What is the difference between traditional and Gandhian vision of human security?

The traditional and Gandhian visions of human security differ significantly in their underlying principles, priorities, and approaches to addressing threats to human well-being and dignity. While both visions aim to protect individuals from harm and promote their security and well-being, they diverge in their emphasis on power dynamics, violence, and the role of nonviolent resistance and moral values in achieving human security.

1. Conceptual Framework:
   Traditional human security, influenced by realist and liberal perspectives, typically focuses on state-centric approaches to security, emphasizing protection from external military threats, terrorism, and transnational crime. It prioritizes national security interests, territorial integrity, and the use of military force and deterrence as primary means of ensuring security. Traditional human security tends to view security in narrow terms, focusing on the physical safety and territorial sovereignty of states, while often overlooking broader human rights, social, economic, and environmental dimensions of security.

In contrast, Gandhian vision of human security expands the concept to encompass holistic and multidimensional approaches to security, rooted in principles of nonviolence, social justice, and moral integrity. Gandhian human security emphasizes the interconnectedness of peace, justice, and human rights, viewing security in terms of the well-being and dignity of individuals and communities. It emphasizes the importance of addressing structural violence, inequality, poverty, and discrimination as root causes of insecurity, advocating for nonviolent resistance, conflict resolution, and social transformation as key strategies for promoting human security.

1. Power Dynamics and Violence:
   Traditional human security often relies on the use of military power, deterrence, and coercive force to address security threats, prioritizing state interests and geopolitical considerations over human rights and ethical values. It tends to perpetuate power imbalances, militarization, and cycles of violence, leading to human rights abuses, conflict escalation, and insecurity for vulnerable populations, particularly in conflict-affected and marginalized communities.

In contrast, Gandhian vision of human security challenges the notion that security can be achieved through violence and coercion, emphasizing the destructive and self-perpetuating nature of violence and oppression. Gandhian human security advocates for nonviolent resistance, moral courage, and collective action as alternatives to violence, recognizing the power of love, compassion, and empathy in overcoming oppression and achieving lasting peace and security. It calls for disarmament, demilitarization, and conflict resolution through dialogue, reconciliation, and mutual respect, fostering trust, cooperation, and solidarity among individuals and communities.

1. Social Justice and Empowerment:
   Traditional human security often overlooks the structural inequalities, poverty, and social injustices that undermine human security, focusing primarily on state-centric approaches to security that neglect the needs and rights of marginalized and vulnerable populations. It tends to reinforce existing power structures and inequalities, perpetuating social exclusion, marginalization, and insecurity for those most at risk.

In contrast, Gandhian vision of human security places a strong emphasis on social justice, equality, and empowerment as essential components of human security. It recognizes the interconnectedness of peace, development, and human rights, advocating for inclusive and participatory approaches to security that prioritize the needs and voices of marginalized and vulnerable groups. Gandhian human security seeks to address root causes of insecurity, such as poverty, discrimination, and environmental degradation, through transformative social and economic policies that promote human dignity, equality, and sustainable development.

In summary, while traditional and Gandhian visions of human security share a common goal of promoting human well-being and dignity, they differ in their conceptual frameworks, priorities, and approaches to addressing security threats. Traditional human security tends to focus on state-centric approaches, militarization, and coercive force, while Gandhian human security emphasizes nonviolence, social justice, and empowerment as key strategies for achieving lasting peace and security.