Security

Defintion:
“Security is eleviation of threats’
‘Ken Booth defined security as the absence of threats and
connected it to emancipation, which is the freeing of people from
the physical and human constraints that stop them from living
freely. For Booth, true security wasn't just about state power or
order, but about creating the conditions for everyone to be both
"being and feeling safe," allowing them the freedom to pursue their
own choices and a better life.’
Plus mean security as commodity
Plus mean security for establishing human dignity
Commodity mean security is property,weapons,land

"Establishing human dignity without the use of weapons is called

human security."

Two Schools of Thought in International Relations:

Realism (Realist School):

 Focuses on military power, state sovereignty, and national

interest.
 Believes security comes primarily through weapons, force, and
deterrence.
 Human dignity is secondary to state survival.

Liberalism (Liberalist School):

 Emphasizes cooperation, diplomacy, international organizations,

and law.
 Advocates for human security, economic development, and
human rights.
 Argues that true security is achieved by protecting individuals,
not just states

strategic study

After World War II, in America, the field was called Security
Studies, focusing mainly on military power, nuclear strategy, and
state survival (realist tradition).

In Europe, however, scholars preferred the term Strategic

Studies, which also focused on military strategy but later expanded
to include political, economic, and social dimensions of security

Whose security:
Traditional security focuses on the protection of the state from
external military threats, emphasizing weapons, armies, and
national defense (realist view).

Non-traditional security focuses on the protection of individuals

and societies from issues like poverty, terrorism, climate change,
pandemics, migration, and human rights violations (liberal view).

Evolution of Security Concepts

1. World War Era (1911–1945): Maximum and Absolute

Security

In the early twentieth century, during and between the two World
Wars (1914–18 and 1939–45), states believed in maximum
security or absolute security. The assumption was that national
survival depended on military power, territorial control, and decisive
victory. States heavily invested in weapons and alliances to achieve
total safety. However, the devastation of both wars proved that
absolute security was an illusion, as no amount of force prevented
catastrophe.

2. Cold War Era (1945–1991): Relative Security

The end of World War II ushered in a bipolar system, dominated

by the United States and the Soviet Union. Nuclear weapons
changed the logic of war: instead of absolute safety, states pursued
relative security—being safer compared to the rival superpower.
Security rested on deterrence, nuclear parity, and balance of
power. Strategic doctrines, alliance blocs (NATO and Warsaw Pact),
and crises like Berlin and Cuba highlighted that no state could be
fully secure in a world of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).

3. Late Cold War: Common Security

By the 1970s–80s, the concept of common security emerged,

recognizing that certain threats—especially nuclear war and arms
races—could not be addressed unilaterally. One state’s security
could not be built on another’s insecurity. Efforts like détente, arms-
control treaties (SALT, START), and confidence-building measures
reflected this cooperative approach. Later, issues like environment
and energy security also began to enter the agenda.

4. Post–Cold War / Unipolar World (1991–Present): Human or

People’s Security
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the unipolar moment led to a
broader understanding of security. The focus shifted from protecting
states to protecting people. The human security framework
emphasized safeguarding individuals from non-traditional threats
such as poverty, terrorism, civil wars, climate change, pandemics,
and human rights violations. Security expanded to include seven
dimensions (economic, food, health, environmental, personal,
community, and political security). Unlike earlier eras, the emphasis
was on cooperation, international law, and development—not just
weapons.

Is security to be achieved ?

Absolute Security

The idea of absolute security dominated thinking in the early

twentieth century. It was based on the belief that a state could
achieve total safety from all external threats through military
buildup, territorial control, and alliances. In practice, this proved
unrealistic because one state’s pursuit of absolute security created
insecurity for others, leading to the security dilemma. Germany’s
military buildup before World War I is a classic example: instead of
safety, it triggered an arms race and ultimately war.

2. Maximum Security

During the World Wars, states sought maximum security, meaning

the highest possible level of protection through weapons, alliances,
and territorial expansion. However, this militarization and
competition for superiority produced global conflicts and
destruction. Both World War I and World War II proved that attempts
to achieve maximum security only generated greater instability and
suffering, not lasting safety.

3. Relative Security

The Cold War period (1945–1991) highlighted the limitations of

both absolute and maximum security. With the advent of nuclear
weapons, states recognized that no one could be completely safe in
a world of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Instead, security
became relative—the goal was to remain safer in comparison to
rivals, as seen in the balance of power and deterrence between the
United States and the Soviet Union. Thus, relative security replaced
earlier illusions of total protection.

