“Human rights emphasize individual freedoms and dignity, while national security focuses on protecting the state and its citizens from threats.”

Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings – they are not granted by any state. These universal rights are inherent to us all, regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. They range from the most fundamental – the right to life – to those that make life worth living, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, was the first legal document to set out the fundamental human rights to be universally protected. The UDHR, which turns 75 on 10 December 2023, continues to be the foundation of all international human rights law. Its 30 articles provide the principles and building blocks of current and future human rights conventions, treaties and other legal instruments. The UDHR, together with the 2 covenants – the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – make up the International Bill of Rights.

Human rights and national security share a complex relationship that often involves a sensitive balance. On one hand, protecting human rights is considered a fundamental aspect of a just and democratic society. These rights, such as freedom of speech, privacy, and due process, are enshrined in international agreements and domestic laws to ensure the dignity and well-being of individuals.

Constitutional Provisions for Human Rights

Fundamental Rights in Part III of the Constitution The framers of the Indian Constitution envisaged a nation where every individual would enjoy a life of dignity, equality and freedom. This vision is clearly reflected in Part III of the Constitution, which enumerates the Fundamental Rights. These rights include: Right to Equality: Guaranteeing equal protection under the law and prohibiting discrimination on grounds such as religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Right to Freedom: Encompassing freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence and the right to practice any profession. Right against Exploitation: Prohibiting human trafficking, forced labor and other forms of exploitation. Right to Freedom of Religion: Securing the right to profess, practice, and propagate any religion. Cultural and Educational Rights: Protecting the interest s of minorities by enabling them to preserve their language, culture and script. Right to Constitutional Remedies: Empowering individuals to approach the courts for the enforcement of their Fundamental Rights.

These rights, inspired in part by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and international covenants such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), are directly enforceable by the courts. The Constitution not only lists these rights but also provides a robust mechanism for their protection and enforcement. The landmark provision of Article 32, for instance, empowers citizens to seek legal remedies directly from the Supreme Court in case of any violation of their Fundamental Rights.

Landmark Judgments Reinforcing Human Rights

Several judgments have significantly contributed to shaping the human rights landscape in India:

D.K. Base v. State of West Bengal (1997): This case addressed the issue of custodial deaths and laid down detailed guidelines for arrest and detention procedures. It underscored the right to life and the prohibition against cruel and inhuman treatment, as enshrined in Article 21 and inspired by international norms.

People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997): In a case involving the invasion of privacy through unauthorized telephone tapping, the Supreme Court recognized that freedom of expression is incomplete without the right to privacy. The Court’s interpretation in this matter has been instrumental in establishing privacy as a fundamental aspect of human rights.

Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das (2000): This case concerned the violation of human rights in the workplace, particularly sexual violence. The court awarded compensation to the victim, thereby reinforcing the principle that the dignity of the individual must be protected against any form of abuse or exploitation. These judgments, among others, have not only reinforced the rights already enshrined in the Constitution but have also paved the way for the recognition of new rights. The judiciary’s proactive approach, especially through Public Interest Litigation (PIL), has enabled citizens to seek remedies for violations even when traditional legal avenues might have fallen short. National security is the safekeeping of the nation as a whole. Its highest order of business is the protection of the nation and its people from attack and other external dangers by maintaining armed force and guarding state secrets. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the defense of the homeland from terrorist and other attacks, broadly understood as homeland security, has risen as a major national security concern. Because national security entails both national defense and the protection of a series of geopolitical, economic, and other interests, it affects not only defense policy, but foreign and other policies as well. Foreign and defense policies should be seen as mutually reinforcing, not as zero-sum trade-offs in budgetary fights. While hard choices will indeed have to be made in national security spending, they should be decided by realities, not by fatuous comparisons or incoherent and tendentious concept.

National Security must-dos: National security must prioritize intelligence gathering to anticipate threats, fostering international cooperation, and maintaining a robust defense infrastructure. Effective border control, cyber security measures, and counterterrorism strategies are essential. Investing in social resilience, addressing root causes of instability and ensuring transparent, accountable governance contribute to long-term security. Additionally, constant adaptation to emerging threats, technological advancements, and collaboration with intelligence agencies and allies are crucial for a comprehensive and proactive national security approach.

Relationship between Human Rights and National Security The relationship between human rights and national security is complex and often fraught with tension. While both are crucial for a well-functioning society, they can sometimes appear to be in conflict, especially when national security measures infringe upon individual rights. A delicate balance must be struck, ensuring that security measures do not come at the cost of fundamental freedoms, and that human rights are not used as a shield for undermining legitimate security concerns.

Here’s a more detailed breakdown of the relationship:

Potential Conflicts: National security as a justification for restrictions: Governments may invoke national security concerns to justify restrictions on freedoms like speech, assembly, and privacy, potentially leading to abuses.

