INTRODUCTION:

The traditional view of security has focused on using the military to ensure the territorial integrity of sovereign states. Security studies and the security establishment have long been focused on foreign and defense policy mechanisms to avoid, prevent, and if need be win interstate military disputes (Gary King and Christopher J. L. Murray (2001-2002), p.588). In contrast, strictly speaking, human security calls for a shift in security thinking from state security to security of the people, which includes both individuals and communities. The distinction between 'people' and 'individual' is not unimportant.

A quick review of recent responses by the international community to human security challenges shows that they have addressed crisis situations in which the survival and well- being of entire societies or communities have been at risk. Human security protects the existence of entire social groups including children, civilians in a war zone, ethnic minorities, and so on from persecution and violence (Amitav Acharya(2001),p.449).

Since human security is a tri-level such as individual, institutional, and structural/cultural phenomenon, what is needed is to base peace building/human security efforts in the lives of "marginalized people," often women, youth, or simply "common people". These are the people from whom the state has been relatively removed because they are not empowered and therefore suffer the worst forms of human insecurity. Peace building needs another discourse, other voices, in particular the voices of the non-state informal sectors of society(Earl Conteh-Morgan(2005),p.82). Scholars and policy makers then began to recognize that even successful examples of territorial security do not necessarily ensure the security of citizens within a state, a fact to which the examples of North Korea and Rwanda. With Robert McNamara and analysts also began to recognize environmental degradation and natural disasters such as epidemics, floods, earthquakes, and droughts as important threats to security as much as human-made military disasters(Gary King and Christopher J. L. Murray(2001-2002),p.588).

Human security suggests that security policy and security analysis, if they are to be effective and legitimate, must focus on the individual as the referent and primary beneficiary. In broad terms human security is 'freedom from want' and 'freedom from fear'. Human security is normative; it argues that there is an ethical responsibility to re-orient security around the individual in line with internationally recognised standards of human rights and governance(Edward Newman(2010),p. 78). The human security is significant because it recognizes the subject's right to self determination within a broad understanding of security(Oliver P. Richmond(2012-13),p.217).

The human security has three dimensions. First of all, human security is about the security of individuals and the communities in which they live. By emphasising the security of individuals rather than states, human implies a commitment to human rights but it does not deny the importance of the more traditional state centred threats. Indeed, the threat, for example, of an attack by an enemy state can also be described as a humanitarian threat. Second, human security is about the interrelationship between freed fear and freedom from want and about physical as well as material insecurity is the second basket of Helsinki; the emphasis on economic, scientific and cultural co-operation. It means that human rights do not just cover political and civil rights but economic and social and cultural rights as well. Finally, the third human security implies an extension of rule governed security as opposed to war-based security. It implies that relations between states are governed by a law paradigm rather than a war paradigm. It is about the non use of force in relations between states(Mary Kaldor(2011),p.446).

The paradox of human and national security:

The state is on the one hand the instrument of ensuring human security such as military security, employment, education, health insurance, food security etc. On the other hand a weak state can threaten its citizens. The irony of contemporary security conceptions is that national security is conceptualized in a manner that guarantees the insecurity of individual. This is the paradox of human and national security. States answering global or regional threats need to strengthen their national security, especially in military terms, i.e. numbers of soldiers, army equipment, quality of armaments, and all these decrease human security. The probability of armed conflict increases, there is a lack of resources, the ability to maintain human rights in the case of conflict decreases etc. This paradox suggests that it is not possible, even for the richest country in the world, to have both guns and butter. Many national security states have become increasingly dysfunctional when it comes to providing security, preserving human dignity, and promoting economic and ecological well-being(Sarka waisova(2003),p.69).

Thinking about the consequences of national security strengthening, which in parallel brings the weakening of individual security, P. H. Liotta talks about the security 'boomerang effect' and the convergence of national and human security. Liotta tells us that developed states, by strengthening their national security, are, despite global interconnectedness, 'forgetting' security in other parts of the world. The developed states can even in various aspects weaken the security of underdeveloped states and their citizens. Human insecurities and dilemmas such as epidemics, drugs, terrorism, narco-trafficking etc in underdeveloped countries come back like a boomerang as a problem of national and human security for developed countries(Sarka waisova(2003),p.69).

The most obvious illustration of the 'boomerang effect' and the convergence of national and human security is the policy of USA after the September 11^th 2001 attacks on Washington and New York. The American administration interpreted the terrorist attacks as a threat to American national security and as threat to U.S. citizens, their way of life and American values. This interpretation shows the convergence of human and national security in one country. There is also another convergence US officials started after September 11^th to be more interested in what is happening beyond the western hemisphere(Sarka waisova(2003),p.69).

What is the reason for the second convergence? After the first Gulf war and during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the US approach to conflict resolution became very limited. The goal of US action was to solve the military conflict and to return home as soon as possible, i.e. no post-conflict reconstruction and no nation-building. This policy has had in the last decade negative effects on the effectiveness of peace-building and the reconstruction of post-conflict territories and societies. Many societies and poor social groups around the world emerged under the pressure of the unresolved social, economic and cultural conflicts which were the heritage of the Cold War and their military or political interventions to interpret this situation as American power interest's con sequence. Underdevelopment, deep social and economic differences, resource scarcity, epidemiology etc led to the mass mobilisation and radicalisation of societies and social groups who are looking for someone to blame(Sarka waisova(2003),p.69).

The second convergence, which was already mentioned, is based on the assumption that the US 'forgot' humanitarian issues and the support of cultural and religious understanding at the global as well as the local level. If American administration want to ensure in the coming decades national security and the security of American citizens, they need to resolve not only military conflicts, but also to support global and local sustainable development strategies and local nation-building in various parts of the world. The boomerang effect can be understood as an expression of mutual dependence, when the security of one country and its population is indivisible from the security of another country and its citizens(Sarka waisova(2003),p.70).

