COUNTER INSURGENCY ACTIVITIES AND HUMANITARIAN LAWS IN CRISIS: Understanding the experience of ULFA and Human Rights violation

Counter Insurgency Activities and Humanitarian Laws in crisis:

Understanding the experience of ULFA and Human Rights violation

Merrychaya Patiri, Research Scholar, Deptt. Of Political Science, Gauhati University and

            Pankaj Bora, Assistant Professor, Bahona College, Jorhat

Introduction:

Human beings, by virtue of being human, posses certain basic and inalienable rights, commonly known as Human Rights. These rights are the pillars of human welfare and prosperity. Basic human rights are so designed that they enhance the status of individual in society. “These rights are essential for all the individuals as they are consonant with their freedom and dignity and are conducive to physical, moral, social and spiritual welfare."[1] As we know all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, therefore Human Rights provide us safeguards which are considered essential for everyone living in this earth. These are nothing but protection against the arbitrary authority to the state. Human beings had been striving for many ages for acquiring noble rights without which one’s life is meaningless and empty. When ages are passing by, human being possesses the unique storage of reasoning and from this logically follows the idea that basic right of individual is freedom to choose. Therefore, Human Rights have a broader perspective and have supreme importance. In this connection, human rights and human freedoms are interrelated.

Human Rights are backed by some national and international laws. Both in the national and international sphere it is accepted that these are very essential for the development of individual and society and so these need to be protected and promoted for the welfare of the human beings. In India as well various constitutional provisions are made to protect and promote Human Rights.

What is called Human Rights violation?

In Indian Constitution provisions like Preamble of the Constitution, Fundamental Rights, and Directive Principles of State Policies etc. have tried to protect Human Rights of Indian Citizens. In spite of all those arrangements we can see many incidence of violation of Human Rights. Every morning, the news dailies carry news which describes reports on the inhuman barbarities, terrible tales of sadistic torture, illegal detentions, ruthless killings, fake encounters, ill treatments on women and children and so on and so forth. The increasing incidents of torture, inhuman barbarities have assumed such alarming proportions that it is affecting the credibility of the Rule of Law and the administration of criminal justice system. Killing innocent people, destroying their property and creating an atmosphere of terror and fear in their minds also violate the Human Rights of the innocent victims.

All the people, in striving for social progress, seek wider perspectives for providing certain conditions and opportunities without which its citizen cannot lead a good life. These conditions and opportunities are in broad sense, known as the rights of the citizens. After the establishments of the United Nations Organization, on October 24, 1945, this was one of the most important issues. Therefore the main purpose of the United Nations was promotion of economic and social advancement of all the people of the world without discrimination on the ground of race, sex and language or religion etc. The references to Human Rights in the charter of the United Nations have provided the basis for elaboration on the content of standards and of the machinery for implementing protection of Human Rights.

What is Humanitarian Law?

There are some international laws to protect Human Rights. International Humanitarian Law is a branch of those International Laws or Laws of Nations. This law governs relation between members of the international community namely States. International law is supranational, and its fundamental rules are binding on all States. The goals of humanitarian law are to maintain peace, to protect the human beings in a just order, and to promote social progress and freedom. International Humanitarian law is called as the law of armed conflict. This law was previously known as the law of the war. This law of armed conflict is a special branch of law governing situation of armed conflict. The objective of International Humanitarian Law is to mitigate the effects of war, first in that it limits the choice of means and methods of conducting military operation and secondly in that it obliges the belligerents to spare persons who do not or no longer participate in hostile actions.

International Humanitarian Law tries to ensure peaceful relations among peoples. It makes a substantial contribution to the maintenance of peace that promotes humanity in times of war. It prevents or at least hinders mankind’s decline to a state of complete barbarity. From this point of view, respect for International Humanitarian Law helps in laying the foundation on which a peaceful settlement can be built once the conflict is over.

