Water Security in India

Hope, Despair, and the Challenges of Human Development

Vandana Asthana, A. C. Shukla

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781441118226
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Política y relaciones internacionales
• Subtopic: Política comparada

Few people actively engaged in India's water sector would deny that the Indian subcontinent faces serious problems in the sustainable use and management of water resources. Water resources in India have been subjected to tremendous pressures from increasing population, urbanization, industrialization, and modern agricultural methods. The inadequate access to clean drinking water, increase in water related disasters such as floods and droughts, vulnerability to climate change and competition for the resource amongst different sectors and the region poses immense pressures for sustainability of water systems and humanity. Water Security in India addresses these issues head on, analyzing the challenges that contemporary India faces if it is to create a water-secure world, and providing a hopeful, though guarded, road-map to a future in which India's life-giving and life-sustaining fresh water resources are safe, clean, plentiful, and available to all, secured for the people in a peaceful and ecologically sustainable manner.

CHAPTER ONE

Introducing the concept: Water security

The end of the cold war and the disintegration of the Soviet Union brought about a shift from excessive preoccupation with military engagements and the east–west struggle. Scholars began to shift their attention away from the established approaches of international relations and security studies that had long focused on borders, war, and weapons. There has been a renewed interest in security studies, and the core issue of what is to be secured, and how, has come to occupy our thoughts (Collins, 2007). A narrow, conventional point of view has emphasized national security, where the state is the object to be secured and the way to secure it is through military power, via realist or liberal means. The goal of security studies has therefore been closely tied to the defense of a state’s sovereign interest through organized force. “At its most fundamental level, the term security has meant the effort to protect a population and territory against organized force while advancing state interests through competitive behaviour” (Dabelko and Dabelko, nd). This state-centered form of analysis has dominated international relations since the end of World War II, when the discipline started to assert its own autonomous identity. New thinking about security emerged only in the late 1980s, challenging the dominance of this traditional approach in the national security literature to include the alternative approaches of peace studies, critical security studies, human security and the securitization model for the study of security. Further, an effort was made to broaden the scope of security to include nonmilitary and nontraditional elements, such as societal, environmental, and economic security, in an increasingly global and interdependent world. Security studies has come to be regarded as a “contested concept” because “the meaning of security is not an ontological given but changes across time” (Weaver, 1995), and it therefore has a different meaning in every tradition within security studies. The differences in determining who or what is to be secured, and against whom, have been in the forefront of the debates in security studies. But as Collins (2007: 5), in his book Contemporary Security Studies, remarks, “It may be that you find the traditional explanation of how security can be achieved and conceived more convincing, which is fine so long as you reach that conclusion with an understanding of other approaches. Alternative approaches to traditional/national security literature are characterized under peace studies, critical security studies, gender security and human security.”

The changing conceptions of security are part of the larger transformation in the way the working of the international system is perceived. The state-centric security discourse, especially, is barely valid and cannot adequately capture the fundamental problems of security facing the bulk of the population in developing countries. For the millions of people in South Asia, efforts at ensuring state security hold little meaning as long as they are steeped in poverty, lack water access and sanitation, and face hunger, malnutrition, and illiteracy. When their very survival is at stake and their physical surroundings and economic base are severely threatened by resource depletion and environmental degradation, and their daily life is affected by conflict and strife, the concept of national security in its traditional military sense ultimately loses its salience. The trajectory of change in this part of the world needs to move from security through arms to security through sustainable development and from an exclusive stress on territorial security to a much greater stress on human security. This chapter introduces the debates on human and environmental security (of which water is a subset) to lay the theoretical framework for understanding India’s water security challenges.

Theoretical framework

The transition from a realist perception of security in international relations to a more novel approach began with the presentation of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Report in 1994. Human security became the new referent for security in the discipline, focusing on “the individual, requiring cooperation among the various actors in the international community, including governments, international organizations and civil society” (MOFA, 1999). The UNDP Report described human security as a condition in which people are given relief and safety “from such chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression. And second it means protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily life—whether in homes, in jobs or in communities” (1994: 23). Its perspective was reinforced in a 2003 report, “Human Security Now,” released by the International Commission on Human Security. The emergence of this concept can be attributed to the renewed focus on issues of human development and poverty relief, now that it is possible to move human and financial resources away from the cold war military and a traditional security agenda that emphasized external threats in the dynamics of a bipolar world. Human security, therefore, was seen as essential for human development; without minimal stability and security in daily life, there could be no development—human or otherwise (Suhrke, 1999). In other words, “Human security relates to the protection of the individual’s personal safety and freedom from direct and indirect threats of violence. The promotion of human development and good governance, and when necessary, the collective use of sanctions and force are central to managing human security” (Bajpai, 2000).

