Security mania of India's politicos

The immediate reaction of India's politicians to any fancied threat to their personal safety is to clamour vociferously for increased security at taxpayers' expense. They all, to a person, gave vent to their panic in the same predictable fashion when someone, angry at the alleged ‘corruption' of the Agriculture Minister, Mr Sharad Pawar, and his neglect to control food prices, gave him a slap at a public function.

The President, the Vice-President, the Prime Minister, all leading lights of the Government and the Opposition, and various political parties, lost no time in expressing their shock and outrage, and insistently demanding an increase in the protective security cover for politicians.

Contrast this with the phlegmatic manner the British Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron, and the British Parliament and the public, viewed a really dangerous incident last August when the Taliban came very close to downing the Chinook helicopter in which he was flying on a visit to Afghanistan. Everyone in Britain took it in his stride. But for a routine question in Parliament, the political class went about its usual business as if nothing happened.

PUFFED UP POLITICOS

What India's politicos need particularly to take to heart is the way Mr Cameron dusted it off. He promptly dismissed any suggestion of increasing the level of his security and even said — I hope this proves humbling enough for our political parvenus — that he would carry on with his preferred habit of walking between his official residence at 10 Downing Street to the House of Commons.

What must come as more shocking to our puffed up politicos is that despite his scary experience, Mr Cameron wanted to continue to sit through London's traffic jams the same any other ordinary resident, known as aam aadmi in Indian parlance, scoffing at the attempt by the police to frighten him that he would thereby be a ‘sitting duck'!

Indeed, the first thing he did on taking office was to get rid of the police motorcycle outriders meant to ensure that the Prime Minister's car is able to speed through London traffic.

Take the US. In January this year, Democratic Party Representative, Ms Gabrielle Giffords, was shot in the head while attending a meeting in Arizona. None of the prominent leaders of the two major political parties made this an excuse to surround themselves with security forces. They made it clear that the outrage would not prevent them a little bit from mingling freely with people.

Arizona State Democratic Rep. Daniel Patterson of Tucson, spoke for all of them when he said: “ (If) the elected officials make themselves less accessible, then the shooter wins and our democracy will be damaged.”

Mark you, in the US Congress only the leaders of the Senate and House of Representatives have personal guards.

IMPENETRABLE FIREWALL

In none of the democracies such as Britain, Japan and the US do political VIPs flaunt their security the way India's breed does. Here our Mayawatis, Mulayam Singhs, Lalus and Jayalalithaas can never do without their gun-toting commandos who form an impenetrable firewall around them. In fact, they even accompany them to prisons to which Courts occasionally consign them!

On October 25, 2007, while dealing with a public interest litigation (PIL), Justice T. S. Thakur of the Delhi High Court, eloquently and in strong words echoed what every citizen feels about the security mania of India's politicians:

“Politicians are not national assets that need to be protected…You should not let these men (politicians) to come out. Their presence in public places itself threatens the common men. I do not know why it has become a matter of prestige for them to move with 10-15 uniformed security personnel carrying lethal weapon.. If (they feel) a threat to (their) lives, they should remain in the confines of their homes and offices… It is obnoxious that common men are forced to stay on the sidelines and are prevented to walk on the pavements when the politicians pass… When common men are being killed in bomb blasts on the street, old people are strangulated in their houses, what is the reason of providing individual security to so many people?”

Are our politicians listening?

COMMENT NOW