Whose security are we talking about?
Security is not just about nation-states. It is about the Delhi journalist killed on the streets, the Christian suddenly prey in her home, the bewildered victim of a terror attack, says Swarna Rajagopalan in this new series on security
The festive season in India has become a season of bomb blasts, reaching from city markets to small towns. The almost-stock images of blood on roads, smouldering buildings and stunned survivors piecing together eyewitness narratives are in Indian living rooms every few days. From Assam to Delhi to Malegaon and from Kashmir to Kannur, the ostentatious arrival of a town or a neighbourhood on the 'terror map' opens up questions not just about physical safety and the cross-currents of political socialisation, but also about the 'cleanliness' of financial transactions, interpersonal trust within society and the rule of law.
Two Delhi journalists were victims of violence in September 2008. The first was killed on her way home from work around 3 am. The second was attacked at his bus stop at 9:30 pm. The Delhi Chief Minister's response to the first was to concede that Delhi was unsafe and to pronounce the killed journalist 'adventurous' for driving home alone at that hour in such a city. She argued that it was hard to keep Delhi safe given that it was bordered by villages, drawing in migration and urban-rural relations into a consideration of individual safety.
The violent animosity shown towards Christians and churches spread beyond Orissa with the speed of an infectious disease. Even states with large Christian populations like Kerala and Tamil Nadu have fallen prey. There seems to be very little political will to act.
In the same month, India signed the nuclear deal with the US following many months of political struggle within the Indian political elite. Energy security, which underpins economic security, was the rationale for the deal. Opponents argued that it would compromise sovereignty and limit military security. The diplomatic goal of the US was to end India's isolation, with a view to securing India's de facto adherence to non-proliferation principles and opening up nuclear trade with India. Multi-layered diplomatic efforts, within, between and across states led eventually to the passage of the deal.
Formally dressed (or uniformed) men sitting gravely around a table discussing top-secret matters relating to the life and death of … the State. The ritualistic protocol of diplomacy, the ceremonial pageantry of the military, the romantic intrigue of espionage and the politicking of the high table are the images traditionally associated with security. Of the news items listed above, it is the nuclear deal that most resembles this picture—summit discussions, military calculations and expert consultations, shifting coalitions and internal negotiations.
In general, a closer look reveals diplomacy to be mundanely about visas, trade promotion and being nice to visiting artistes. The army, which does all the hard and unpleasant jobs in society from disaster relief to riot control, sometimes makes situations worse. Espionage is a convenient accusation traded by governments and it does not seem to yield enough intelligence to keep people safe much of the time. Moreover, not every spy lives like James Bond. The road to the high table is paved with more politicking than happens at the high table itself. Regular official meetings, back-channel diplomacy by special envoys and now, people-to-people contacts create the conditions in which the high table convenes.
Very interesting, and very distant from where most lives and their attendant insecurities are played out. But where does that leave the Delhi-ite for whom stepping out of the house is adventurous and the Christian who is suddenly prey in her own home?
Understanding security to refer to a narrow sphere of people and activities leaves so many stories untold; stories from your life and mine, that are better reflected in children's fiction and poetry.
• "My mother said, I never should play with the gypsies in the wood."
• "Anna Gopala, I am afraid to walk through the forest."
• The wolves that stalked Red Riding Hood and "huffed, puffed and blew down" pig dwellings.
• The loaded treasure of Panchatantra stories.
Childhood cautions to young girls—don't stay out late, don't go out alone, don't walk that way at night, don't stand at that bus-stop, don't smile at strangers, don't tell strangers your address, the almost-inbuilt discomfort with touch—were found reflected in these stories and rhymes.
What was real in those stories was missing in the traditional scholarly literature on security. As more women, more individuals outside traditional elite families entered this field, the further from our realities the issues, the debates and the stories seemed.
There are three important areas in which contemporary reality challenges traditional views of security.
The starting point of thinking about security is the question "Whose security?" and the referent of choice traditionally has been the nation-state. There are two problems with this in the real world. Internally, the State faces multiple challenges, relating to its physical (territorial) form, to citizenship and exclusion and to what kind of State it is going to be. Moreover, who are the people who act in the name of the State and on whose behalf do they do so? Combined, they undermine the legitimacy, even the very existence of a given State. Securing such an embattled State is a complex enterprise. The greater the number and fervour of the challenges, the more aggressively defensive the response, intensifying the confrontation. Securing the State comes to equal rendering sections of the State's population insecure.
The second problem arises from the multiplicity of collective and individual actors who are all potential referents like the State. Those who challenge the State within; those whose communities lie across State borders; groupings of States; non-state actors whether in international civil society or the global economy; local-to-global networks that are using today's advanced communications systems to connect and disseminate ideas; individuals who are born in one State, study in another, emigrate to a third, work in a fourth, own property in a fifth and remain connected to all contexts politically, socially and economically and individuals and families who remain completely local in their lifestyle and worldview. Whose security matters? The answer is everyone's, in which case the traditional scope of the field—the nation-state—is obsolete.
Also obsolete is the notion of a multi-tier global political dispensation where each tier is sealed off from the rest, beginning with the home and ending with the international system as a whole. Everyday, in each of our lives, every one of these tiers intersects, interacts and has an impact. Traditionally, the home was regarded as outside the public, political sphere. Today, however, not only do we call on civil society to transform and the State to enact and enforce protections for those within the home, but international agencies like the United Nations Women's Fund also support campaigns against gender violence. Whether bird flu or a financial meltdown, what starts in one place quickly reaches the other. Conflict in one small area leads to displacement, leads to trafficking and finally, sexual exploitation and vulnerability to HIV/AIDS in a totally different setting. What is 'security' about in such a world?
Traditional scholarship about security recognises the 'security dilemma'—when one State buys more weapons, the other becomes insecure and is forced to do the same, leading the first to top up, the second to follow suit… in an unending spiral where security leads to insecurity. In today's interdependent world, insecurity is contagious; no one is secure and well as long as anyone is starving, sick, unsafe or vulnerable. Not taking on the burden of each other's struggles may well make us all more insecure than potential inter-state hostilities.
This fine-sounding affirmation simply brings to the realm of security studies and policy what people already know in development work, in movements for democracy and social change, from newspaper reports and in spiritual teachings.
•Not paying attention to public health and civic sanitation issues kills more people from diarrhoea and dengue (not to mention HIV/AIDS) than most conflict situations do;
•Not paying attention to livelihood issues drives displacement and trafficking;
•Not caring about another person's rights and dignity drives them to express their discontent through militancy.
Terrorism, migration, globalisation and unprecedented ability to communicate worldwide have created a very closely interconnected international society. Social and political actions in one context or at one level have an impact that extends beyond the immediate to everyday life in apparently unrelated settings. For any security perspective to be meaningful or effective today, we need new thinking that has clarity and creativity, combining traditional views with contemporary critiques. If everyone is not secure, in the broadest, most humanistic sense of the word, no one is secure at all.
(Swarna Rajagopalan is a Chennai-based political scientist specialising in security, broadly defined. She is the founder of Prajnya Initiatives for Peace, Justice and Security, a new Chennai non-profit (http://www.prajnya.in).)
Infochange News & Features, November 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment