Global Relations Forum
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Global Relations Forum India’s View on Human Security: Citizens First, Holistic Urbanisation and Cooperation with the European Union By Gauri Khandekar Working Paper 1 No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing from Global Relations Forum. Global Relations Forum, India Pune Office Clover Centre, 121 B Wing, Camp, Pune 411001, India Tel: +91 70303 93261 Brussels Office 2 Avenue de la Brabanconne, 1000 Brussels, Belgium Tel: +32 483438283 Email: [email protected] This project is funded by the European Union © European Union, 2016 The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Neither the European Union institutions and bodies nor any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. About the Author: Gauri Khandekar is Deputy Director and Director Europe at Global Relations Forum based in its Brussels office. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Global Relations Forum. This publication is distributed free of charge. This Working Paper is part of a project on EU-India Cooperation on Urbanisation undertaken jointly by the Global Relations Forum and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. © Global Relations Forum India, 2016 2 Global Relations Forum India’s View on Human Security: Citizens First, Holistic Urbanisation and Cooperation with the European Union By Gauri Khandekar 3 Global Relations Forum Executive Summary Human Security as a concept is highly contested. Currently, there are two broad schools of thought. The first sees human security as an all-encompassing formula which includes human development, human rights, human freedom, human dignity and security. The second, narrower understanding of human security limits itself to freedom from fear, conceptualising human security as freedom from organised violence, repression and human rights abuses. The two understandings of human security – broad and narrow – have mirrored a North-South divide within the United Nations. Western countries, such as the US, Canada and European Union member states, have mostly embraced the freedom from fear agenda, while the global South and Japan have rallied behind the freedom from want agenda. For developing countries, the narrow conceptualisation is wedded to the Responsibility to Protect norm, fearing that human security may be instrumentalised to legitimise interventions, invite interference and compromise sovereignty. India has long been criticised especially in the West for not supporting the notion of human security in the light of gross violations against humanity, like the ongoing conflict in Syria. In this regard, India has largely been painted as a spoilsport at the United Nations and non-player in the international arena. For many in the West, India’s growing international profile does not match its global responsibility. However, this is a gross misconception. As this paper aims to establish, India is arguably making the largest contribution to further human security. As a country representing one-seventh of humanity including a third of the world’s poor, India sees human security through two main lenses: democracy and development. The Indian approach to human security simply translates into ‘citizens first’ and the country today is managing the world’s largest domestic development programme while its international development assistance footprint is widening progressively. Until now, human security has remained a restricted area for bilateral cooperation between the EU and India. Significant differences in the understanding of the concept of human security have reined cooperation. Yet, as pillars of an emerging multipolar world and strategic partners, the EU and India must find ways to collaborate and advance the debate on human security which remains of global significance. Expecting India to conform to Western views would be misplaced. Appreciating the breadth of India’s challenges, as well as its self-perception as a former colony wary of foreign inference in domestic affairs, is required. The EU and India can most effectively collaborate on human security by enhancing bilateral cooperation on sustainable urbanisation. Urbanisation is one of the top challenges facing India as well as a leading priority and its impact would be felt across hundreds of millions if not 1.25 billion lives in the country over the next decades. While India has embarked on the journey towards urbanisation, it is essential to ensure that the path to urbanisation is both sustainable and green. The EU has extensive experience in building sustainable, socially inclusive societies. Advancing bilateral cooperation on sustainable urbanisation under the human security paradigm would not only enable both partners to make an important contribution to a significant percentage of the world’s population but also pave the way for enhanced and deeper dialogue on human security at the bilateral and multilateral echelons. 4 Global Relations Forum Table of Contents I) Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 6 II) Inside India: what human security means for India .................................................... 8 1) The debate in India ............................................................................................................... 8 2) India’s domestic achievements and challenges ....................................................... 12 A) UPA-led Government (2004-2014) ................................................................... 12 B) NDA-led Government (since 2014) ................................................................... 15 III) Human security and India’s global role ........................................................................ 20 1) The Indian approach to delivering human security internationally ................ 20 2) Responsibility to protect and the case of Libya ....................................................... 24 IV) Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 28 List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... 31 5 Global Relations Forum I) Introduction The understanding of ‘human security’ as a concept that places emphasis on the security of the people and not just that of states is not alien to India. The country’s human security agenda was ingrained into the very ethos of modern India through Mahatma Gandhi’s broad concept of security, which essentially focused on the basic element of society – the individual. Gandhi’s political philosophy was defined by the term Sarvodaya, which he coined in 1908, meaning welfare for all. He established a dynamic link between the individual, collective well-being and security. India’s domestic and foreign policies have been very much influenced by this ideology. Over decades, successive Indian governments have adopted policies generally directed to enhance human security at the domestic level. Under Prime Minister Nehru (in power from 1947 to 1964), India espoused an uncompromising opposition to colonial rule and racism, particularly as regards freedom movements in South Africa and other African countries. India took the lead in pushing the United Nations to take action against apartheid in South Africa and was a founding member of the G77 and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). In the post-Cold War period, human security has been largely associated with Western normative discourse and seen as part of the West’s foreign policy agenda. Much has been written about the various understandings of human security. Western leaders have evoked human security with a focus on ‘freedom from fear’, namely political oppression or violence. The limited use of the term in India’s official communications and by Indian political leaders may suggest that India no longer welcomes the idea of human security. However, India’s commitment to human security endures. India sees human security through two main lenses: democracy and development. First, the values enshrined in India’s democratic constitution resonate with the 1994 Human Development Report (HDR), which categorised human security as including challenges emanating from the economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political spheres.1 This understanding encompasses three key paradigms: ‘freedom from fear’, ‘freedom from want’ and ‘freedom to live in dignity’.2 But despite remarkable achievements, India has struggled to deliver on various aspects, such as economic or health security. India’s main challenges remain the implementation of government programmes and its inability to effectively deliver and distribute national public goods. However, democracy and democratic values are widely regarded in India as the bedrock of human security. Second, the concept of human security matches India’s development agenda. India is an overwhelmingly poor country with massive development challenges. It is home to a third of the world’s poor, with 29.5 per cent of the total population (or 363 million people) living below the poverty line of $1.25 per day (according to purchasing power parity PPP) 2014.3 In 2012, 59.2 1 1UNDP, Human Development