Defined in more generic terms, human security encompasses human development, secured food and water, employment, and environmental security. Fundamentally, it encompasses the security of people against threats to life, health, human dignity, and personal safety and grants them freedom from want, deprivation, and violence. Thus, human security has a preventive, integrative, and intergenerational aspect that contrasts sharply with its insular, aggressive, and myopic national counterpart (Khan, 2003: 69) as human well-being is linked with a sustainable development process that is expected to be efficient, equitable, and distributive.

In Migration, Globalization and Human Security, Graham and Poku examine the concept as follows:

Rather than viewing security as being concerned with ‘individuals qua citizens’ (that is, toward their states), our approach views security as being concerned with “individuals qua persons.” … Human security is concerned with transcending the dominant paradigmatic orthodoxy that views critical concerns of migration—recognitions (i.e., citizenship), basic needs (i.e., sustenance), protection (i.e., refugee status), or human rights (legal standing)—as problems of interstate politics and consequently beyond the realm of the ethical and moral. (2000: 17)

Thus human security refers to the security of the individual in his environment, community, and surroundings. As Leaning and Arie explain,

Human security is an underlying condition for sustainable development. It results from the social, psychological, economic, and political aspects of human life that in times of acute crisis or chronic deprivation protect the survival of individuals, support individual and group capacities to attain minimally adequate standards of living, and promote constructive group attachment and continuity through time. Its key measurable components can be summarized as: a sustainable sense of home; constructive social and family networks; and an acceptance of the past and a positive grasp of the future … . (2000: 37)

Critics, however, observe that while “the discourse in human security has become dominant in international policy circles, it has had so little impact on policy outcome” (Chandler, 2008: 428). One of the reasons cited by Wilson Centre’s Geoffrey Dabelko is that the field of human security is still peripheral to the overall scope of military planning. He makes the argument that it is not about replacing traditional approaches but diversifying into other approaches. Others like David Welch, professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto, echo the concern that the concept of human security is not specific enough. The approach is “so expansive as to reduce the concept to a synonym for ‘any bad thing’” (Monahagan, 2008). Richard Matthew, professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Unconventional Security Affairs at the University of California, Irvine, stated that the concept of human security is important as a lens that sharpens interdisciplinary work. It’s about how to bring together economic, ethical, environmental, and governance elements “to bring people dignity when things fall apart” (Monahagan, 2008). However, the scholarly debate on the merits and demerits of the concept should not discount the importance and privilege that human security is accorded in the international relations literature as a meaningful policy norm. Human security has seven major components as identified in the UNDP Report of 1994 comprising economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security, and political security.

Environmental security emerged as an important concept in security studies with the growth of environmental consciousness and the rise of environmentalism that began in the developed world in the 1960s. While environmental security carved a niche for itself in the 1990s, the genesis of the concept can be traced back to the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring that explained the impact of DDT, a pesticide on animals and food chain raising the awareness of environmental issues for the first time. The Limits to Growth argument (Meadows et al., 1972) and the international oil crisis of the 1970s also raised the awareness that we exist in a finite world where resources are limited. Among the other attempts to engage in this debate were Richard Falk’s Endangered Planet and Harold and Margaret Sprout’s Towards a Politics of Planet Earth, which argued that the international political system needs to comprehend and collectively respond to common environmental problems, as they pose threats to national well-being and international peace (Collins, 2007: 185). Lester Brown’s Worldwatch Paper, entitled Redefining National Security, highlighted the inability of military resources to manage environmental problems: “Neither bloated military budgets nor highly sophisticated weapons systems can halt deforestation or solve the firewood crisis” (1977: 37).