Meaning of Human Security: Different Perspectives:

Definitions of human security vary and there is also the debate about whether a human security concept is or can be the guide for research and policy making. Human security is like 'sustainable development' everyone is for it, but few people have a clear idea of what it means. Most formulations of human security emphasise the welfare of ordinary people, maintaining basic human rights and the realisation of human potential. Generally, we can identify two main approaches to human security at international relations; the first one is the United Nations approach, the other is the Canadian or the so-called middle-power states approach(Sarka waisova(2003),p.62).

The first major statement concerning human security appeared in the 1994 Human Development Report, an annual publication of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). "The concept of security," the report argues, "has for too long been interpreted narrowly as security of territory from external aggression, or as protection of national interests in foreign policy or as global security from the threat of nuclear holocaust....Forgotten were the legitimate concerns of ordinary people who sought security in their daily lives". This critique is clear and forceful, but the report's subsequent proposal for a new concept of security-human security-lacks precision, which means "Human security can be said to have two main aspects. It means, first, safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression. And second, it means protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily life-whether in homes, in jobs or in communities"(Roland Paris(2001),p.89).

Some scholars advocate an even broader definition of human security than freedom from want and fear, referring to almost any aspect of an individual's life that might make her insecure. Gary King and Christopher J.L. Murray, for example, redefine human security as "the number of years of future life spent outside a state of 'generalized poverty. Gunhild Hoogensen and Svein Vigeland Rottem include domestic violence as an indicator of human insecurity, while Mary Caprioli applies the language of human security to the entire range of women's rights. Even more nebulous is the idea of human security as "social, psychological, political, and economic factors that promote and protect human well-being through time(Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann(2012),p.92). States have to protect the victims of violations of well being both internally and within other states, and implicitly suggests that new mechanisms for protection are needed(Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann(2012),p.93).

The Commission on Human Security, 2003 says, "The state remains the fundamental purveyor of security. Yet it often fails to fulfill its security obligations.... That is why attention must now shift from the security of the state to the security of the people to human security”( Yu-tai Tsai(2009),p.19).

In 1994, the United Nations Development Program's (UNDP) Human Development Report (HDR) presented a new way of thinking about the integration of security issues and globalization. This report defined human security according to seven dimensions such as personal, environmental, economic, political, community, health, and food security. Moreover, the report adopted a "people-centric" security concept as its focus instead of the traditional state-centered concept. This new emphasis on human security supplements the traditional concept of security and represents the emergence of a new paradigm in the field(Yu-tai Tsai(2009),p.20). According to Mahbub ul Haq, “We need to fashion a new concept of human security that is reflected in the lives of our people, not in the weapons of our country”(Amitav Acharya(2001),p.442).The notion of human security as freedom from want has been promoted by Japan, and has been promoted as freedom from fear by Canada, Norway, and members of the Human Security Network(HSN)( Yu-tai Tsai(2009),p.21).

Broadly stated, the debate about human security concerns the separation of direct physical violence from structural violence. Astrid Suhrke has advocated a notion of human security that stresses 'vulnerability' as its defining feature, which in turn is understood with reference to three categories of victims such as those of war and internal conflict, those living at or below subsistence levels, and victims of natural disaster. Sverre Lodgaard of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, on the other hand, has pleaded for a narrower definition. In his view, human security should not be mixed with human development. Nor should it be about natural disasters or 'precarious human conditions such as hunger, disease, and environmental contamination. The key defining criteria of human security is vulnerability to physical violence during conflict. His rationale for a narrower definition is important to note(Amitav Acharya(2001),p.447).

Canada defines human security as "safety for people from both violent and non-violent threats, a more conservative and narrower focus than the UNDP version. According to Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, human security does not replace national security. Rather, state security and human security are mutually supportive. According to this limited definition, human security is freedom from fear, and human development is freedom from want. They are mutually reinforcing but distinct concepts(Gary King and Christopher J. L. Murray(2001-2002),p.590).

According to George MacLean formulation, human security involves the security of the individual in his or her personal surroundings, community, and environment. This includes personal security for the individual from violence or harm; access to the basic essentials of life; protection from crime and terrorism, pandemic diseases, political corruption, forced migration, and absence of human rights; freedom from violations based on gender; rights of political and cultural communities; political, eco- nomic, and democratic development; preventing the misuse and overuse of natural resources; environmental sustainability; and efforts to curtail pollution(Gary King and Christopher J. L. Murray(2001-2002),p.591).

In common usage, the word "security" denotes freedom from various risks. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word as, "The condition of being protected from or not exposed to danger; safety. ... Freedom from care, anxiety or apprehension; a feeling of safety or freedom from or absence of danger(Gary King and Christopher J. L. Murray(2001-2002),p.592). Policy initiatives generated through the application of the human security framework have incorporated considerations far beyond the traditional focus on military force, greatly reducing the emphasis on armies, if not replacing them altogether. Human security is therefore people-centred, multidimensional, interconnected and universal(Richard Jolly and Deepayan Basu Ray(2006),p.5).

Perspectives of Human Security:

There are mainly two major perspectives of human security exists in the world. The first one is United Nations(UN) perspective of human security and the second one is the Canadian perspective of human security. These are analysed below.

The UN Perspective of Human Security:

The UN has changed the world by combining liberal internationalism, the state, and liberal institutionalism, as well as by endeavouring to the subjects of security first. The notion of Human Security (HS) emerged through these processes and through the convergence of various peacekeeping, human rights, development, and peacebuilding. The HS has been central to the UN's recent normative and legal impact the UN's many peacekeeping and peace-building environments around the world(Oliver P. Richmond(2012-13),p.205).

The post-Cold War era has been a period of uncertainty, but also an era of operational expansion, institutional change and conceptual innovation inside the United Nations. In the 1990s a range of interstate and intrastate conflicts and civil wars broke out, and the UN, struggling for effective reaction and successful conflict resolution, has been changing its operating principle. The UN had to react to new security challenges like refugee flows, conflicts based on resource scarcity, environmental degradation, underdevelopment etc are the so-called complex humanitarian emergencies. In the last decade, the security agenda within the UN has been redefined to include not only the security of states and communities, but also all aspects of the security of human beings. The idea of protection of the individual and the struggle to prevent refugee flows from violent conflicts and wars led in the 1990s to a series of international humanitarian operations such as Somalia, Rwanda, and Congo states. The idea of human security is today employed extensively by the UN and occupies a central place in UNDP and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees(UNHCR) security discourse(Sarka waisova(2003),p.62).

