Are security laws inherently undemocratic? Such laws violate fundamental rights as enshrined in both national and international statutes, including those as significant as right to life and bodily safety, representation before the law, and the prevention of arbitrary detention. Yet democracies continue to support and endorse security legislation, which in Southasia functions by dividing each country's citizens into the deserving and the undeserving. Those in the former category merit the trust and protection of the state, while those in the latter do not. It is this systematic segregation of citizens that allows for the targeting of particular groups, curtails civil liberties and infringes on individual rights.
In a democracy, an elected government is supposed to be representative of its citizens' interests, and everything done by a democratic government is done in the name of the electorate. Correspondingly, any law that a democratic government legislates in its own interest is in fact legislated in the interest of the state's citizens. Security laws promulgated within a democratic state are no exception to this rule; governments explicitly declare that such laws are necessary for the safety of citizens.
Nonetheless, security laws often go against citizen interests, and are problematic in two ways. First, they give immunity to the arbitrary actions of the police and armed forces, contravening basic legal principles. Second, they are selectively applicable, either in particular areas or to particular groups of citizens. It is these citizens who face the arbitrary abrogation of their human rights and civil liberties.
How these citizen categories are created can be explored through security laws from four Southasian countries – India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. It is important to note that each of these laws was initially enacted in democratic situations, although they continue to be applied in the currently undemocratic states of Pakistan and Nepal. Moreover, these laws have been widely used in each country, even while domestic and international human rights organisations denounce them as contributing to human rights abuses.