As mentioned above, International Humanitarian Law is a special branch of law covering situations of armed conflict. The expression ‘armed conflict’ appears in Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions as far as non-international armed conflicts i.e. a confrontation not between two states, but between the government and rebel movement is concerned. There are some hard and fast fundamental rules of humanitarian law of applicability in armed conflict.

Fundamental Rules of Humanitarian Law applicable in armed conflicts[2]:

1.      Persons horse de combat and those who do not take a direct part in hostilities are entitled to respect for their lives and physical and moral integrity. They shall in all circumstances be protected and created humanely without any adverse distinction.

2.      It is forbidden to kill or injure an enemy who surrenders or who is hors de combat.

3.      The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for by the party to the conflict which has been in its power. Protection also covers medical personnel, establishments, transports and material. The emblem of the Red Cross (Red Crescent, red lion and sun) is the sign of such protection and must be respected.

4.      Captured combatants and civilians under the authority of an adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, dignity, personal rights and convictions. They shall be protected against all acts of violence and reprisals. They shall have the right to correspond with their families and to receive relief.

5.      Everyone shall be entitled to benefit from fundamental judicial guarantees. No one shall be held responsible for an act he has not committed. No one shall be subjected to physical or mental torture, corporal punishment or cruel or degrading treatment.

6.      Parties to conflict and members of their armed forces do not have an unlimited choice of methods and means of warfare. It is prohibited to employ weapons or methods of warfare of a nature to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering.

7.      Parties to conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and property. Neither the civilian population nor civilian persons shall be the object of attack. Attacks shall be directed solely against militarist objectives.

States attempt to end Insurgent Activities:

But in reality, on the ground of Assam, absence of humanitarian law is seen. Applicability of humanitarian law is curbed by security personnel. Since from the last three decades, Assam has been witnessing the insurgent’s movements regarding fulfilment of their different demands. Among them ULFA’s separatist demands for ‘Independent Assam’ led to insurgency in Assam. The United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) was founded in on 7^th April, 1979 around the same time as the beginning of the ‘Assam Movement’.Retrospection of history reveals that ULFA has a history of different insurgent activities and the State always try to regulate insurgent groups with dominant acts and militarist operations. ULFA was banned under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act [POTA] 1967. During the time of Presidents Rule on November 28, 1990 Operation Bajrang was conducted between September 1990 and April 1991. Again Operation Rhino was first started on the September 14, 1991. The Armed Forces were operating under the provisions of the two acts namely the Assam Disturbed Area Act (TADA), 1995 and the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), 1958 (as amended in 1972). ULFA established a chain of training camps across the border in Myanmar and later in Bhutan. Many new cadres were trained in these camps. To uproot these training camps, the Indian Army and Myanmar’s armed forces jointly launched ‘Operation Golden Bird’ along their border in April-May, 1995. During third operation, 50 militants were killed and huge quantities of arms and ammunition were recovered.

Unified Command Structure was set up on January 20, 1997. Setting up of (UCS) was a part of counter insurgency operations when the AGP returned to power in the State Legislature elections of May 1996. Human rights violation or human rights abuse was immensely occurred during the operations conducted by army personnel in Assam as the army has conducted massive search and arrest operations in thousand villages in Assam. An international body “Asia Watch” renamed as “Human Rights Watch Asia”, surveyed the abuse of human rights and reported a survey report which said

“The Indian Army has conducted massive Search and arrest operations in thousand villages in Assam. Many victims of abuses committed during these operations are civilians, often relatives or neighbours or young men suspected or militant sympathies. Villagers have been threatened, harassed, raped, assaulted and killed by soldiers attempting to frighten them to identifying suspected militants. Arbitrary arrest and lengthy detention of young men picked up in these periodic sweeps, or at random from their homes and from places to places are common, detainees of the Armed Forces are regularly subject to the beatings and torture. Death in custody had occurred as the result of torture again alleged encounters and escaped attempts.” (Asia Watch 1993:1)[3]