Within the UN, the agenda of HS is mostly incorporated into the work of the following two agencies such as UNDP and UNHCR. The UNHCR takes its definition of human security from UNDP's Human Development Report. It understands security first and foremost as the prerogative of the individual, and links the concept of security inseparably to ideas of human rights and dignity to the relief of human suffering. The main distinguishing feature of human security is that it addresses the issue of war, violence and physical or psychological aggression from a human perspective, centred on the individual, unlike the traditional perspectives, which adopt the state-centrist approach. The UNHCR ties this humanizing effort with the struggle to ensure the sovereignty and stability of the state - there exist according to UNHCR serious threats to states, arising from the actions of individuals compare Copenhagen school(Sarka waisova(2003),p.62).

The best articulation of the UNDP's views on human security is the Human Development Report of 1994, which defines the basic structure of the UNDP’s human security concept. According to the Human Development Report there have always been two major components of human security such as freedom from fear and freedom from want. The Report also lists the main categories or di mensions of human security that correspond to human security threats such as economic security (unemployment, job insecurity, disparities in income and resources, poverty and homelessness), food security (expressed in terms of the quantitative and qualitative availability of food), health security (diseases, new viruses), environmental security (air, water, soil and forest degradation), personal security (conflict, poverty, terrorism), community security (ethnic and cultural conflict) and political security (violation of human rights). For UNDP, the concept of human security is very significant because it prioritises the individual over the state, and emphasises the role of indirect threats such as underdevelopment, environmental degradation, population displacement and resource scarcity. The key argument is that ultimately state security is merely the means by which to achieve individual security. Only the security of the individual can be the rightful and meaningful objective of security. There are two values preferred within the UNDP agenda of human security such as the bodily safety of the individual and his personal freedom(Sarka waisova(2003),p.63).

There is important aspect of the UN human security concept. The various United Nations documents and statements connect human insecurity with underdeveloped countries, namely they connect the level or stage of human security with the level of development in defining security, it is important that human security not be equated with human development. Human development is a broader concept defined as a process of widening the range of people's choices. In contrast, human security means that people can exercise these choices safely as well as freely and that they can be relatively confident that the opportunities they have today are not totally lost tomorrow. The more developed the country, the more protected can be its population. Human security appears here as part of the vision for people-oriented economic development(Sarka waisova(2003),p.63).

The new UN human-security debate gave birth to the Commission on Human Security (CHS), which was established in January 2001 at the initiative of UNHCR and the Japanese government. The CHS tries to develop a sustainable concept of human security applicable to the UN humanitarian net work. The CHS tries to overcome the problems met by UNDP and UNHCR. In May 2003 the CHS published its Final Report, which tries to better define the concept of human security and link it with human development and human rights. The Report distinguishes between all three concepts and makes more clear their nodal points quoting the need to their mutual complementation. According to the Commission, human security means to protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfilment. The Final Report also makes clear the relationship between individual security and state security. From the point of view of the Commission, the state remains the fundamental purveyor of security, but it often fails to fulfil its obligation. According to the Commission there is also one new aspect of the relationship between the state and the individual - there exist today global threats such as terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which the state is not able to manage. This is why the international community should be able to protect individuals more or less independently of the state. The state can not be an answer. Thus protection will be based on a global system of patent rights, the global identity of individuals and supported by the fostering of good governance(Sarka waisova(2003),p.64).

The Canadian Perspective of Human Security:

The Canadian government established in the mid-1990s a human security programme, its basic ideas of which are contained in various documents and speeches of Canadian officials. In co-operation with Norway there was established in May 1998 a human-security network of states and nongovernmental organizations. The Canadian-Norwegian concept of human security reflects the evolution of the international stage in the 1990s when human rights, international humanitarian law and socio-economic equity became increasingly popular within the international community. Both governments have used the concept as an umbrella to cover the humanitarian agenda, including support for the International Criminal Court, the ban on landmines, prohibition of child soldiers etc(Sarka waisova(2003),p.64).

The Canadian definition of human security focuses on the security of people such as their physical safety, economic and social well being, the protection of their human rights and fundamental freedoms, complementing the traditional emphasis on the security of states. Human security encompasses a spectrum of approaches to prevent and resolve violent conflicts, to protect civilians where conflicts do exist, and to increase the capacity of states to ensure security for their population. Putting people at the centre of security policy enhances national and international security, and promotes human development and well-being. The security of individual states and the broader international system ultimately requires the prevention and resolution of conflicts within states. At the same time, human security reinforces the state by strengthening its legitimacy and stability(Sarka waisova(2003),p.64).

The Canadian conception is based on the importance of the role of the state for the maintenance of human security; if we need to maintain human security we need to support the principle of territorial integrity and good domestic governance. The Canadian conception pledged openly for humanitarian intervention, which means intervention for human protection purposes ... is supportable when major harm to civilians is occurring or imminently apprehended, and the state in question is unable or unwilling to end the harm, or is itself the perpetrator but at the same time it overpasses the pure 'right to intervene' and develops 'the responsibility to protect'. The responsibility to protect means not just to 'react by' but to 'react before', also to prevent and to 'react after' and to rebuild. The Canadian approach is based on the idea of the broader responsibility of an international community which shares humanitarian norms and values. The goal of Canadian human security policy is to support the internalisation embedding of those norms and values(Sarka waisova(2003),p.65). These are the two major perspectives of human security existing in the world.