Compromising civil liberties: Harsh national security laws can infringe upon civil liberties and human rights, raising concerns about the rule of law and constitutionalism. Abuse of power: The broad powers granted to security forces in the name of national security can create an environment where human rights abuses are tolerated or even encouraged.

Impact on marginalized groups: National security measures can disproportionately affect marginalized groups, leading to further marginalization and exclusion.

Importance of Balance:

Human rights as a foundation of security: Respect for human rights is essential for long-term stability and security. When people feel their rights are respected, they are more likely to be cooperative and participate in society. Human rights as a check on power: Protecting human rights helps to ensure that government power is not abused and that the rule of law is upheld.

Human rights as a tool for conflict resolution: Addressing the root causes of conflict, including human rights abuses, is crucial for preventing and resolving conflict.

National security as a facilitator of human rights: A secure environment allows for the full enjoyment of human rights, as people can live without fear of violence, coercion, or discrimination.

Reconciling the Two: International law and human rights treaties:

International law and human rights treaties provide a framework for balancing national security and human rights, allowing for limitations on certain rights in specific circumstances, but only if they are necessary, proportionate, and in accordance with the law. Judicial oversight and accountability: Independent judicial oversight and accountability mechanisms are crucial for ensuring that national security measures are not used to undermine human rights. Public dialogue and participation: Open public dialogue and participation are essential for ensuring that national security policies are transparent, accountable, and responsive to the needs of the people.

Focus on human security: A human security approach emphasizes the safety and well-being of individuals and communities, rather than just the security of the state, promoting a more holistic and inclusive understanding of security. In conclusion, the relationship between human rights and national security is not a zero-sum game. It requires a careful balancing act that prioritizes both the protection of individual rights and the maintenance of a secure and stable society. By respecting human rights and upholding the rule of law, states can foster a more just and equitable society, where both individuals and the state can flourish.

Case Studies and Historical Context:

Analyzing specific case studies and historical examples provides valuable insights into the complex interplay between human rights and national security. Instances where excessive security measures led to human rights abuses or where a neglect of human rights contributed to insecurity offer lessons for policymakers and scholars alike.

Technological Advancements and Human Rights: The rapid evolution of technology introduces new dimensions to this relationship. Surveillance technologies, data collection, and artificial intelligence pose challenges to privacy rights, requiring a reassessment of legal frameworks to ensure that technological advancements do not compromise fundamental human rights.

Security Measures and Human Rights Concerns: Security measures are vital for safeguarding a nation, but they can raise significant human rights concerns. Surveillance programs, for instance, when not properly regulated, may infringe on the right to privacy. Censorship, while intended to curb potential threats, can limit freedom of expression. Restrictions on freedom of movement, common during states of emergency, must be proportionate to the threat and avoid arbitrary discrimination. The use of force, particularly in maintaining public order, requires careful consideration to prevent excessive violence and uphold the right to life.Balancing security with individual rights is crucial. Legal frameworks should ensure that security measures are proportionate, necessary, and subject to oversight. Technologies like facial recognition and mass data collection pose challenges to privacy, requiring clear regulations to prevent abuse. Human rights concerns are amplified in counterterrorism efforts. Profiling, surveillance of certain communities and prolonged detention without trial can violate basic rights. Striking the right balance involves intelligence-led strategies, targeted interventions, and legal safeguards.

Addressing these concerns requires transparent policies, robust oversight, and accountability mechanisms. Judicial review and independent human rights commissions play key roles in ensuring the legality of security measures. Public awareness and participation in decision-making processes.

The Balancing Act:

The balancing act between national security and the protection of human rights is a delicate process that involves navigating complex ethical, legal, and practical considerations. Proportionality: Balancing requires proportionate responses to threats. Security measures should be tailored to the severity of the threat, avoiding excessive or disproportionate actions that may unduly infringe on individual rights. Necessity: Security measures must be necessary to address specific threats. Unjustifiably broad or intrusive measures may encroach on individual freedoms without providing significant security benefits.

Legal Frameworks: Establishing clear legal frameworks is essential. Laws should define the scope of security measures, ensuring they align with constitutional and international human rights standards. Legal oversight prevents abuse and upholds the rule of law.

Judicial Review: Independent judiciary plays a crucial role in ensuring the legality of security measures. Judicial review provides a check against potential abuses, reinforcing the principle that security action ns must comply with established legal standards.

Accountability: Government agencies responsible for security must be accountable for their actions. Transparent reporting, oversight by parliamentary committees, and accountability mechanisms help prevent misuse of power.

Public Trust: Maintaining public trust is essential. Open communication about the necessity of security measures, their legal basis, and their effectiveness fosters understanding and cooperation between citizens and the government.

Human Rights Impact Assessments: Before implementing security measures, conducting human rights impact assessments helps anticipate and mitigate potential violations. This proactive approach integrates human rights considerations into policy development.

