The right to security at whose cost?

By Belu Maheshwari

THE security provided to VIPs has become a matter of great debate and discussion. It has been agitating the minds of the Home Ministry as well as the public. The mushrooming of tents on vacant land and footpaths of Chandigarh started from the early 80s when terrorism in Punjab was at its peak. Certain areas were even cordoned off. The capital of three governments saw the emergence of a tight security ring provided by the CRPF, the BSF, and the Haryana, Punjab and Chandigarh police to various politicians, officers, judges and even some private influential people.Today the City Beautiful almost resembles a concentration camp.

With each terrorist strike in the region, the threat to VIPs increased and the security surrounding them was doubled.

One often sees gypsies and bullet-proof cars zipping without adhering to any traffic laws, black cats (Commandos) holding stenguns, and, of course, VIPs playing golf with gun-totting men at a respectable distance holding Sahib’s thermos, umbrella etc.

Wedding pandals are screened by securitymen and sniffer dogs whenever some VIP is an invitee.

But in spite of all these precautions, the Z category security has been penetrated many times. Chief Minister Beant Singh was killed in a bomb blast in the most heavily guarded area in Chandigarh. Crores spent to protect him came to naught.

Today, when peace has returned to the area and has been consolidated by more than two free and fair elections, the VIP "insecurity" continues.

A 5-type house in Sector 16 has four tents near its entrance, with scores of policemen lolling inside. In Sector 7, a whole park has been overrun by tents and vehicles. People living next to the park avoid sitting in their lawns because they find securitymen bathing in the open or sitting around, listening to loud music.

In this obsequious concern for the powerful, the common man is often neglected. Take the case of Punjab.

It provides security to its 117 MLAs, its police officers and their families, important IAS officers, other government functionaries, former MLAs and retired personnel, but there is hardly any efforts made to redress the grievances of people.

No one can question the right to security of Chief Ministers and police officers who have fought terrorism, but what is the need to appoint four to six Home Guards personnel to protect officers who have never had a sensitive posting. These men actually double up as domestic help. They water the lawns, drive the memsahib and screen visitors.

A senior police officer said "Wives of these officials are the ones who ring us up demanding that they want so and so security guard transferred, posted out because he does not help in the housework." He further added, "We have approached the top authorities many times for reviewing security arrangements but the amount of pressure which is applied to keep the men is unbelievable."

Recently, some retired army officers were irritated with two securitymen for obstructing the way on the golf course. When asked why were they there, they said that they were protecting a retired police officer, who no one had even heard of. The generals showed their disgust, saying, "We fought three wars but never demanded all this paraphernalia."In Panjab University you have wards of officers being guarded by securitymen. And most of the times the wards vanish with friends in government gypsies, leaving the securitymen guarding the pillars of the university. In schools, gunmen carrying school bags of officials’ children is a common sight.

The danger of high office is that it provides a false aura of security. Overprotective insulation is a double-edged weapon. It offers protection from invincible enemies but alienates the public. In fact, VIP security has become an albatross around the neck of the police department. The security arrangements have to be streamlined and restricted to save wasteful expenditure.

One of the steps in this direction would be to make security zones. In Sector 7, which has government houses, every lane has a couple of tents. Plus there is a full battalion housed opposite the Punjab Raj Bhavan. The whole area can be guarded easily with much less force. Punjab officers, who are at risk, can be housed in Sector 39, where Punjab has its senior-level houses and which is already very well guarded. Similarly, officials from Haryana, who need security, can be shifted to one area.

Those under threat (perceived or real) should take their daily promenade in an area placed under security. They should not take securitymen to the lake, Leisure Valley and other public places because security is meaningless in these areas and more for show.

No security personnel should be allowed to work in the house. There should be punishment for those who work and security should be withdrawn from those who get house work done.

A committee, consisting of a Judge of the High Court, Chief Secretaries of Haryana and Punjab, Adviser, Chandigarh Administration, DGPs and some prominent persons of the town, should review people’s need for security every six months. The decision should be left totally with the police. Lastly, those at risk should curtail their outdoor trips to the minimum so that they do not cause harassment to the public.

The general public is irritated with all the feudalistic fanfare and feels that the VIP security should not be at the expense of law and order.