Description
This paper discusses the dominant discourse to reveal the inadequacies of traditional state-centric regional security study in South Asia. Security discourse has thoroughly transformed over the years, particularly since the Post–Cold War era. The traditional conception concentrates on state security and national security, and is fundamentally centred on realist and neo-realist paradigms, above all means that the state needs to safeguard, essentially from other states, its territorial integrity and sovereignty and the domestic political order. the concept of security has expanded beyond its traditional realist roots with a particular focus on India and the other countries of South Asia: Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal, Bhutan, and Afghanistan. The South Asian security complex refers to security interdependencies between the states in the region, and also includes the effect that powerful external actors, such as China, the US and Russia, and geopolitical interests have on regional changing aspects. Security narratives on the South Asian region tend to be restricted to specific conflicts. This explores some key areas of analysis emphasised by critical approaches in such a setting, such as recognition of otherwise marginalized referents and agents of security; security implications of main institutions such as the state; identification of normative goals and consequential policy recommendations; and, the links between security theory and practice. It then uses a brief case study of food insecurity in South Asia to brighten the value of a substitute regional security charter that is well-versed by a critical security studies perspective. Finally, this paper has sought to present a critical account of numerous discourses on security from different stances. We need to re-think the very terms in which we converse about security, the very language we use to express our “realities”, our problems and our dreams. Rethinking security requires challenging the use of security for moral ends. It involves an understanding of the power relations involved and more importantly, a denial of the metaphysics of power and control. It calls for a dire rethinking of political structures.