The report noted that this situation in Assam was severely curtailed and the human rights activists and journalists were arrested for reporting on abuses. It also said that militant groups were responsible for such human rights abuses as bombings, kidnapping and the assassination of dissident ULFA members (Asia Watch 1993)[4]

Every years passed by, innocent civilians have been becoming victims of human rights violation by the security personnel.  According to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) received six cases of encountered deaths in Assam during the period of 1^st April 2001to 31^st March 2007. The report was obtained by Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) through the Right to Information act. On 12^th November, 2007, the State Government of Assam informed that the Security Forces killed 2,210 members of Armed Operation Groups (AOG) and 226 Security Personnel and 146 civilian had died in counter insurgency operation since 1990. In 2007, Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) documented several other cases of extra judicial killings. Some of the examples are

1.      Traders Nilikesh Gogoi (30years) and Dulu Gogoi(36years) who were shot dead by security personnel of the Central Industrial Security Forces petrol team at Geleki Aathkhelia in Sivasagar district on 24^th June 2007.

2.      Family members of Assamese artist Krishamoni Chutia were tortured by some army personnel on the night of 10^th January 2007

3.      Seven persons who were killed at Borali Bari near Mahmora in sivasagar district on 7^th January 2007.

Another cases of human rights violation occurred when some persons had committed suicide unable to bear the atrocities done by army personnel. There were five such known cases:

1.      Ajit Medhi, Borbil, Digboi on 25^th October, 1991

2.      Abhijit Kumar Phukan, Sivasagar, 26^th October, 1991

3.      Manoranjan Haloi, Belsor Nalbari, 25^th November, 1991

4.      Ranjit Borgohain, Golaghat 3^rd November, 1991.[5]

All the provisions of Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols hinge on the two concepts viz, ‘Combatants’ and ‘Protected Persons’. These two notions are not mutually exclusive. A combatant can easily become a protected person (When he is wounded and surrenders, or taken as Prisoners of War) without losing combatant status. The general civilian population is distinguished from the combatants to spare the life and property of the civilians. During the all operations done in Assam against the insurgent groups, the lives of civilian people were in danger by beating, arbitrary arrest etc. Women are the most vulnerable victims during the time of Bajrang and Rhino operations. The women suffered by sexual molestation, rape and murder in many villages. The news of rape and murder of women caught eye of people. The rape and murder of innocent Raju Baruah and Bhanimai Dutta were the heart hitting barbaric incidents perpetrated by security personnel of that time of Rhino operation. In the situation of conflict the most critical element of disadvantage suffered by women is violence. Violence is both a disadvantage as well as effect prolonged conflict on lives of women. The effects of violent acts like rape, sexual abuse, and the physical assaults are resulted in deep psychological and emotional trauma and very high levels of post trauma disorders.

Some personal case studies:

These personal case studies were confined to only in the area of Charaideo sub-division of Sivasagar distirct, Assam. The head quarter of Charaideo sub-division is Sonari. The Sonari town has border link with neighbouring state Nagaland. The pastoral road which connected from Dibrugarh district via Moran town to Nagalnd is used as safe corridor by the armed organizations. The organisational activities by armed organisation ULFA is very strong in Charaideo sub-division and myriad of villages and towns under it. The most of the ULFA leaders are hailing from the different villages under the Charaideo sub-division. The so called chairman of ULFA, Arabinda Rajkhowa is hailing from Lakuwa, situated at this sub-division; likewise the vice-president of ULFA, Pradip Gogoi and another leader Ramu Mech are also hailing from here.

This connection between ULFA and Charaideo sub-division leaded to joining of youths here to the armed insurgent group.