The Evolution of Concept of Human Security:

The concept of human security emerged as part of the holistic paradigm of human development cultivated at UNDP by former Pakistani Finance Minister Mahbub ul Haq with strong support from Indian economist Amartya Sen. The UNDP’s 1994 global HDR was the first major international document to articulate human security in conceptual terms with proposals for policy and action. The 1994 global HDR argued that the concept of security has for too long been interpreted narrowly as security of territory from external aggression, or as protection of national interests in foreign policy, or as global security from a nuclear holocaust. It has been related more to nation states than to people. This narrow approach was categorically widened to include the safety of individuals and groups from such threats as hunger, disease and political instability; and protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in patterns of daily life. The report went on to further identify seven core elements that when addressed together reflect the basic needs of human security: economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security and political security(Richard Jolly and Deepayan Basu Ray.(2006),p.4).

The evolution of human security also had the support of Oscar Arias, former President of Costa Rica and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, who linked human security with proposals for a Global Demilitarization Fund. Designed to provide support for disarming and demobilizing armed forces, re-integrating military personnel into society, and other measures to promote arms control and civic education for democracy, this effort would become an integral element for increasing human security in many countries. After 1994, the concept of human security became a central theme of a number of governments through their foreign and defence policies. In particular, the Canadian, Japanese and Norwegian governments led the way in institutionalizing human security concerns into their respective foreign policies(Richard Jolly and Deepayan Basu Ray.(2006),p.4).

In the 1990s, the two dominant strands of foreign policy such as economic development and military security became intertwined. The development and security establishments have also each undergone a turmoil with the end of the cold war, the recognition of highly uneven patterns of change in different components of development, and the technological and political changes often labeled globalization. One consequence has been the emergence of the concept of human security. As fostered by the UNDP, this term usually means "free from fear and want”(Gary King and Christopher J. L. Murray(2001-2002),p.585).

The end of the Cold War and the increasing pace of globalization have given rise to fundamental changes in many of the paradigms employed in the social sciences. Amongst the various new ideas which have emerged, "human security" has become somewhat of a buzzword. It's been embraced by the United Nations (UN) and countries such as Canada and Japan have proclaimed it as the guiding principle of their foreign policies(Yu-tai Tsai(2009),p.20). The term "human security" was introduced into international discussion in the 1990s as a response to new (or more generalized) "downside risks" that could affect everyone. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) defined human security as both "safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression and protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily life”. Although the actual term "human security was first used by the UNDP in 1994, its origins can be traced to earlier United Nations commissions on the environment, development, and global governance. The Clinton administration used the term in many foreign policy speeches in 1993 and 1994. Even earlier, the Helsinki Accords of 1975 linked state security to individual human rights(Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann(2012),p.89).

According to Mahbub ul-Haq, in United Nations Development Programme, 1994, “Human security is not only a concern with weapons. It is a concern with human dignity. In the last analysis, it is a child who did not die, a disease that did not spread, an ethnic tension that did not explode, a dissident who was not silenced, a human spirit that was not crushed(Viviene Taylor(2004),p.65). Human security means protecting people(Viviene Taylor(2004),p.66).The 1994 UNDP report focused on the risks of "Unchecked population growth, disparities in economic opportunities, excessive international migration, environmental degradation, drug production and trafficking, and International terrorism". Later, other risks such as the spread of disease and instability in financial markets were added. The human security agenda focuses on "early warning and prevention" of all these downside risks to which almost everyone, rich and poor, in the North or south is vulnerable. Thus, the human security agenda identifies "new" threats to human well being in the sense that the threats are actually new(climate change),more extreme than in previous decades (terrorism), or previously not thought of as a threat to human security(excessive migration)( Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann(2012),p.90).

The stress on "human" security was meant to be a counterweight to the view that the only form of security that mattered was quite narrowly as "military defense of state interests and territory. The focus of human security is "people," as opposed to states. Human security principal goal is to extend the concept of security beyond national security as one way to force states to pay more attention to the needs of their citizens. The choice of the term "security" is meant to persuade governments that citizens security is state security, if citizens are insecure then states are insecure(Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann(2012),p.90). The other innovation of the human security agenda is that the international community has obligations to protect people by intervening to protect citizens security when their own states can not provide it. Human security, in the view of one of its advocates defense is a form of forward defense against common threats to humanity, utilizing new diplomatic and other tools. It identifies new duty-bearers to protect human security and suggests new mechanisms that they can use. Thus the original 1994 human security agenda intersects with the later agenda of the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine (R2P) in an on-going attempt to legitimize and regularize international intervention when states can not or will not protect their own citizens(Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann(2012),p.91).

Most understandings of human security trace it to the 1994 Hum Development Report of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). But its roots can be found in debates about the meaning security that predate the end of the cold war, including the debate over the disarmament-development nexus that took place in various Unit Nations forums in response to the cold war arms race. The work of several independent commissions such as the Brandt Commission, the Bruntland Commission, and, later, the Commission on Global Governance, helped shift the focus of security analysis from nation and state security to security for the people. This was followed by a growing recognition of non-military threats in global security debates. The UNDP approach to human development synthesized the earlier representations of human security. Although it adopted a people oriented notion of security, it also invoked the 'guns versus butter debate’ in criticizing states such as India and Pakistan for spending too much on the military sector at the expense of development efforts(Amitav Acharya(2001),p.444).

The UNDP s work was the result of innovative scholarship by an Asian scholar, Mahbub ul Haq. It listed seven separate components of human security such as economic security (assured basic income), food security (physical and economic access to food), health security (relative freedom from disease and infection), environmental security (access to sanitary water supply, clean air and a non-degraded land system), personal security (security from physical violence and threats), community security (security of cultural identity), and political security (protection of basic human rights and freedoms)( Amitav Acharya(2001),p.445).

One critic of the UNDP report was the Canadian government and its minister of foreign affairs, Lloyd Axworthy. While acknowledging the report as the source of the specific phrase human security, Canada critiqued it for focusing too much on threats associated with underdevelopment at the expense of human insecurity resulting from violent conflict'. In the Canadian view, human security is 'security of the people,' and the United Nations charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Geneva Conventions are the 'core elements' of the doctrine of human security. The concept of human security has increasingly centered on the human costs of violent conflict. This understanding of human security was shared by a few other like-minded middle powers, such as Norway, which joined hands with Ottawa in establishing a Human Security Partnership. The partnership identified a nine-point agenda of human security such as landmines, formation of an International Criminal Court, human rights, international humanitarian law, women and children in armed conflict, small arms proliferation, child soldiers, child labour, and northern co-operation(Amitav Acharya(2001),p.446).

