Human Security vs National Security in South Asia – Key Differences

 Human Security vs National Security in South Asia – Key Differences

The debate between human security and national security has become increasingly significant in political science, especially in regions like South Asia where both internal vulnerabilities and external tensions shape policy priorities. Traditionally, security was understood primarily in national terms—focused on protecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of the state from external threats. However, the late twentieth century witnessed a paradigm shift toward human security, which places individuals and communities at the center of security discourse. In South Asia—comprising India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Maldives, and Afghanistan—this distinction is particularly relevant because the region faces both traditional military rivalries and deep-rooted socio-economic challenges.

National security in South Asia has historically been shaped by geopolitical tensions, especially interstate conflicts and border disputes. The rivalry between India and Pakistan, including wars and persistent tensions over Kashmir, has dominated regional security discourse for decades. Afghanistan’s prolonged conflict has also had spillover effects across borders. National security policies in the region often prioritize military modernization, border control, intelligence operations, and strategic alliances. Governments justify high defense expenditures as necessary to deter external aggression and preserve sovereignty. From a realist perspective in international relations, this approach is rational because states operate in an anarchic international system where survival depends on military strength and deterrence capabilities.

In contrast, human security emerged prominently after the end of the Cold War, particularly through the 1994 Human Development Report of the United Nations Development Programme. Human security shifts the focus from protecting territory to protecting people. It encompasses economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security, and political security. The core idea is that a state may be militarily secure yet fail to protect its citizens from poverty, hunger, disease, discrimination, or environmental disasters. In South Asia, this distinction is visible when strong military establishments coexist with widespread malnutrition, unemployment, and climate vulnerability.

One key difference between national security and human security lies in the referent object of protection. In national security, the primary referent is the state. Threats are defined in terms of external enemies, territorial violations, or strategic competition. In human security, the referent object is the individual. Threats include poverty, unemployment, pandemics, natural disasters, and human rights violations. For example, while border tensions between India and Pakistan are considered national security issues, chronic malnutrition affecting millions of children in the region is a human security issue. The former involves military deterrence and diplomacy; the latter requires social policy, healthcare investment, and inclusive development.

Another major difference lies in the nature of threats. National security traditionally focuses on military threats from other states. In South Asia, nuclear capabilities in India and Pakistan illustrate this dimension. Military exercises, arms procurement, and defense alliances are central components of national security planning. Human security, however, addresses non-military threats that are often internal or transnational. Climate change, for instance, poses no enemy state but threatens livelihoods through floods, droughts, and rising sea levels. Bangladesh frequently experiences devastating floods, while the Maldives faces existential risks from sea-level rise. These challenges cannot be addressed through military force; they require environmental policy, disaster preparedness, and international cooperation.

The instruments used to achieve security also differ significantly. National security relies heavily on military power, intelligence agencies, border control, and diplomatic negotiations. Governments allocate substantial portions of their budgets to defense spending. In contrast, human security relies on welfare policies, economic reforms, public health systems, environmental protection measures, and social inclusion initiatives. Strengthening healthcare infrastructure, expanding education access, and ensuring food distribution are human security strategies. For example, initiatives aimed at poverty alleviation and universal health coverage in India reflect a human security approach, whereas military modernization programs represent national security priorities.

Budgetary allocation provides a practical illustration of the tension between the two approaches. South Asian countries often face limited financial resources. High defense spending, justified under national security concerns, may reduce available funds for social development. Critics argue that excessive military expenditure diverts resources from education, healthcare, and infrastructure, thereby undermining human security. Supporters of strong national security counter that without territorial integrity and deterrence, development would not be possible. This creates a policy dilemma: how to balance immediate strategic threats with long-term human development needs.

The concept of sovereignty further differentiates the two frameworks. National security is closely tied to Westphalian sovereignty—the principle that states have supreme authority within their territories. Human security, however, sometimes challenges absolute sovereignty by emphasizing universal human rights. International humanitarian interventions, refugee protection norms, and global climate agreements reflect a broader understanding that protecting individuals may require international cooperation beyond strict non-interference. In South Asia, cross-border migration and refugee flows from Afghanistan highlight how human security issues transcend national boundaries.

The role of governance is another point of divergence. National security emphasizes centralized authority and strong state institutions capable of defending borders. Human security emphasizes good governance, transparency, accountability, and inclusive policymaking. Corruption, weak institutions, and political instability undermine human security by preventing effective delivery of services. For instance, economic crises in countries like Sri Lanka demonstrated how governance failures can quickly erode food and fuel security, leading to public unrest. Political scientists argue that legitimacy is strengthened not only by military power but by the state’s ability to provide welfare and justice.

Gender perspectives further illuminate the contrast. National security discourse has traditionally been male-dominated, focusing on military strength and strategic competition. Human security incorporates gender analysis, recognizing that women often face disproportionate vulnerability due to poverty, violence, and limited access to resources. In South Asia, gender-based violence and low female labor force participation highlight the need for inclusive security policies. Empowering women enhances community resilience and economic stability, contributing to broader security outcomes.

Regional cooperation offers another dimension to the debate. National security concerns often create mistrust and competition among states, hindering collaboration. The rivalry between India and Pakistan has limited the effectiveness of regional institutions such as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. Human security challenges, however, encourage cooperation because they are shared across borders. Climate change affects the entire region; pandemics do not respect national boundaries. Collaborative disaster management, water-sharing agreements, and public health initiatives can strengthen regional resilience.

The time horizon of security planning also differs. National security often focuses on immediate threats, such as border incursions or military provocations. Human security emphasizes long-term sustainability. Investments in education, climate adaptation, and poverty reduction yield benefits over decades rather than months. Policymakers must therefore balance short-term strategic imperatives with long-term human development goals. In South Asia, where political cycles are often short and security tensions can escalate quickly, maintaining this balance is challenging.

Critics of the human security approach argue that broadening the definition of security risks diluting its analytical clarity. If every social issue becomes a security issue, the concept may lose precision. Realist scholars maintain that the primary duty of the state is survival in an anarchic international system, and without national security, human security cannot exist. Conversely, proponents of human security argue that internal instability caused by poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation can weaken states and create fertile ground for conflict. Thus, human security and national security are interdependent rather than mutually exclusive.

In South Asia, this interdependence is evident. Persistent poverty and unemployment can fuel internal unrest, insurgencies, and extremism, which in turn become national security threats. Climate-induced water scarcity may intensify interstate disputes over river resources. Public health crises can disrupt economies and strain state capacity. Therefore, strengthening human security can reinforce national security by addressing root causes of instability.

From a policy perspective, integrating both approaches is essential. National security remains important in a region marked by historical rivalries and nuclear deterrence. However, exclusive focus on military preparedness without addressing socio-economic vulnerabilities may produce fragile stability. Governments must adopt comprehensive security strategies that combine defense preparedness with inclusive development, environmental sustainability, and social justice.

In conclusion, the key differences between human security and national security in South Asia lie in their focus, threats, instruments, and objectives. National security prioritizes the protection of the state from external military threats, relying on armed forces and strategic deterrence. Human security prioritizes the protection of individuals from poverty, disease, violence, and environmental degradation, relying on welfare policies and inclusive governance. While they differ conceptually, both are interconnected in practice. Sustainable stability in South Asia requires balancing military strength with human development. A state cannot be truly secure if its citizens live in fear, hunger, or deprivation. By integrating human security into national security frameworks, South Asian countries can move toward a more comprehensive and resilient model of security that protects both borders and people.