The right to define ‘security’ has long been the monopoly of the military. Traditionally, it is the military that has defined the security interests of a country, and is considered to be sole provider and guarantor of its security. The State itself has been obsessed with this restrictive concept of security which dwells in and around its own military might. It has been near impossible to openly criticise security policies of the State, let alone engaging in a public discussion on its meaning. In such a context, it has been difficult for civil society actors and society in general to consider the security domain as the one they can or should engage with. There is little evidence of explicit debates on traditional conceptions of national security, or articulation of alternative security concerns. Further, in the supposedly democratic and open academic sphere, we might safely say that civilian scholarship on Security Studies in Nepal is unknown and rather ‘silent’, and that it has largely internalised the traditional understandings and practices of security that are promoted by the State. Stephen Walt, in his illuminating write up titled “Renaissance of the Security Studies”, has convincingly argued that since military threats alone do not account for all the threats faced by the State, the parameters defining as to what are issues of security need to be redefined. Walt has pointed out issues like arms control, diplomacy and crisis management. Whereas scholars like Barry Buzan go to an extent of including issues of poverty, HIV/AIDS, environmental hazards and drug abuse under the realm of Security studies. Although Walt cautions that the expansion of domain of Security studies might dilute much needed focus on the primary security threats, i am more of the opinion that every state has to have a clear vision as to what are its primary security needs. Theoretically, the security measures adopted by any state will be effective only if it conceptualizes its security needs after careful study of external and internal threats. And i believe this is where we have been left wanting.
The autocratic Rana regime (1846-1950) had kept the Nepalese society virtually blindfolded for over a century. So, when the people’s movement overthrew the regime, Nepal not just woke up to democracy but also to a post-enlightenment industrial world unknown to it. While people in one corner of the world prepared to land on the moon, Nepalese were still scared of the eclipses. While one part of the world celebrated the spirit of human “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity”, large sections of Nepalese society was untouched and outcaste. In such a context, modern Nepal’s security need demanded more than a military solution. It required securing the ruptured fabric of the society. The unequal human relations in the society which deemed one “kind of being” as superior to the others by birth not just divided the country’s human capital but also created insecurities among them where few groups of privileged remained so while the large sections of the marginalized population lacked opportunities for a better future in a newly democratic society. Hence, the feeling of animosity crept in among the population. When Nepal was under the Ranas, most of the population was uneducated as the Ranas only allowed their family and friends to educate their children. As a result of this historic deprivation, most of the ethnics, dalits, the madhesis and the other marginalized sections of the society and especially women among them were left out of any tangible benefit that the democracy had to offer, for all the opportunities were seized by the small sections of the rich and the educated. Poor only got poorer and the illiterate remained so. When Prithvi Narayan Shah had unified Nepal, he was aware of its ethnic diversity, which is why he had declared Nepal as a common garden for all. He had said that if the country was to prosper, all the sections would have to be involved in the nation building. But what happened after 1950 and continued since was deepening of the animosity and widening of the gap between the haves and the have nots. This vicious cycle was especially evident in the countryside that ultimately led to the “people’s war”. Although the conflict was largely political, its roots ran deep in the society and manifested the sense of alienation and insecurity that large sections of the population felt. Regime changed, but none were able to provide the people with the sense of security where an individual could realise his or her potential, irrespective of one’s social, economic or cultural background. While all this was happening, the State itself was busy trying to militarily secure the country. The state spent huge amount of its budget on arms and ammunitions as our security needs became more lethal and more sophisticated. But the state was trying to physically deal with problems that was essentially rooted in the psychology of Nepalese society at large- that the State had failed in its fundamental duty to protect its citizen.
If we look at the state we are in it is safe to say that we face more threats from ourselves than others. Pointing fingers towards south or north is fine but let us accept the fact that only a sick body gets attacked by foreign bodies. Spare me the statistics here but none of the government that has come to power till date in Nepal has spent even close to what is required on basic infrastructure and services that are fundamental duty of the State. The evidence is loud and clear in the form of our government education system which lacks in quality and standard, because of which more and more private institutions are mushrooming with unregulated fee structure. On the one hand, State is shying away from providing quality services to its people while on the other hand it is responsible for creating an uneven playing field in the job market where a graduate from a government institution has to compete with a graduate from a private institution to which even this writer belongs. We all know where the competition leads to on most of the occasion. Do our security experts have any policy measures for the sense of the insecurity that such youths feel towards their future? Today, as the new constitution is being drafted, there is a strong voice asking for security of property rights. But what about the insecurities that large sections of population have faced historically on the remote countryside due to lack of basic health care? Will the constitution of new Nepal provide them with that security that they have came out demanding time and again in the all three episodes of the people’s movement? When there is an intense debate going on in the legislative parliament about having an industrial security force to protect and safeguard the investments of the business people in the economy, will someone raise the minimum wage and other workplace related security issues for the workers who are the very foundation of the economy that we seek to enhance? We all need to ponder upon these questions, especially our self proclaimed intellectuals who grace media pages and screens with their unapologetic criticism and condemnation of “violence” by “so and so” groups, bands or leagues. Somebody please answer: why is it that the regular school going and jobholding youths of Kathmandu and elsewhere in Nepal have never taken to streets? Hint: Hint: They do not need to, even though some may want to. They still enjoy basic amenities that the state provides. So who are those in the streets? What do they want? Why are they doing what they are? And if someone feels they are being “misguided” or “threatened”, why just them and why do they choose to be? And most importantly: how and when will this stop? You are allowed to be ideologically biased as long as you make an honest attempt to find an answer but please don’t insult people’s intelligence by claiming that everything is happening because one group is threatening to “capture the power” and impose dictatorship. We have seen regimes come and go and they have taught us that anybody and everybody that comes to power, seizes it. Shah dynasty had it for centuries and then the Ranas used it for their family interests, The Congress had it before the King seized it. All of them failed to bring any qualitative change in the lives of people. In the 15 years of democratic practice, attempt was made but those were not effective and lead to a lopsided growth that deepened social inequality and conflict. So the issue is not what system exists or who seizes power. Democracy will be no better than aristocracy or tyranny if things are done in the name of people but never in their interest. The question really is whether the power is being used to empower the people or to serve interests of a particular groups of people.
The country is undergoing a epochal transformation and there is a clear mandate from the people for various structural changes including Security Sector Reform (SSR). But the experts have to broaden their conceptualization of national security, go beyond the conventional militaristic outlook and make an integrated approach while designing a national security policy which puts human security at the centre and seeks to address multiple challenges that threaten their long term security. Only then can the strategy and implementation become tangible on ground.