A different understanding of human security, predating the Canadian formulation, was developed by Tokyo. In a speech to the 50th anniversary special session of the United Nations General Assembly in October 1995, Japan Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama advocated human security as a new strategy for the United Nations. Although he provided few specifics as to how it might be implemented, one Japanese report viewed the concept as 'a new approach intended to redefine the concept of security, which so far has been understood largely in terms of individual states, as a way of further protecting the security and rights of each person. In a tone similar to the subsequent Canadian formulation, the editorial viewed human security as a conceptual tool for addressing the growing incidence of civil conflicts around the world and the human costs, such as starvation and genocide, associated with it(Amitav Acharya(2001),p.446).

But official statements by Japan on human security eventually revealed important areas of disagreement with the Canadian formulation. While acknowledging that there were two basic aspects to human security such as freedom from fear and freedom from want, the Japanese Foreign Ministry criticized those who 'focus solely' on the first aspect and on related initiatives such as control of small arms and prosecution of war crimes. 'In Japan's view, however, human security is a much broader concept. We believe that freedom from want is no less critical than freedom from fear. So long as its objectives are to ensure the survival and dignity of individuals as human beings, it is necessary to go beyond thinking of human security solely in terms of protecting human life in conflict situations(Amitav Acharya(2001),p.446).

Security concerns arise when the threat of violence is present, but not all cases of socio- economic disaster lead to violent action; hence they should not be placed under the rubric of human security. Second, security questions are always 'political' in the sense that they involve a degree of human agency and control. Natural disasters are rarely preventable; they remain outside human control. Humanitarian aid, on the other hand, is best pursued in a 'depoliticised' manner, 'cutting clear of political objectives and security concerns,' and offered 'under the banner of impartiality and neutrality. In this sense, 'the concept of human security had better be confined to freedom from fear of man-made physical violence, also referred to as direct personal violence. A broader understanding of human security as freedom from structural violence would undermine the clarity of the notion and make it difficult to develop priorities and devise effective policy responses(Amitav Acharya(2001),p.447).

Human security has rapidly moved to occupy center stage in discussions of foreign policy. For example, the Group of Eight (G8) foreign ministers declared in June of 1999 that they are determined to fight the underlying causes of multiple threats to human security(Gary King and Christopher J. L. Murray(2001-2002),p.585). This is the brief evolution of the human security.

Analysis of Human Security Public Policies in India:

Can human security be applied as a public policy tool in India?. Yes. It is. In fact, the concept of human security as understood today finds resonance also in certain ancient Indian thoughts and beliefs like during the regime of emperor Ashoka(D.P.K.Pillay(2016),p.45). However, the union government of India’s Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Defence public policies for providing human security to its Indian citizens are analysed below.

The union Ministry of Home Affairs Public Policies on Human Security:

Though in terms of entries 1 and 2 of List II of 'State List' in the seventh schedule to the Constitution of India, 'public order ' and 'police' are the responsibilities of the States, Article 355 of the Constitution of India enjoins the Union government to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the Government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. In pursuance of these obligations, the Ministry of Home Affairs continuously monitors the internal security situation, issues appropriate advisories, shares intelligence inputs, extends manpower and financial support, guidance and expertise to the State Governments for maintenance of security, peace and harmony without encroaching upon the constitutional rights of the States(Government of India(2022-23),p.1). For providing the security to the people of India, the union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) discharges multifarious responsibilities, important among them being are internal security, border management, Centre-State relations, administration of Union Territories, management of Central Armed Police Forces, disaster management, etc(Government of India(2022-23),p.1). However, the following are the major public policies related to human security providing by this ministry to benefit of its citizens of India.

The Department of Border Management of MHA:

It is dealing with the management of borders, including coastal borders, strengthening of border guarding and creation of related infrastructure, border areas development, etc (https://www.mha.gov.in/en/ departments-of-mha).

The Border Management-I (BM-I) division of MHA:

It deals with issues for providing human security relating to strengthening of India’s international land borders, their policing and guarding which encompasses management of land borders by creating and improving infrastructure works like border fencing, border roads, border flood lighting, Border Out Posts of border guarding forces along Indo-Pakistan, Indo-Bangladesh, Indo-China, Indo-Nepal, Indo-Bhutan and Indo-Myanmar borders. The division also deals with matters related to Empowered Committee on Border Infrastructure (ECBI)(Government of India(2022-23),p.1).

The Border Management-II (BM-II) division of MHA:

It deals with the matters relating to Border Area Development Programme (BADP), Coastal Security Schemes (CSS) and Land Ports Authority of India (LPAI). The BADP is a core Centrally Sponsored Scheme being implemented through the State Governments as a part of comprehensive approach to the border management. The BADP is The Coastal Security Scheme is implemented in Phases for providing financial assistance for creation of infrastructure relating to costal security in the Coastal States/UTs. The programme aims to meet the special development needs of the people living in remote and inaccessible areas situated near the international border and to saturate the border areas with the essential infrastructure through convergence of Central/State/BADP/Local schemes and participatory approach.

The BADP was initiated in the border areas of the western region during that Seventh Five Year Plan period for ensuring balanced development of border areas through development of infrastructure and promotion of a sense of security among the border population. The modified guidelines of BADP was issued in June, 2015 (https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2022-08/BADPModifiedGuidelines_090715.PDF). Presently, the Programme covers 457 Blocks of 117 border Districts in 16 States and 2 Union Territories abutting the International Boundary such as Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir (UT), Ladakh (UT), Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and West Bengal. Under this programme priority is given to the areas closer to the border. The BADP is an important intervention of the Central Government to bring about development of border areas by supplementing the State Plan Funds to bridge the gaps in socio- economic infrastructure on one hand and improving the security environment in border areas on the other. However, this division is also responsible for establishment matters of LPAI, which is entrusted with construction, development and maintenance of Integrated Check Posts (ICPs) on the land borders of the country and coordination with various stakeholders for development of ICPs(Government of India(2022-23),p.2).