1.      Victim: Monoranjan Bora, village: Khamon gaon (Rangabam)

The victim Monoranjan Bora’s crime was that he was the elder brother of one ULFA cadre named Achintya Gogoi alias Phulphuli alias Raju Bora. Achintya Bora was killed brutally by army personnel in an encounter at Aaideokathoni on 29^th February 2008 under Sonari Police Station. Monoranjan Bora was very often put to the army camp and harassed mentally and physically by asking about their brother. There was no any time schedule of raid by army or police. In such a circumstance, their old father fell into paralysis in 2002. Even, one police officer from Kakotibari Police Station often came their house and he demanded money otherwise threatened him to throw in to the lock-up.

2.      Victim: Nirmal Konwar and prabin Konwar, village: No. 1 Konwar Gaon (Mahmora)

These two elder brothers of ULFA cadre named Lohit Konwar alias Debojit Konwar had recalled the days as ill-fated days when they had to face the army atrocities. The whole family had to hide in the time of raid during Bajrang and Rhino operation. There was no time schedule for raiding. These two brothers were thrown into lock-up for several times. They were demanded ransom money by police officer. Whenever they faced with army either in paddy field or at home, army personnel beat them up very brutally. Their younger brother Lohit Konwar was Sergeant Major in 28^th Battalion and he was shot dead in an encounter by security personnel at Dafla near Borhat under Sonari Police Station.

3.      Victim: Khagen Gogoi, village: No. 1 Konwar Gaon (Mahmora)

Khagen Gogoi was an ordinary farmer in the village, he had no connection with any ULFA cadre, but he was beaten up brutally by army personnel in the name of raid and patrolling.

4.      Victim: Abhiram Gogoi, village: Egharagharia

He is an example of common people tortured by army personnel in suspect of link with ULFA and giving shelter to ULFA. Army harassed him for many a time by physically and mentally interrogating him during Bajarang Operation.

5.      Khireswar Bharalua, village: Egharagharia

The family of Khireswar Bharalua is a burning example of victim of armed conflict. In his house ULFA took shelter by force hence two ULFA cadres were killed in an encounter happened at their home. The incident took place on 6^th December, 2008. The time was 4.30 a.m. in the morning. Khireswar Bharalua with his spouse was working in their paddy field. The group of four cadres asked them to give shelter but the couple denied to give shelter them as they did not want any danger to their children. But the group forcibly stayed at their house. They ordered Bharalua’s wife to cook food for them. At 2.30 p.m., the army surrounded their house. The army announced them to surrender. But the ULFA group started firing on the army hence latter too started firing. In the cross firing, the young daughters were escaped from death anyhow. After four hours of cross firing, two of the four ULFA groups able to escape and two of them were held by the army personnel. These two ULFAs held by the army personnel were brutally killed on the spot. Army beat up Bharalua red and blue on the spot too. In the night, police came and take the couple to the Kakotibari Police station and in the police station OC interrogated them very cruelly. They were mentally tortured by the OC. The couple were forced to sign in a blank paper. The poor couple had to give the demanded money by the OC.

6.      Victim: Tankeswar Khamon, village: No. 1 Nirmalia

Tankeswar Khamon’s younger brother Nabajyoti Khamon was an ULFA cadre and he was killed in an ambush at Saraguri Chapori and the family got his decomposed body given by the army. Tankeswar Lahon was the victim of army atrocities during their brother’s presence in the armed outfit. Army personnel harassed them mentally and physically.

7.      Victim: Ratna Khamon, village: No. 1 Nirmalia

Late Pona Khamon was the teacher in nearby ME school. His widow Ratna Khamon told us in a grip mood how his husband was tortured physically and mentally for many times at army camp on the basis of suspicion. Army suspected him that he gave shelter to ULFA, and notably he was uncle of Nabajyoti Khamon.

