Within international relations as a discipline, there has been a shift away from narrow notion of security (military and political) to a broader notion of security (human security). Security has traditionally been understood as a concern of the state. How to secure the state against various threats has been a preoccupation of security studies. But it is clear that a secure state does not necessarily mean a secure citizenry especially if the state is controlled by unrepresentative few. If the elite who control the state work for their private greed rather than public good, a secure state implies an insecure citizenry. Therefore, human security offers a way out for it incorporates concerns of the people as well as the state. Questions of security and questions of development are more intimately linked than otherwise understood. However, much of the writing on the so-called China-India-Pakistan triangle remains dominated by the narrow security lens. Most commentaries focus on conflicts and tensions over Kashmir, Tibet, borders and terrorism. In my paper, I will question the weak epistemological grounding of 'security dilemma' (it assumes actors are unitary), revisit the concepts of human security and human development, and focus on examples from the three countries of Asia to illustrate how a people-centred triangle would look very different from the strategic triangle. A people-centred triangle will, I argue, provide security that is more durable. Not only does it offer new opportunities for sustainable development, but it breaks the ground for better inter-state relations too.