Nobody discounts the fact that the concept of security has been much contested today. At the heart of the debate over the evolving nature of security is a familiar, albeit mercurial, entity: "The States." the revisionists. In their rejection of the well defined Ptolemaic order of the Cold War, in which security revolved around the state, have sought to shift the focus of attention to the borderless realm of humanity and its fragile habitat. Dismissing attempts to change the referent objects of security as heretical or even dangerous. The keepers of the faith maintain that, in a world still dominated by the force of arms, the locus of security remains and must remain, the state. The accelerated globalization of the world economy, revolutionary advances in communications and transport, secessionist pressures, and environmental, health, and demographic trends are all viewed as undermining the state's "traditional" capabilities and authority as never before. In conceding that some of the state's capabilities have been undermined, its adherents contend that no more effective form of political organization has yet been found to replace it. Despite myriad challenges, the state remains the primary actor on the world stage. It is further maintained that in a world made smaller, and in some ways more homogeneous by the relentless advance of technology, the state (especially the "nation-state") provides the most effect means of expressing a particular people's sense of identity and uniqueness and satisfying what Benedict Anderson has evocatively referred to as its "metaphysical yearnings. What was once a cottage industry in redefining security rapidly assumed the characteristics of a mature and booming enterprise impinging on the present work to demonstrate how the ultimate security of the individual is the primary focus of the state. About The Author: Narottam Gaan, Ph. D and D. Lit. has been teaching Political Science and Intern