4. Great Power Security

For great powers, security has always been more than just
territorial defense. It includes maintaining strategic influence,
ensuring access to global resources, and preserving their
dominance in the international order. However, when great powers
pursue their own security at the expense of others, smaller states
are often made less secure. This shows that one state’s absolute
security often results in another’s insecurity, reinforcing the
argument that perfect security cannot be achieved.

Why India Is Not Considered a Great Power?

Despite being a large and influential state in South Asia, India is

generally seen as a regional power rather than a global great
power. A great power is defined as a state with the capacity to
project its influence and shape outcomes not only in its region but
also at the global level—politically, militarily, and economically.
India falls short of this standard for several reasons:

1. Economic Limitations

India has the world’s fifth-largest economy in size, but it still

faces deep structural challenges: poverty, inequality,
unemployment, and weak infrastructure.

Its per capita income remains low, preventing it from

matching the economic weight of great powers like the United
States, China, or the EU.

Heavy dependence on imports for energy and technology

limits its global economic leverage.

2. Military Constraints

India has one of the world’s largest militaries and nuclear

weapons, but much of its equipment is outdated and
imported.

It lacks the advanced military technology, power projection

capacity, and global basing network that characterize great
powers like the U.S. or even China.

Its security is largely regional, focused on Pakistan and China,

rather than global.
Political and Strategic Limits

India plays an important role in South Asia but has limited

influence beyond its neighborhood.

Its foreign policy often struggles between non-alignment

traditions and modern strategic partnerships, which weakens
its ability to act decisively on the world stage.

Persistent disputes with Pakistan, tensions with China, and

domestic political divisions reduce its strategic stability.

4. Social and Developmental Challenges

High poverty rates, illiteracy, weak healthcare, and rapid

population growth remain serious barriers.

Internal issues like communal violence, corruption, and

regional separatism affect state cohesion, which great powers
usually maintain more effectively.

5. Lack of Global Leadership Role

India aspires to a greater voice in institutions like the UN

Security Council, but it has not yet assumed the role of a
global agenda-setter.

Unlike the U.S., China, or Russia, India has limited ability to

influence events far from its borders. Its soft power
(Bollywood, culture, democracy) is strong, but not sufficient to
elevate it to great power status.

Why Absolute Security Cannot Be Achieved

1. The Myth of Absolute Security

Absolute security is the belief that a state can achieve total and
permanent safety from all threats. In reality, this is unachievable
because the pursuit of absolute safety by one state produces
insecurity for others. This leads to the security dilemma and
endless competition.

2. Rise and Fall of Civilizations (Ibn Khaldun’s Theory)

Ibn Khaldun argued that civilizations rise when they have strong
asabiyyah (social cohesion) and decline when corruption and
luxury weaken their unity. This cyclical process proves that no
empire or state can be permanently secure. History of the Romans,
Ottomans, and Soviets reflects this.

3. Offensive and Defensive Realism

Offensive Realism (Mearsheimer): States seek to

maximize power to dominate rivals. But this makes others
feel insecure, so conflict becomes inevitable.

Defensive Realism (Waltz): States only seek survival, not

dominance, but because no one trusts anyone in anarchy,
absolute security is still impossible.

4. Thucydides Trap

When a rising power threatens to overtake a dominant one, war

becomes likely. Athens vs Sparta, Britain vs Germany, and today’s
U.S. vs China are examples. This dynamic makes absolute security
unattainable because power transitions always create fear and
conflict.

5. Power Transition Theory

Power transition theory (Organski) explains that when a challenger

approaches the level of a dominant power, confrontation is likely.
The dominant power resists decline, and the rising power demands
recognition. This cycle ensures no state can ever achieve absolute
security for long.

6. Problems of Absolute Security

a) Power Maximization

In trying to maximize power for safety, states provoke rivals to also

build up militaries, leading to an arms race. For example, the U.S.–
Soviet nuclear buildup during the Cold War, or India–Pakistan’s race
after 1998. This pursuit of “more power = more security” actually
creates less security, proving absolute safety is a myth.

b) Securitization
The Copenhagen School explains that states often securitize issues
(label them as existential threats) to justify extraordinary measures,
such as surveillance, repression, or militarization. While this gives
temporary security, it creates long-term instability, mistrust, and
internal resistance. Example: the U.S. securitizing terrorism after
9/11 led to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not lasting peace.

Deterrence and Tactical Deterrence

Strategic deterrence refers to the use of long-range or large-scale

nuclear capabilities as an ultimate safeguard against total war.
During the Cold War, this was reflected in Mutually Assured
Destruction (MAD) between the United States and the Soviet Union,
and in South Asia it continues to stabilize India–Pakistan relations.

