COVID-19: Southasian states of emergency

On 30 January 2020, the World Health Organization declared coronavirus a public-health emergency of international concern. Since then, several countries around the world have declared national emergencies. The exercise of emergency powers in Southasia, whether in late 2007 in Pakistan or between 1975 and 1977 in India, is often associated with state overreach and abuse of human rights. Himal Southasian thought it would be a good time to revisit the history of emergency regulations to see how they have been used in the past and what their legacies may portend for Southasia.

In this interview, we speak to Asanga Welikala, a lecturer in public law at the University of Edinburgh and a constitutional-law expert. He describes the common origins but divergent paths of Southasia's emergency regulations, the different considerations for authoritarian and democratic regimes in addressing emergencies, and the impact that prolonged emergencies can have on democratic institutions.

Himal Southasian: Could you tell us about the origins of emergency regulations as a legal concept and how much public-health concerns have factored into this history?

Asanga Welikala: States of emergency and emergency regulations are separate, although closely related concepts in law. A state of emergency is the special legal regime of powers and rules that is brought into operation when a country is facing a grave threat. The threat could be a war, an insurgency, a natural disaster, a famine, or a virulent disease such as the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic we are facing today. But the key point is that it must be a clear and present danger to the life of the nation that cannot be adequately addressed with the normal powers and resources available to a government. In such situations, it is recognised that the government must be empowered with additional powers by law to tackle the threat and protect the people.