However, it was not until 1983 that Richard Ulman’s article attempted to redefine security, with the idea that environmental change can be a cause of armed conflict, although Ulman conceded that it was difficult to incorporate a concern for nonmilitary threats into the security approach of a world dominated by cold war rivalry and national security concerns; but he also contended that these issues such as competition over resources, population growth in developing nations, and transboundary migration could result in insecurity and conflict. In his opinion,

A threat to national security is an action or sequence of events that: (1) threatens drastically and over a relatively brief period of time to degrade the quality of life for the inhabitants of a state or (2) threatens significantly to narrow the range of policy choices available to the government of a state or to private, non-governmental entities (persons, groups, corporations) within the state. (1983: 133)

In the foreword to a literature review on the subject, Mark Halle (2000: 1) pointed out that “the relationship between environment and security feels right. It seems intuitively correct to assume a direct correlation between environmental degradation on the one hand and social disruption and conflict on the other.” While this idea is not without controversy, there exists a sizeable literature that places environmental concerns as a central issue on the security agenda.

Environmental security carved a niche for itself in the 1990s and created the intellectual and policy space for itself to enter the mainstream area of security as one of the “new” security issues (Dalby, 1992). A literature review in this area reveals that the discourse on environment and security is an area of rich and lively debate that has earned scholarly and policy salience (Najam, 2003). Two schools of thought figure prominently in this discourse (1) Environmental Change and Violent Conflict and (2) Environmental Change and Human Security.

Environmental change and violent conflict

This school of thought seeks to answer the critical question of whether environmental change contributes to armed conflict. Its predominant focus has been to reveal causal links between environmental degradation and violent conflict. Various case studies by Gurr (1985), Timberlake and Tinker (1985), Westing (1986), Myers (1987), Libiszewsk (1992), Boge (1992), Homer Dixon (1991, 1994), Peter Gleick (1991, 1993), and others have tried to demonstrate that resource scarcity is a contributing factor to interstate conflict. The literature on resource scarcity provides evidence for introducing the element of nonmilitary threats into the modern conception of security. Food, water, and oil are examples of resource scarcity that play an important role in precipitating a conflict. In the early writings of this school Myers (1987) linked population growth, environmental change, and violent conflict although he argued that the links between them are not straightforward. Poverty in developing countries and technology in developed countries constitute critical variables in the process. Gleick (1991) argued that there were clear connections between environmental degradation and violence where resources could be strategic goals or tools, while resource inequalities could trigger conflicts. The pioneer work of Homer Dixon in the Toronto Project (1991) uses selective case studies in the developing world (e.g. South Africa and Pakistan) to demonstrate how environmental change leads to conflict. However, this link alone could not directly substantiate the causal connection between environmental change and conflict. Homer Dixon’s theory was critiqued for lacking evidence to support the scarcity/conflict theory. Additionally, though, Homer Dixon (1991) cited variables including ethnicity, class, religious structures, and regime legitimacy that mediated this relationship. He argued that environmental scarcity could result in a diffuse form of subnational conflict that would lead to ethnic and religious clashes, civil strife, and internal strife among populations affected by these scarcities, thus threatening livelihood and economic production (Homer Dixon, 1994: 39). This civil strife could affect state stability internally, and forced migrations of environmentally vulnerable populations could lead to interstate conflicts. Critics argued that he downplayed natural factors like climate change and ozone depletion that would also be the driving factors in the future.

The literature in this school has evolved over the years to redefine the paradigm of security, focusing principally on the potential of environmental change to generate and/or amplify conflict. More specifically, it links scarcity of resources such as food, water, and oil to direct conflict. In other words, environmental resource scarcity and degradation, resulting from environmental change, cause environmental stress. The consequences of environmental stress include poverty, food and water insecurity, poor health conditions, displacement, and disruption of the social and political institutions, which then contribute to conflict under a certain set of unfavorable contextual factors. These contextual factors comprise economic vulnerability and resource dependency; institutional, socioeconomic, and technological capacity; cultural and ethno-political factors; patterns of perceptions, violence-potential and internal security structures; political instability; international interaction, and mechanisms of conflict resolution (Lietzmann and Vest, 1999). These factors are influenced by environmental change, causing social, economic, political, and demographic consequences, which in turn affect security. Antecedent political and economic variables also represent the necessary and sufficient conditions that are truly responsible for the conflict (Brock, 1...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle Page
• Title Page
• Contents 
• Preface
• Foreword
• Acronyms
• Part One
• Part Two
• Part Three
• References
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Index
• Imprint