In contrast, tactical deterrence relies on short-range battlefield

nuclear weapons aimed at preventing conventional or limited wars.
Pakistan’s development of the short-range Nasr missile is an
example, designed to counter India’s “Cold Start” doctrine.
However, this approach is risky, since lowering the nuclear threshold
increases the chance of escalation.

Clash of Civilizations

Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations thesis suggested that

after the Cold War, conflicts would no longer be ideological or
economic, but cultural. According to him, the major dividing lines of
the future would be between civilizations such as the West and
Islam or the West and China. The post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq, along with the growing Sino-Western rivalry, illustrate the
persistence of civilizational fault lines. This demonstrates that
security is no longer confined to state borders alone but also
involves deeper cultural identities.

Power Center Shifting

History demonstrates that global power centers are never static.

The colonial period was dominated by Europe, followed by a bipolar
Cold War order structured by the United States and the Soviet
Union. After 1991, the U.S. briefly enjoyed unipolar dominance.
Today, however, the global balance is shifting toward Asia, with
China’s rapid rise, India’s growing role, and institutions like BRICS
and the SCO challenging Western dominance. This trend points
toward a multipolar world, reviving concerns such as the Thucydides
Trap and Power Transition Theory, where rising powers challenge
established ones, increasing the likelihood of instability.
Important Contemporary Security Issues

1. Economic Security

Economic stability is a cornerstone of national security. Countries

with weak economies face poverty, unemployment, debt
dependency, and vulnerability to external shocks. For developing
states like Pakistan, issues such as IMF loans, inflation, and trade
deficits undermine sovereignty. At the global level, competition over
resources, supply chains, and technological dominance (e.g., U.S.–
China trade wars) highlights how economic strength determines
security.

2. Political Security

Political stability ensures the survival of the state and its

institutions. Internal challenges such as corruption, weak
governance, political polarization, and lack of rule of law create
fragility. In many developing countries, external interventions and
pressure from great powers also undermine political autonomy. A
politically unstable state cannot ensure security for its people, no
matter how strong its military may be.

3. Social Security

Social cohesion is vital for the resilience of any state. Issues like
ethnic conflicts, sectarian violence, religious intolerance, inequality,
and rapid population growth threaten unity. Ibn Khaldun’s theory of
Asabiyyah (social cohesion) shows that civilizations fall when their
internal unity collapses. Today, social fragmentation is one of the
most serious non-traditional security challenges worldwide.

4. Military Security

Traditionally, security was equated with military power. States

continue to rely on defense forces, nuclear deterrence, and alliances
to protect sovereignty. However, the pursuit of absolute or
maximum military security creates arms races (e.g., U.S.–China,
India–Pakistan) and often reduces stability. While military strength
remains necessary, it is no longer sufficient to guarantee safety.

5. Environmental Security
Climate change, natural disasters, water scarcity, and resource
depletion have become major threats to survival. Rising sea levels,
global warming, and desertification threaten not only ecosystems
but also human livelihoods, creating climate refugees and triggering
conflicts over scarce resources. For South Asia, water disputes (like
the Indus Waters Treaty tensions) highlight how environmental
issues are now deeply linked with national security.

Levels of Security: State, System, and People

State Security

State security refers to the protection of a country’s sovereignty,

borders, and institutions. Its primary focus is on military strength,
defense policies, and deterrence strategies. This is the traditional
realist view, where survival of the state is seen as the ultimate
goal. For centuries, security was equated with armies, weapons, and
territorial defense, often ignoring the needs of individuals

System Security

System security deals with the stability of the international order

as a whole. It seeks to prevent global wars and maintain peace
among states. Mechanisms such as the balance of power,
collective security, and multilateral organizations like the
United Nations, NATO, and the WTO are central to this concept. This
perspective highlights that no state can remain secure in an
unstable world system.

People’s (Human) Security

People’s security, or human security, shifts the focus away from

states toward individuals. It emphasizes protection from poverty,
disease, hunger, environmental degradation, and violence. First
highlighted in the UNDP Human Development Report of 1994,
this approach recognizes that true security means both freedom
from fear (violence and war) and freedom from want (economic
and social well-being).

Case Study: 9/11 Attacks in the United States

The 9/11 attacks demonstrate the interaction of all three levels of

security. From the state security angle, they exposed weaknesses
in U.S. intelligence and border defense. From the system security
perspective, they reshaped international security structures, leading
to NATO’s invocation of collective defense and the launch of the War
on Terror. From the people’s security point of view, millions were
affected worldwide—through displacement, rights violations, loss of
life, and long-term insecurity in regions like Afghanistan and Iraq.
This case proves that security cannot be confined to one level alone;
it requires integration of state, system, and human dimensions.