VIP insecurity

The government deserves to be congratulated on its efforts to downgrade the security of important politicians and other quot;VIPsquot;. Few things reflect quite as brazenly as the VIP security regime the obsequious concern for the powerful in this country and the callous neglect of those who do not count. Police, whose job it is to protect the civilian population at large, remain undermanned and ill-trained for lack of funds. And yet a democracy which likes to trumpet its development8217; priorities thinks nothing of lavishing crores on the security of individual politicians for whom top-level security has become more a matter of prestige than anything else. In several cases there is very little security risk, merely an exaggerated sense of self-importance and paranoia about personal safety which speaks volumes for politicians8217; personal courage and urge to quot;servequot; the country.

It might have seemed reasonable to expect that the example of V.P. Singh and H.D. Deve Gowda, who have been asking that their security shouldbe downgraded, would be emulated by others keen to win public approbation. Not so. So it behoves the system to take the initiative. And if this makes a few individuals insecure, let them live with this occupational hazard. It is a measure of the perverseness of the system that despite their repeated appeals for downgrading security, Singh and Deve Gowda have remained saddled with it because the law demands it. Now that the government has finally got up the nerve to do something about this, it has to seek parliamentary approval. There is a fundamental confusion here about what the state owes those who serve it. No one is questioning the right to security of serving prime ministers and a few highly-at-risk politicians. What is unacceptable is the security cover8217;s obvious and rampant abuse. And here, as in so many other things, one unfortunate event has been used to make sure no reform ever occurs.

Rajiv Gandhi8217;s assassination has so alarmed governments that none dares stick its neck out to tamper with thesecurity cover of former prime ministers. In fact the comparison is absurd. Rajiv Gandhi was manifestly at greater risk than any politician today. The withdrawal of his Special Protection Group security cover was considered an act of political malice, not a measured assessment of his security needs. In any case, his fate cannot be used to blackmail governments for all time to come. There can be no such thing as absolute and life-long security for politicians given its costs and the fact that so many Indians live in conditions of near lawlessness without a thought being spared for their security. Reports have suggested that the government is going after those it views with disfavour by downgrading or withdrawing their security cover. Maybe. But why should a Subramanian Swamy have high-level security anyway? Whatever the motivations in particular cases, reviewing and drastically streamlining VIP security is absolutely wholesome. The government should not only strive to withdraw or downgrade security whereverpossible, it should also tighten the law to prevent politicians sponging on state security at taxpayers8217; expense.