5. Security in the Contemporary World

In reading about world politics, we frequently encounter the terms ‘security’ or ‘national security’. Do we know what these terms mean? Often, they are used to stop debate and discussion. We hear that an issue is a security issue and that it is vital for the well-being of the country. The implication is that it is too important or secret to be debated and discussed openly. We see movies in which everything surrounding ‘national security’ is shadowy and dangerous. Security seems to be something that is not the business of the ordinary citizen. In a democracy, surely this cannot be the case. As citizens of a democracy, we need to know more about the term security. What exactly is it? And what are India’s security concerns? This chapter debates these questions.

This chunk introduces the basic concept of security in the context of world politics, emphasizing the importance of understanding what security means. The term 'security' often comes with a sense of urgency that can silence discussion, making it seem like a concern only for government leaders and experts. Yet, in a democratic society, citizens should be informed about these issues to engage in meaningful dialogues about national safety and well-being.

Think of security in a household context. If a parent says, 'This is a security matter,' it might stop conversations about household rules or safety. However, all family members should discuss and agree upon such matters concerning their safety.

At its most basic, security implies being freedom from threats. Human existence and the life of a country are full of threats. Does that mean that every single threat counts as a security threat? Can’t I decide what is my security? Furthermore, when we speak of threats to core values, how intense should the threats be? Those who study security, therefore, generally say that only those things that threaten ‘core values’ should be regarded as of interest in discussions of security.

This section clarifies what is meant by security. It suggests that security is about freedom from threats but raises critical questions about what constitutes a threat. It emphasizes that not all threats are equal; some are significant enough to impact core values, such as the sovereignty of a nation or personal safety. It also proposes that individuals should be allowed to define their understanding of security.

Imagine if a school had various rules to ensure safety. Not everyone might see a slight bullying incident as a security threat, while others might see it as a serious issue affecting their sense of safety at school. This leads to discussions about what everyone feels is important for their security.

In the traditional conception of security, the greatest danger to a country is from military threats. The source of this danger is another country, which by threatening military action endangers the core values of sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity.

This chunk explains traditional security, which primarily concerns military threats from other countries. It points out that such threats can jeopardize a nation’s core values, such as its sovereignty and independence. The focus here is on external military threats rather than internal issues, reflecting how countries often understand security.

Consider a neighborhood where one house is known for having a large fence and guard dogs. This is like traditional security, where the focus is on external threats (like other houses that might want to rob them) rather than internal conflicts among the neighbors.

By now you will have asked yourself: doesn’t security depend on internal peace and order? How can a society be secure if there is violence or the threat of violence inside its borders? Traditional security must have internal security as part of its concerns.

This section raises the question of internal security, suggesting that a country cannot be secure if it experiences violence or internal conflict. It challenges the concept of traditional security by highlighting that without internal peace, external threats become even more perilous. Therefore, ensuring a peaceful internal environment is vital for overall national security.

Think of a company with excellent external security but a toxic work environment. If employees are fighting amongst themselves or there is bullying, the company isn’t secure, regardless of its strong external protections against competitors.

Non-traditional notions of security go beyond military threats to include a range of threats and dangers affecting the conditions of human existence such as economic security, health security, and environmental security.

This part introduces non-traditional security, recognizing that threats to security are not just military but also encompass economic, environmental, and public health issues. It highlights an evolving understanding that security must include various aspects that affect human life, making it more comprehensive.

Consider how the COVID-19 pandemic has showcased non-traditional security threats. Public health became a major concern that directly impacted economic stability, employment, and individual well-being, all pointing to the need for a broader understanding of security in today's world.

--