Inclusive Policies: Inclusivity in security policies ensures that measures do not disproportionately affect specific groups. Discrimination based on race, religion, or other factors undermines the principle of equal protection under the law.

Oversight Mechanisms: Establishing independent oversight mechanisms, such as human rights commissions, enhances accountability. These bodies play a role in monitoring, investigating complaints, and recommending corrective actions.

Collaboration with Civil Society: Engaging with civil society organizations, human rights advocates, and other stakeholders fosters a collaborative approach. Input from diverse perspectives helps shape policies that balance security imperatives with respect for human rights.

Continuous Review: Regularly reviewing and reassessing security measures are crucial. As threats evolve, so should the strategies employed, ensuring that measures remain.

Preventive Approach: An important consideration is the preventive role that upholding human rights can play in enhancing national security. Addressing socioeconomic inequalities, promoting inclusive governance, and respecting the rule of law can contribute to long-term stability. By fostering trust between the government and its citizens, a commitment to human rights can reduce grievances that might otherwise lead to internal conflicts.

Global Perspectives on Human Rights:

Global perspectives on human rights reflect a shared recognition that fundamental rights and freedoms are universal, regardless of geographical, cultural, or political differences. International collaboration, exemplified by the United Nations, emphasizes the significance of a common human rights framework. Treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international conventions set global standards, fostering a collective commitment to protecting individuals from abuses.

Diverse cultures and legal traditions contribute to the dialogue, but overarching principles like the right to life, liberty, and equality form a foundation for global human rights advocacy. Diplomatic efforts, international organizations, and human rights NGOs play pivotal roles in monitoring and addressing violations, promoting accountability, and advancing a universal culture of respect for human dignity. Nevertheless, challenges persist, including cultural relativism and geopolitical tensions, underscoring the ongoing need for dialogue and collaboration to strengthen global perspectives on human rights and ensure their continued advancement on the international stage.

Violations on National Security:

Violations of human rights can significantly impact national security by fostering internal unrest and undermining societal stability. Widespread repression or discrimination may lead to protests, uprisings, or even conflict, posing a direct threat to a nation’s stability. Such instability can be exploited by external actors, exacerbating security risks. Additionally, human rights violations may strain international relations, resulting in diplomatic tensions, sanctions, or other repercussions that affect a nation’s global standing and security. Thus, respecting human rights is not only a moral imperative but also a strategic imperative for long-term national security.

Societal Resilience and Security:

Societal resilience is a key component of national security, reflecting a society’s ability to withstand, adapt to, and recover from various challenges and disruptions. A resilient society contributes to overall security in several ways: Social Cohesion: Resilience is often rooted in social cohesion. A society that values inclusivity, diversity, and equal opportunities tends to be more cohesive and better equipped to face challenges collectively.

Community Engagement: Engaged communities that actively participate in decision-making and problem-solving enhance societal resilience. Strong community ties enable effective response and recovery efforts during crises.

Education and Awareness: A well-informed and educated population is more resilient. Education promotes awareness of potential threats, encourages preparedness, and fosters a sense of responsibility for one’s own and others’ well-being.

Infrastructure and Economic Stability: robust infrastructure and economic stability contribute to resilience. Investments in infrastructure that can withstand shocks, coupled with economic policies promoting stability, enhance a society’s ability to bounce back from adversity.

Inclusive Policies: Policies that prioritize inclusivity, address social inequalities, and protect minority rights contribute to societal resilience. Inclusive governance ensures that the benefits of security measures are distributed equitably.

Adaptability to Change: Resilient societies demonstrate adaptability to change. This includes a willingness to learn from experiences, adjust strategies, and innovate in response to evolving threats and challenges.

Psychosocial Support : Providing psychosocial support during and after crises is crucial. Resilience involves not just physical recovery but also addressing the emotional and psychological well-being of individuals and communities.

Preventive Measures: Resilience is proactive. Implementing preventive measures, such as early warning systems, disaster preparedness, and effective crisis management, enhances a society’s ability to mitigate the impact of threats before they escalate.

Government Transparency and Accountability: Transparent, accountable governance fosters trust in institutions, which is foundational for societal resilience. People are more likely to collaborate and comply with security measures when they trust their government.

Crisis Communication: Open and effective communication during crises is vital. Keeping the public informed reduces panic, fosters cooperation, and ensures that individuals are well-prepared to navigate challenging circumstances.

Conclusion

Ensuring national security is undoubtedly a legitimate and essential objective of the state. But it must not be pursued by compromising the core values of freedom, equality, and dignity. Rather than seeing liberty and safety as opposites, we must view them as mutually reinforcing goals.A nation that protects its people without silencing their rights is not only safer—it is stronger, more resilient, and truly free.

**The views and opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author.**