In the traditional conceptualisation of security, human beings remain predominantly at the centre stage claiming all privileges of military apparatus of the state by virtue of being ‘superior’ to all other living forms. Realist and neo-realist conceptualisations of the state see human kind as the sole reference point and subject of security. It is argued that the security of the state impregnates the individuals against all kinds of threats from the outside ‘other’. With the emergence of non-traditional security paradigms and the broadening of the ambit of security to bring human beings directly to the mainstream, and include non-human material beings, the new materialism and worldly approaches obtain a different kind of prominence in the canon of security analysis. In this new approach, we can find the conceptualisation of ‘being together’ of human beings, other non-human living forms and the non-living material world being part of one whole world. This so-called ‘worldly approach’, articulates and emphasizes the realisation and feeling of human beings for the ‘other’, but falls short of suggesting any means by which human beings could expand themselves to include all-living and non-living forms to create new security models. This article analyses the relevance and applicability of ancient Indian wisdom substantiated by modern science to the analysis of state security.
AcutoM. (2011). Finding the global city: An analytical journey through the invisible college. Urban Studies, 48(1), 2953–2973.
2.
AdamsonF. B. (2016, February 6). Spaces of global security: Beyond methodological nationalism (pp. 19–35). DOI:10.1093/jogss/ogv003
3.
AdamsonF. B.KumarP. (2014 March 26–29). Imagined communities 2.0: Space place in Tamil Sikh Palestinian on-line identity politics. Paper presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Toronto, Canada.
4.
AndersonBenedict. (1998). Long distance nationalism. In AndersonBenedict(Ed.), The spectre of comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia, and the world (pp. 58 –74). London: Verso.
5.
AradauC. (2010). Security that matters: Critical infrastructure and objects of protection. Security Dialogue, 41(2), 491–514.
6.
ArendtHannah. (1998). The human condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7.
AuchterJ. (2015). Corpses in making things international (Salter Mark, Ed.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
8.
AuchterJ. (2016 February 17). Paying attention to dead bodies: The future of security studies? Journal of Global Security Studies, 1(1), 36–50.
9.
BarnettJ. (2001). The meaning of environmental security: Ecological politics and policy in the new security era. London & New York: Zed Books.
10.
BennettJ. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
11.
BetzD. (2014). Carnage and connectivity: Landmarks in the decline of conventional military power. London: C. Hurst & Co.
12.
BevanRobert. (2006). The destruction of memory: Architecture at war. London: Reaktion Books.
13.
BohmD.HileyB. (1975). On the intuitive understanding of nonlocality as implied by quantum theory. Foundations of Physics, 5(1), 93–109.
14.
BraidottiR. (2010). The politics of life itself and new ways of dying. In CooleD.FrostS. (Eds.), New materialisms: Ontology, agency and politics (pp. 201–220). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
15.
BuzanB.WaeverO.De WildeJ. (1999). Security: A new framework for analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
16.
CantorN. (2010). After we die: The life and times of the human cadaver. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
17.
CapraF. (1976). The Tao of physics. Flamingo: HarperCollins.
18.
CavalieriP. (2004). The animal question: Why non-human animals deserve human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
ChamberlainG. (2008 29 November). Mumbai terror attacks: Nightmare in the lap of luxury. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/30/mumbai-terrorism-attacks
20.
ChandlerD.HynekN. (2011). Critical perspectives on human security. London: Routledge.
ChoucriN. (2012). Cyber politics in international relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
CochraneA. (2012). From human rights to sentient rights. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 16(5), 655–675.
24.
ConnollyW. (2011). A world of becoming. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
25.
CooleD.FrostS. (2010). Introducing the new materialism. In CooleD.FrostS. (Eds.), New materialisms: Ontology, agency and politics (pp. 1–43). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
26.
CowardM. (2009). Urbicide: The politics of urban destruction. London: Routledge.
27.
CudworthE.HobdenS. (2013). Complexity, ecologism and posthuman politics. Review of International Studies, 39(3), 643–664.
28.
Govinda Lama Anagarika. (1973). Foundations of Tibetan mysicism. London: Rider.
29.
HeisenbergW. (1963). Physics and philosophy. London: Allen & Unwin.
30.
JesseeE. (2012). Promoting reconciliation through exhuming and identifying victims in 1994 Rwandan Genocide (CIGI Africa Initiative Discussion Paper Series No. 4). Glasgow: University of Strathclyde.
31.
KelloL. (2013). The meaning of the cyber revolution: Perils to theory and statecraft. International Security, 38(2), 7–40.
32.
KhaliliL. (2012). Time in the shadows: Confinement in counterinsurgencies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
33.
LatourB. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
LinklaterA. (2011). The problem of harm in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
LundbyS. (2015). On the European system of immigration detention. Oxford Monitor of Forced Migration, 5(1), 7–15.
36.
MitchellA. (2014). Only human? A worldly approach to security. Security Dialogue, 45(15), 4–21.
37.
NortonB. G. (1984). Environmental ethics and weak anthropocentrism. Environmental Ethics, 6(2), 131–148.
38.
PorteousD.SmithS. (2001) Domicide: The Global destruction of home. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
39.
PorterP. (2015). The global village myth: Distance, war and limits of power. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
