made by him are bland such as proclaiming that governance is essential for nation-building, which must be to help the ‘common man.’ Thus, it was reminded that the ‘common man’ has become more ‘aspirational’ and has higher expectations from the State.

In turn, the State too has a vested interest in keeping him satisfied’ his audience was told. There is a marked failure to observe gender neutral language in Mr Doval’s injunctions which later throw in a reference to the ‘empowerment of women’ much in the same way that one would refer to the education of some strange species.

But more to the point, what is interesting is his remarks regarding India’s model of governance. He reminded that India is exhibiting an ‘orbital shift from a certain type of governance, from a certain type of government and social structures…’ Dissecting these remarks in retrospect, it must be said that it is precisely this purported ‘orbital shift’ that has raised alarm regarding a slide in the democratic index, both within India and outside.

India’s anti-democratic trajectory

Those concerns arise regarding the anti-democratic trajectory of a nation once highly praised for the secular nature of its constitutional and governance structures. So what exactly is there to emulate regarding the Modi model of ‘governance’ that Mr Doval was waxing so ecstatic about? Note, I am specifically referring to the term ‘governance’ as it is commonly understood.

Now, if the call was to praise the Modi model of authoritarianism, there may be something to be said thereto for those who advocate the ‘strongman’ approach. But to speak adoringly of governance in the same breath as the ‘Modi model’ gives rise to the same reticence as praising the ‘Donald Trump model of governance.’

To put the matter bluntly, lawyers, activists, journalists and trade unionists critical of the Government are surveilled, harassed, intimidated and imprisoned; the repression of those voicing ‘unpopular views’ have become more pronounced in recent years. Sedition laws, (long in disuse in Sri Lanka for example), are commonly employed against dissenters.

Faltering of institutional governance

Meanwhile, violence practiced against India’s Muslim minorities has seen a marked upsurge with lynchings and mob killings routinely witnessed across the country. Government-directed internet shutdowns are also widely prevalent with the law circumvented or simply ignored. Institutional governance has also been faltering.

A notable example is the Government failing to appoint Commissioners to the nation’s once vibrant Information Commissions despite judicial interventions into the failure and judicial reprimands thereto. Transparency activists have been on the streets for the past several months demanding that the information bodies are properly activated and resourced.

A further concern has been the negative impact of India’s Personal Data Protection Act on the Right to Information Act, a model law which has been used for decades by Indian citizens to demand accountability from politicians. Certainly though, Sri Lanka, (as differentiated from India), is yet undergoing the consequences of financial collapse and the breakdown of institutional governance.

Distortions of governance in Sri Lanka

Where the distortion of the law is concerned, we have not only the obvious example of the anti-terror laws (the Public Security Ordinance and the Prevention of Terrorism Act) but also the bizarrely titled International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR Act, 2007). This law was meant to ‘negate’ a puzzling decision of a Divisional Bench of the Sri Lanka Supreme Court in the Singarasa case (2006).

The Bench had ruled that the State’s accession to the ICCPR’s First Optional Protocol allowing Lankans to present complaints on Covenant violations to a committee of international experts sitting under the Covenant’s authority, was ‘unconstitutional.’ That was on the basis that ‘judicial power’ was being exercised by the (internationally based) committee despite its recommendations having no binding force within Sri Lanka.

To address problems that arose globally following that ruling, the ICCPR Act was whisked out of thin air by the then Government. It was notable for omitting certain important ICCPR rights, particularly the right to life. That right had been recognised to a limited extent by the Court in a few inspired decisions in the 1990s as arising from Article 13(4) of the Constitution prescribing that a person can be put to death only on court order.

Enforcing the opposite of the ‘right to life’

But the imperative need to expressly recognise that right, even statutorily, was not met by the ICCPR Act. In contrast, India’s Independence Constitution freely bestowed the right to life on its citizens. That right has been vigorously used and actively recognised as well as protected by the Court.  Here however, (after many years of that law being forgotten by the State), the ‘ICCPR Act’ was increasingly used to lock up Sri Lankans exercising their right to freedom of expression.

In turn, the Sri Lankan judiciary was timorous in responding to the excesses of the State whether  during the ‘war periods’ or otherwise. A  vividly telling examination of how the Sri Lankan ‘judiciary caved into the political excesses of majoritarian rule’ is contained in the book, ‘Democracy Still Born; Lanka’s rejection of Equal Rights at Independence’ (Rajan Hoole and Kirupaimalar Hoole, Perera-Hussein Publishing, 2022).

As I said, in a review of the book some years ago, its insights offer tantalizing glimpses as to how Lanka’s present and future may have been different. Indeed, a difference may indeed have been witnessed if we had leaders of conscience, judges of conviction and citizens with passion that transcended their communities.

The Indian ‘model of governance’ is not ideal

That book gives the ‘long view;’ a reflective introspection on the long road by which a promising nation-state became a bankrupt beggar of South Asia. It does so, shorn of frills, by relating the collapse of the Rule of Law. A powerful affirmation is that by utter disregard for the right of habeas corpus, we have been left with a Kafkaesque legal system where guilt, rather than innocence is presumed.

But with all that being said about the state of governance in Sri Lanka today, it is an obvious fact that India’s democracy is far from being healthy at this point in time.In sum, is this the ‘model of strong governance’ that India’s neighbours are being urged to implement in their own countries?