Limitations of humanitarian Law:

The human rights violation in Assam has been the fall out of the insurgency turned terrorism of the insurgent groups. Three decade long insurgency by the ULFA has created threaten to the lives of people in general. Humanitarian law and human rights have different existence. Both have developed separately. The difference between humanitarian law and human rights are that human rights set limit to the power of the State with respect to all persons subject to its authority, including nationals. On the other hand, international humanitarian law is a special law and it is applied only in the times of war. No doubt it bridges the human rights of persons. Human rights can be protected in conflict zones by facilitating the works of humanitarian organizations. Media reveals the distressing lack of proper respect for the law. The implementation of humanitarian law in reality depends to a large extent on expectations based on the notion of mutual understanding.

The military leaders should follow a strict discipline. As respect for humanitarian rules is an element of discipline. So, military should follow it. But observance of humanitarian law is not merely a burdensome duty. Thus, it depends on the interests of Commanders of the armed forces.

Conclusion:

In conflict ridden Assam, Manab Adhikar Sangram Samiti (MASS) is the active organisation enthusiastically working since its inception for protection of civil rights apart from others. They are mainly concentrating on creating protection and awareness through public meetings; sit in, publication of newsletters etc. But the answer to the protection of human rights is no doubt will get breakthrough when the permanent political solution to the peace dialogue between government and ULFA happens in reality.

                                                            --------------------------------       

References:

1.      Baruah Sanjib “Durable Disorder: Understanding Politics of North East India”, Oxford University Publication, 2005

2.      Dhanbir Laishram, “North East in Benethic Zone”, Akansha Publishing House, New Delhi, India

3.      Gasser Hans-Peter, “International Humanitarian Law: An Introduction”, Henry Dunant Institute, 1993.

4.      P.B. Rathod, “Focus on Human Rights”, ABD, Jaipur, 2007.

5.      PL Sanjeev Reddy, “Peace and Development in North East”, PC Shekhar Reddy Publication- A Mittal Publication, New Delhi 2007.

6.      Bell Christine and O'RourkeCatherine,” The People's Peace? Peace Agreements, Civil Society, and Participatory Democracy”, International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique, Vol.28, No. 3 (Jun., 2007), pp. 293-324.

--------------------------

---

[1] Rathod, P.B., “Focus on Human Rights”, ABD, Jaipur, 2007.

[2] Gasser Hans-Peter, “International Humanitarian Law: An Introduction”, Henry Dunant Institute, 1993.

[3] Baruah Sanjib “Durable Disorder: Understanding Politics of North East India”, OUP, 2005

[4] ibid

[5] Dhanbir Laishram, “North East in Benethic Zone”, Akansha Publishing House, New Delhi, India

Politics in India for Second Semester, Gauhati University Undergraduates

GOOD GOVERNANCE IN PERSPECTIVES

Introduction:

                  How do we, in general look at governance? What do we mean by it? Do we only stick ourselves with mere governing when we talk about governance or do we include other important perspectives to understand that? When we talk about Good Governance, how do we different it from ordinary governance? Does there only one model of Good Governance or it differs from school to school?

Images of Good Governance:

            In simple, governance indicates the process of decision making and the process by which decisions are implemented or not implemented. As governance is a process of decision making and decision implementation, a study of governance focuses on the formal and informal actors involved in decision making and its implementation and the structures- formal and informal, that have been set in place to arrive at and implement the decision. Government is an actor of Governance. The other actors engaged in governance vary depending on the level of government.

            “At its broadest, governance, that is, the act of governing, refers to the relationship between the governors and the governed, such as that between the government and the people, and has as its basis the decision-making powers ceded by individuals to those in authority so that the common interests of society can be served.”[i] Governance deals with exercise of economic, political and administrative authority in managing the affairs of a nation, and needs to be transparent and accountable. “Governance refers to the exercise of authority in the management of a country's affairs, includes the state, private sector and civil society.”[ii]

            So, Governance means the way an organisation or institution is administer. It is about an organisation's relationships with the stakeholders and the aims and objectives of that organisation.

Good Governance; the orthodox view:

             Recent developments in politics has widely popularised one concept, that is related to governance, is the notion of Good Governance. The term Good Governance is widely used in development literature to describe the way public institutions executes public affairs and manage public resources in order to ensure the realisation of human rights.