The Department of Internal Security of MHA:

It is dealing with the Indian Police Service, Central Police Forces, internal security and law and order, insurgency, terrorism, Naxalism, activities of inimical foreign agencies, terrorist financing, rehabilitation, grant of visa and other immigration matters, security clearances, protection of Human Rights Act and also matters relating to National integration and Communal Harmony etc(https://www.mha.gov.in/en/departments-of-mha).

The Internal Security-I (IS-I) Division of MHA:

It deals with matters relating to internal security, law and order, Punjab; national integration, communal harmony, observance of National Unity Day; arms and explosives; security of persons and of vital installations; security clearances of projects and proposals; matters relating to Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRandD) and establishment of Rashtriya Raksha University(Government of India(2022-23),p.3).This university was already established and it is located at Gandhinagar, Gujarat(state), which is a pioneering National Security and police university in India. The University is destined to grow as a model security educational University of India. Its endeavors focus on highly professional security, strategic and police education, research and training through its qualified civilian and security and police faculty, committed human resource, motivated participants and students, intellectually stimulating and professional disciplined environment and world-wide network, sharing and exchange. It aims at providing security and strategic education in the contemporary and futuristic security strategic and police studies and interdisciplinary areas. The University contributes to vision of India of Peace, Prosperous and Stable World in alliance with grand strategic cooperation between like-minded nations and promoting greater understanding between senior security, police officers, diplomats, civil servants and civilians to promote the cause of the Nation(https://rru.ac.in/).

The Internal Security-II (IS-II) Division of MHA:

It deals with matters relating to extradition, mutual legal assistance, Interpol, Drug Law Enforcement and Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), the National Security Act, protection of Human Rights, Central Scheme for Assistance to Civilian Victims/ families of Victims of Terrorist/ Communal/ LWE Violence and Cross Border Firing and Mine/ Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Blasts on Indian Territory(Government of India(2022-23),p.3).

The Department of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh Affairs of MHA:

It deals with the UTs of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh, administration of the Armed Forces(JandK) Special Powers Act,1990 (21 of 1990) and all matters relating to the UTs of Jammu,Kashmir and Ladakh, including Counter-terrorism within Jammu and Kashmir and coordination in respect of subjects/matters specifically allotted to any other Ministry/Department like coordination with Ministry of Defence as regards manning and managing the line of control between India and Pakistan, but excluding those with which the Ministry of External Affairs is concerned. The Department also coordinates with various Ministries/Departments, primarily concerned with development and welfare activities in Jammu and Kashmir as well as Ladakh. In order to provide human security for the people of India, it also dealing with Centre-State relations, Inter-State relations, administration of Union Territories, Freedom Fighters’ pension, Human rights, Prison Reforms, Police Reforms, etc (https://www.mha.gov.in/en/departments-of-mha).

In order to provide human security, this Division also coordinates with various Ministries/ Departments for the accelerated implementation of various Flagship schemes and Individual Beneficiary Centric Schemes of Government of India, Major Projects of economic importance including, Prime Minister's Development Package (PMDP) in Jammu and Kashmir as well as Ladakh and matters of Ayodhya(Government of India(2022-23),p.3). The Ayodhya dispute issue was settled. The Lord Sri Rama temple was constructed successfully at the same Ayodhya place in Uttar Pradesh(state)in India. The credit goes to the BJP led NDA central government of India under the Prime Ministership of Mr. Narendra Modi.

It is important to note that the Department of Internal Security, Department of States, Department of Home, Department of Jammu and Kashmir Affairs and Department of Border Management of MHA do not function in watertight compartments. They all function under the Union Home Secretary and are inter-linked. There is a designated Secretary for Department of Border Management and Internal Security also(https://www.mha.gov.in/en/departments-of-mha).

Cyber and Information Security (CIS) Division of MHA:

It handles matters and work relating to implementation of National Information Security Policy and Guidelines (NISPG) by all the Ministries and Departments, cyber security and risk assessment of IT infrastructure of various Ministries/ Departments/Organizations, coordination in handling of cybercrime in the country, Scheme on prevention of cyber crimes against woman and children, Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) Scheme, establishment of cyber forensic laboratories, regular in formation security audits, international conventions on cyber security and cyber crimes, Lawful Interception and National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID)(Government of India(2022-23),p.2).

Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Center:

It is a scheme with an outlay of Rs. 340.00 Crore to deal with cyber crimes in a coordinated and comprehensive manner. The key components are such as (i) National Cyber Crime Threat Analytics Unit (ii) National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (iii) National Cyber Crime Training Centre (iv) National Cyber Crime Research and Innovation Centre (v) Platform for Joint Cyber Crime Coordination Teams (vi) National Cyber Crime Ecosystem Management Unit and (vii) National Cyber Crime Forensic Laboratory (Investigation) Ecosystem. The major initiative under the I4C Scheme is as follows. Designed and developed, Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System, which integrates Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) of states and Banks/Payment Intermediaries/Wallets with the Cybercrime Backend Portal to work in tandem on the complaints reported on portal and Bank/wallet/Merchant and LEAs to take immediate action on these complaints. It started functioning from April 2021. It helps citizens to report cyber financial fraud immediately to Police using national help-line number 1930. As on 31^st December 2022, 644899 number of Cyber frauds are registered under this module. The help line number has been able to save over 205 crore of defrauded money from reaching the hands of fraudsters(Government of India(2022-23),p.164).

