& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Lessons from security-centered discourses

Muhammad Nurui Huda
Discussions indicated a huge variety and complexity of often baffling sources of insecurity outside the ken of traditional security analysis. The considered view is that security today is the conjoint responsibility of the state, the civil society and the market, entailing a shift from the state to the society as a whole.
OF late, there have been a number of meetings, workshops, seminars and symposiums on the very sensitive subject of security, both traditional and non-traditional, by concerned groups and institutions. The atmosphere of frankness and hitherto unobserved candour in such forums of interaction was a refreshing departure from the past. Such discussions brought together serving and retired practitioners of the security apparatus, prominent academics and other public leaders and experts under one roof for meaningful deliberations.
What, however, attracted a discerning observer Is that though the Bangladesh state is the product of an armed freedom struggle and is credited with the adoption of a written liberal democratic constitu-
tion, it still retained the colonial administrative structures without recasting them to meet the changed situation. The colonial-repressive character emerged when the governing elite of a supposedly decolonised society decided to retain the inherited security and coercive outfits, ignoring justified demands for change.
One also noticed that the roots of political terrorism did not have the benefit of careful analysis. Official views have often excluded illegal violence such as torture by state agencies from the definition of terror, which is to say that the bias is against the people and in favour of the governments. However, one may have to admit that lives have been lost due to both the unjustified actions of terrorist and the government functionaries.
Discussions indicated a huge variety and complexity of often baffling sources of insecurity outside the ken of traditional
security analysts. Hie considered view is that security today is the conjoint responsibility of the state, the civil society and the market, entailing a shift from the state to the society as a whole.
Observers felt that though security had become a matter of everyday engagement for the entire population, it did not attract the desired attention of the decision makers. It is also felt that, while the security of the state is important, It has often exceeded the limits of legitimacy and indulged in unacceptable levels of force and coercion. The state often became the provider and predator of security, and this dimension needs to be examined in any optimal notion of security.
The idea of a distinction between state and civil society as the realm of governance and negotiations of interests cast in a legal and formal framework, and the political society as the realm of negotiations and struggles between state and populations through political parties and movements, appeared to be appreciated in some measure. That is a healthy sign.
A realisation is perhaps slowly dawning that rule of law is supreme and no attempt to undermine it in the name of addressing the problem of terrorism must be permitted. The consensus was that once the rule
of law is abandoned or compromised with, then there Is no difference between the extremist perpetrators of violence and the violence of the forces of law and order.
Discussions pointed to the necessity of a new definition of security since a narrow definition focused on the threat of terrorism encouraged military responses that failed to achieve collective security. A new framework. It was thought, must take into account the fact that poverty, social breakdown and civil conflict are today the core components of the global security threat.
It was also realised that security threat from political violence is not Just a matter of crime or law and order to be handled by the police agency, political violence is a national issue that calls for a national response.
There appeared to be an appreciation that a surfeit of discussion and analysis on matters pertaining to security will not serve any useful purpose. It needs to be realised that development and violence are two sides of the same coin and that violence is fast becoming. If it already has not, an autonomous phenomenon with a life of its own, with beneficiaries and stakeholders profiting from it.
Muhammad Nurul Huda is a cotumnstofTheDaity Star