            The notion of Good Governance emerges as a model to compare ineffective political or economic structures with viable political and economic structures. It is the western bloc with liberal democratic structure, due to its “successful” governments, often set the standard by which the execution of Good Governance is compared.

            Good Governance is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive in nature. It is based on rule of law. It, taking the views of the minorities into account in decision making, assures in minimizing corruption. It is assumed that Good Governance can be achieved through reforms in reforms in state, private sector and social security. “Good Governance requires a good balance of power among different factors such as politicians, bureaucrats and civil society. A proper governance mechanism is supposed to ensure that political, economic and social priorities are based on social consensus and that of the participation of the poor in decision making over allocation of development resources.”[iii] So, good Governance is a process and structure that guides political and socio-economic relationships.

Relationship in Good Governance:

In international affairs the study of Good Governance occupies the following relationships:

1. Between governments and markets,
2. Between governments and citizens,
3. Between governments and the private or voluntary sector,
4. Between elected officials and appointed officials,
5. Between local institutions and urban and rural dwellers,
6. Between legislature and executive branches, and
7. Between nation states and institutions.

Portraits of Good Governance by International Organisations:

IMF:

            The International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1996 declared that economy of a nation can prosper by promoting Good Governance in all its aspects, including by ensuring the rule of law, improving the efficiency and accountability of the public sector, and tackling corruption, as essential elements of a framework. The institution believes that either too much regulation and or too less regulation resulting ineffective governance of economy can caused corruption. The IMF, to promote Good Governance, provides loans to only those countries that practice certain Good Governance policies.

UNO:

            Reform through Human Development and reform in political institution, according to UN, can bring Good Governance. To UN, Good Governances featured 8 characteristics-

1.      Consensus Oriented

2.      Participatory

3.      Following the Rule of Law

4.      Effective and Efficient

5.      Accountable

6.      Transparent

7.      Responsive

8.      Equitable and Inclusive

World Bank:

            The World Bank is of the view that positive reform in economic and social resource control leads to Good Governance. In 1992, WB pointed out three aspects of society which they feel affects the nature of governance:

a)     Type of political regime;

b)     Process by which authority is exercised in the management of the economic and social resources, with a view to development; and

c)     Capacity of governments to formulate policies and have them effectively implemented.

            “By the late 1990s, the World Bank Institute, from several hundreds of variables measuring perception of governance, had developed six dimensions of good governance- control of corruption, rule of law, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, voice and accountability, and political stability, with absence of violence.”[iv]

Principles of Good Governance:

            Good Governance occupies six core principles where each supports the other. “The standard comprises six core principles of good governance, each with its supporting principles.[1][v] This core principles are-

1.      Good governance means focusing on the organisation’s purpose and on outcomes for citizens and service users:

1.      Being clear about the organisation’s purpose and its intended outcomes for citizens and service users

2.      Making sure that users receive a high quality service

3.      Making sure that taxpayers receive value for money

2.      Good governance means performing effectively in clearly defined functions and roles:

1.      Being clear about the functions of the governing body

2.      Being clear about the responsibilities of non-executives and the executive, and making sure that those responsibilities are carried out

3.      Being clear about relationships between governors and the public

3.      Good governance means promoting values for the whole organisation and demonstrating the values of good governance through behaviour:

1.      Putting organisational values into practice

2.      Individual governors behaving in ways that uphold and exemplify effective governance

4.      Good governance means taking informed, transparent decisions and managing risk:

1.      Being rigorous and transparent about how decisions are taken

2.      Having and using good quality information, advice and support

3.      Making sure that an effective risk management system is in operation

5.      Good governance means developing the capacity and capability of the governing body to be effective:

1.      Making sure that appointed and elected governors have the skills, knowledge and experience they need to perform well