SMART Policing:

During the 49 DGs/IGs Annual Conference on 30^th November 2014, Prime Minister of India mr. Narendra Modi had introduced a concept of S.M.A.R.T. Police. It implies as S- Sensitive and Strict; M- Modern and Mobile; A- Alert and Accountable; R- Reliable and Responsive and T- Trained and Techno-savvy. In this regard four Regional Workshops were successfully organised on Smart Policing in Bengaluru, Bhopal, Guwahati and Chandigarh during April-May 2015. During the workshops, many innovative ideas and best practices followed by various State Governments/Police were presented and analysed. The best practices have been shortlisted in accordance with the ten attributed of 'SMART' policing. A compilation of best practices and SMART policing initiatives was released by BPRandD in the DGs/IGsP conference held during the period from 19^th December, 2015 to 20^th December, 2015 in Bhuj, Gujarat(Government of India(2022-23),p.171). This is a very successful innovative public policy of the BJP led NDA central government of India under the Prime Ministership of Mr. Narendra Modi.

Student Police Cadet (SPC) Programme:

The SPC Programme was launched nationally on 21^st July 2018 at Tau Devil Lal Stadium, Gurugram, by Shri Rajnath Singh, then Union Home Minister in the presence of Shri Praksh Javadekar, then Union Human Resource Development Minister(presently union Ministry of Education), and Shri Manohar Lal Khattar, then Chief Minister of Haryana. About 6000 cadets from different States/UTs participated in the ceremony. The programme seeks to build a bridge between the Police and the larger community through school students by inculcating values and ethics in them with classes in schools and outside. The programme focuses on students of classes 8 and 9 and special care has been taken to ensure that it does not lead to increase in the workload of the students. The programme is to cover broadly two kinds of topics such as (i) Crime prevention and control and (ii) Values and ethics. Under the first part, the topics covered are Community Policing, Road Safety, Fight against Social Evils, Safety of Women and Children, Fight against Corruption and Disaster Management. The topics covered under the second part are such as Values and Ethics, Respect for Elders, Empathy and Sympathy, Tolerance, Patience, Attitude, Team Spirit and Discipline. As per information provided by BPRandD, more than 11,000 schools and 7,18,638 number of students are enrolled as SPC Cadets till 31^st December 2022(Government of India(2022-23), p.171).

Umbrella scheme of Modernization of Police Forces (MPF): The Sub-Group of Chief Ministers on rationalisation of Centrally Sponsored Schemes, constituted under the chairmanship of Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan, then Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, recommended in the year 2015 that the schemes of “law and order” and “justice delivery system” be treated as part of the core National Development Agenda. In pursuant to this recommendation, the Government of India (NITI Aayog), vide O.M. dated 17.08.2016, has included the umbrella scheme of “Modernisation of Police Forces(MPF)” as a 'core' scheme, while finalizing 6 'Core of the Core' schemes, 20 'Core' Schemes and 2 'optional schemes by rationalizing existing 66 Centrally sponsored schemes. On 19^th January 2022, the union Cabinet has given its approval for continuation of umbrella scheme of “Modernisation of Police Forces (MPF)” for 5 years period from 2021-22 to 2025-26. This scheme comprises all relevant sub-schemes that contribute to modernization and improvement in the functioning of the Police Forces of States and Union Territories (UTs) with a total central financial outlay of 26,275 crore(Government of India(2022-23),p.160).

Counter Terrorism and Counter Radicalization (CTCR) Division: It deals with matters relating to policy and operational issues on terrorism, counter radicalization and deradicalization, combating financing of terrorism and administrative, financial and statutory matters of National Investigation Agency (NIA)(Government of India(2022-23),p.2).

Disaster Management (DM) Division of MHA:

This is responsible for legislation, policy, capacity building, prevention, mitigation, long term rehabilitation, response, relief and preparedness for natural calamities and man-made disasters except drought and epidemics(Government of India(2022-23),p.3).

Freedom Fighters and Rehabilitation (FFR) Division of MHA: The FFR Division frames and implements the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme and the schemes for rehabilitation of migrants from former West Pakistan / East Pakistan and provision of relief to Sri Lankan and Tibetan refugees, and also deals with administration of the Enemy Property Act, 1968(Government of India(2022-23),p.3).This act extends to the whole of India and it applies also to all citizens of India outside India and to branches and agencies outside India of companies or bodies corporate registered or incorporated in India(The Enemy Property Act, 1968).

North East (NE) Division of MHA:

The NE Division deals with the internal security and law and order situation in the North-Eastern States, including matters relating to insurgency and talks with various extremist groups operating in that region(Government of India(2022-23),p.4).

Women Safety Division of MHA:

The Government of India has set up a Women Safety Division in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 28.05.2018 to strengthen measures for safety of women in the country and instill greater sense of security in them through speedy and effective administration of justice in a holistic manner and by providing a safer environment for women. The Division is responsible for policy formulation, planning, coordinating, formulating and implementing projects and schemes to assist States and Union Territories to achieve the objective, as also prison reforms and related subjects. This inter-alia includes increased use of IT and technology in criminal justice system and enabling a supportive ecosystem for forensic sciences and crime and criminal records(Government of India(2022-23),p.4).

Cyclone Michaung:

The Union government on December 7,2023 released funds for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, and another tranche of funds for Chennai city, in the wake of damage inflicted by severe cyclonic storm Michaung that hit the coastal south States in India this week. The Union Home Minister Amit Shah posted on X (formerly Twitter) said that “government has approved rs,561.29 crore for the Integrated Urban Flood Management activities for Chennai Basin Project. Chennai is facing major floods, the third such occurring in the last eight years. We are witnessing more instances of metropolitan cities receiving excessive rainfall, leading to sudden flooding. Guided by a pro-active approach, Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji has approved the first urban flood mitigation project of rs.561.29 crore for ‘Integrated Urban Flood Management activities for Chennai Basin Project’ under the National Disaster Mitigation Fund (NDMF), which also includes Central assistance of rs.500 crore. This mitigation project will help make Chennai flood-resilient. This is the first in a series of urban flood mitigation efforts and will help develop a broader framework for urban flood management”(The Hindu news paper, December 8,2023)

In another post, Amit Shah said that “Michaung has affected Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh and though the extent of damage is varied, many areas of these States remain inundated, thus affecting standing crops. To help the State governments with the management of relief, PM Modi directed the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to release in advance the Central share of the second instalment of the State Disaster Response Fund of rs.493.60 crore to Andhra Pradesh and rs.450 crore to Tamil Nadu. The Centre had already released the first instalment of the same amount to both States. I pray for the safety and well-being of all those affected. We stand with them in this crucial hour and will ensure the situation normalises at the earliest”(The Hindu news paper, December 8,2023) etc.