2.      Developing the capability of people with governance responsibilities and evaluating their performance, as individuals and as a group

3.      Striking a balance, in the membership of the governing body, between continuity and renewal

6.      Good governance means engaging stakeholders and making accountability real

1.      Understanding formal and informal accountability relationships

2.      Taking an active and planned approach to dialogue with and accountability to the public

3.      Taking an active and planned approach to responsibility to staff

4.      Engaging effectively with institutional stakeholders

                  Good Governance is associated with efficient and effective administration in a democratic framework. It refers to adoption of new values of governance to establish greater efficiency, legitimacy and credibility of the system.

                  The Second Administrative Reforms Commission in its Report submitted in October, 2007 mentioned about Good Governance. Sixth Report of 2^nd ARC on “Local Governance: An inspiring journey into the future” identifies that Good Governance has the following features: Participation, Rule of Law, Transparency, Responsiveness, Consensus Orientation, Equity, Effectiveness and Efficiency, and Strategic Vision.

                  The good governance not only includes governance in national government but also of local and global governance. Therefore Good Governance is hierarchical, and encompasses state- society interactions and partnerships. Good Governance can be considered as the citizen friendly, citizen caring and responsive administration. Good Governance depends on the co-operation and an involvement of a large number of citizens and organisations.

                  To sum up, the orthodox perception of Good Governance is about institutional practices. It draws the picture of Good Governance as the ordnance in transparent and accountable way. Good Governance, in this view, is designed in a way that it suits the International neo-liberal market economy policies. This view only stresses in economic and institutional reforms and not the other aspects of Good Governance. Therefore, an alternative model of Good Governance, with aiming people's development is what the need of time.

                 

The Alternative view of Good Governance:

                  Opposing the above view, Commonwealth Local Government Forum campaigned for an alternative view on Good Governance. The General Meeting of the Commonwealth Local Government Forum, convened on 18^th March 2005 in Scotland, following the Third Commonwealth Local Government Conference on deepening Local Democracy of 15-17 March 2005, attended by over 500 delegates from 46 countries, including over 20 ministers with responsibility for local government reconfirms that effective, elected local government is an important foundation for democracy. Commonwealth Principles on Good Practice for Local Democracy and Good Governance has highlighted the few indicators as important for Good Governance. This are-

1.      Constitutional and legal recognition for local democracy:

2.      The ability to elect local representatives:

3.      Partnerships between spheres of government:

4.      Defined legislative framework:

5.      Opportunity to participate in local decision-making:

6.      Open local government– accountability:

7.      Open local government– transparency:

8.      Openness to scrutiny:

9.      Inclusiveness:

10.  Adequate and equitable resource allocation:

11.  Equitable service delivery:

12.  Building strong local democracy and good governance:

                  The alternative paradigm of Good Governance focuses on greater meaning of Good Governance. This greater notion of Good Governance includes the following principles:

l  Policies

l  Instruments

l  Institutions

l  Infrastructure

l  Practices

l  Participation:

---

---

References:

[i] Dash, A & Kipgen, P, “Good Governance: The Force behind Human development” in Nayak, P. (ed) Growth and Human Development in North East, OUP, New Delhi, 2010, p-117.

[ii] Dash, A & Kipgen, P, “Good Governance: The Force behind Human development” in Nayak, P. (ed) Growth and Human Development in North East, OUP, New Delhi, 2010, p-118.

[iii] Dash, A & Kipgen, P, “Good Governance: The Force behind Human development” in Nayak, P. (ed) Growth and Human Development in North East, OUP, New Delhi, 2010, p-118

[iv] Dash, A & Kipgen, P, “Good Governance: The Force behind Human development” in Nayak, P. (ed) Growth and Human Development in North East, OUP, New Delhi, 2010, p-118

[v] The Independent Commission on Good Governance in Public Services, “The Good Governance Standard for Public Services” OPM and CIPFA, London, 2004, p-4