The union Ministry of Defence Public Policies:

The Government of India is responsible for ensuring the defence of India and every part thereof. The Supreme Command of the Armed Forces vests in the President of India. The responsibility for national defence rests with the union Cabinet. This is discharged through the Ministry of Defence, which provides the policy framework and wherewithal to the Armed Forces to discharge their responsibilities in the context of the defence of the country. The Raksha Mantri (Defence Minister) is the head of the Ministry of Defence (https://mod.gov.in/node/92338). The principal task of the Defence Ministry is to obtain policy directions of the Government on all defence and security related matters and communicate them for implementation to the Services Headquarters, Inter-Services Organisations, Production Establishments and Research and Development Organisations. It is also required to ensure effective implementation of the Government's policy directions and the execution of approved programmes within the allocated resources (https://mod.gov.in/node/ 92338). The principal functions of all the Departments of this ministry in order to provide human security by various public policies to its citizens of India are analysed below.

The Department of Defence:

This is headed by Defence Secretary and is responsible for the Defence Budget, establishment matters, defence policy, matters relating to Parliament, defence co-operation with foreign countries and co-ordination of all defence related activities.

The Department of Military Affairs (DMA):

This is headed by Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) as Secretary and was created to facilitate optimal utilization of resources and promote jointness among the three Services such as Indian Army, Indian Navy and Indian Air force.

The Department of Defence Production (DDP):

This is headed by a Secretary and deals with matters pertaining to defence production, indigenisation of imported stores, equipment and spares, planning and control of departmental production units of the Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSUs).

The Department of Defence Research and Development (DDRandD):

This is headed by a Secretary and deals with research and development of defence technologies, systems and equipments as required by the three services of the Armed Forces.

The Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW):

This is headed by a Secretary and deals with all resettlement, welfare and pensionary matters of Ex-Servicemen.

The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of provisions) Act, 2023: This is an Act to amend certain enactments for decriminalising and rationalising offences to further enhance trust-based governance for ease of living and doing business(Ministry of Law and Justice(2023). Moreover, the Amendment Bill will contribute to rationalizing criminal provisions and ensuring that citizens, businesses and the government departments operate without fear of imprisonment for minor, technical or procedural defaults(PIB,(2023)).These are the public policies of this ministry regarding to provide human security to its citizens of India.

CONCLUSION:

The debate over whether a state has to give priority through its various public policies to its national security or to its citizens human security. Although over the years the concept of security has shifted from a state or national security to human security, in reality, both are existing in the states. Some times both are used as interchangeably. As far as India state is concerned, here also both have been existing. As far as the success of implementation of public policies for providing both national as well as human security is concerned, it was a huge successful in India during the BJP led NDA central government of India under its present incumbent Prime Ministership of Mr. Narendra Modi.

REFERENCES:

1. Amitav Acharya.(2001). Human Security: East versus West. International Journal. Summer. 2001; 56(3): 442-460.

2. D.P.K. Pillay. Applying Human Security in the Indian Context. Strategic Analysis. 2016; 40(10: 41–55.

3. Earl Conteh-Morgan. Peacebuilding and Human Security: A Constructivist Perspective. International Journal of Peace Studies. Spring/Summer. 2005; 10(1); 69-86

4. Edward Newman. Critical human security studies. Review of International Studies. 2010; 36(1): 77-94

5. Government of India. (2022-23). Annual Report 2022-23. Ministry of Home Affairs. https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/ AnnualReportEngLish_11102023.pdf

6. https://mod.gov.in/node/92338

7. https://rru.ac.in/

8. https://www.mha.gov.in/en/departments-of-mha

9. https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2022-08/BADPModifiedGuidelines_090715.PDF

10. Mary Kaldor. Human Security. Society and Economy. December. 2011; 33(3): 441- 448

11. Ministry of Law and Justice. (2023).The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of provisions) Act,2023. https://mod.gov.in/sites/ default/files/JanVishwasAct5923.pdf

12. Oliver P. Richmond.(2012-13). Human security and its subjects. International Journal. Winter.Vol. 68. No. 1. The international politics of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Sage Publications, Ltd on behalf of the Canadian International Council. pp. 205-225

13. PIB(2023).Lok Sabha passes Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2023 in Parliament. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1943393#.

14. Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann. Human Security: Undermining Human Rights?. Human Rights Quarterly. February. 2012; 34(1): 88- 112

15. Richard Jolly and Deepayan Basu Ray.(2006). The Human Security Framework and National Human Development Reports: A Review of Experiences and Current Debates. UNDP. NHDR Occasional Paper 5. https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/ human-security.human-security

16. Roland Paris.(2001). Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?. International Security. Fall, Vol. 26. No. 2. pp. 87-102

17. Sarka waisova.(2003). Human Security — the Contemporary Paradigm?. Perspectives. Summer. No. 20. pp. 58-72

18. The Enemy Property Act, 1968. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/ bitstream/123456789/1582/1/196834.pdf

19. The Hindu news paper, December 8,2023. Cyclone Michaung : Centre announces ₹1,500-crore aid to Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh after cyclone wreaks havoc. https://www.thehindu.com/ news/national/cyclone-michaung-centre-releases-funds-for-cyclone-affected-andhra-tamil-nadu/article67614527.ece

20. Viviene Taylor. (2004). From State Security to Human Security and Gender Justice. Agenda: Empowering Women for Gender Equity. No. 59. Women in War. Taylor and Francis, Ltd on behalf of Agenda Feminist Media. pp. 65-70

21. Yu-tai Tsai. (2009). The Emergence of Human Security: A Constructivist View. International Journal of Peace Studies. 2009; 14(2): 19-33

Received on 10.05.2024 Modified on 29.05.2024

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2024;15(3):225-237.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5828.2024.00034