Improving the Security Establishment
The politicians have created a state within a state where separate laws are applied to the people and separate laws for the politicians. Even the facilities available to the people are different than what the politicians enjoy.
In cities such as Mumbai one can see the sorry state of the infrastructure available to the people. Travel is a nightmare for the people of the city, but the politicians have ensured their place of residence is close if not right next door to the place of work. If they do have to travel, they either stop the traffic to ensure they reach their place of destination comfortably. Or take a helicopter ride to ensure they do not have to go through the same hardships as the common man.
In case of the security apparatus this is clearly evident. The service that is made available to the common man from a security standpoint is the Police which is not well-equipped to handle the current day scenario. They are at best an investigative agency which would track down culprits only after the crime is committed. The Police neither has the right training nor has the right numbers to preempt crime from happening.
The political class is well aware of this situation and has decided that instead of improving the service; they built a new service for their brethren; the "Z Class" security. Why is the Politician unhappy with the security provided by the Police? Is it because they do not trust the capability of the Police to do the job satisfactorily? If that is so, why is this incompetent setup assigned the responsibility of providing security for the common people. This gives a sense that lives of the common people are expendable and lives of the Politicians and their families are more precious.
Since the politicians salary and the infrastructure is being built using the tax paid by the common man, the common man is the employer and the politician is the employee. So how is it that the employees' safety is more important than the employer's. It has to be equal. The political class has decided to term itself as the leaders of the country to explain the special treatment, when they are not even the representatives of the common people.
If a common man reports a threat to his life, the Police provides him with a havaldar who might carry a stick or might carry a World War I .303 rifle; and nothing more. In a similar scenario the Politician would get a team of NSG personnel adequately equipped with the latest weapons. The politician's life is no more important than the common man's; he should be provided the same protection than is available to the common man or vice-versa.
When we take away the special privileges of security from the Politicians; their own personal security will become dependent on the State's security establishment. This will automatically compel them to improve, upgrade, and maintain the security infrastructure. Else it will bite them where it hurts the most; there is no better incentive for the Politicians to act.
This is a democracy, we do not need to provide our representatives with special facilities and hope for them to return the favor. If they fear attacks they need to do something as the common man on the streets feels the same fear. If they fear they might be knifed, shot, or mugged without their additional security cover, the same fear exists in the common man's mind as well. Unless we have the politician using the same system as the common man; there will be no incentive for the political class to improve the facilities.
Figuring out how to improve the Policing system is the job of the Politicians and that is why the common people have elected them. They need to ensure it is improved to suffice their own as well as the common people's needs.
In my view we need to ensure the following:
1. Ensure there is a one year deadline on the special security being provided to the politicians and their families. This will give enough time for them to improve the security establishment.
2. We need to ensure we have a mechanism in place (perhaps a legislation) that will act as a control. Today, we have no control over such special privileges taken for themselves by the Politicians.
Argument #1: There is bigger threats to politicians. If the Special Security is taken away they become easier targets for attacks.
Defense: The Security establishment is supposed to be managed by the politicians, thats precisely the reason in a democracy we elect our representatives. Threats exist for everyone today; but to execute the threat one needs to have the right weapons and local support. As per law in India no one can own weapons; which either has to be bought locally or smuggled in. Without access to local support no criminal can procure or perform the necessary reconnaissance. The Police needs to be geared up to stop both these activities; the procurement can be easily stopped and so can the smuggling activity. The local support can be broken by Intelligence. Thus if the Police is strengthened not only the Politicians but also the common man will be protected.
Argument #2: Enemy states can target the Politicians by launching penetration attacks deep into India soil.
Defense: If this is possible today, it means the defense establishment needs to be beefed up if not revamped. Enemy states have been offloading equipment on Indian shores using the regular smuggling network which is working hand-in-glove with the customs. If the Border Security Forces, Coast Guards, and Customs is strengthened it will solve this attack problem not only for the Politician and the common man, but also solve the problem of smuggling which is destabilizing the nation's economy.
Argument #3: It is not that easy to secure the Politicians with the Police force. And if this is done, the entire Police force will be redirected to this activity, leaving no one to protect the common man.
Defense: This is not really an argument that should be entertained. This means that the current quality and quantity of the Police force is not enough to protect the Politicians and the common people. This is exactly what the Politicians have been elected to correct, inability for them to achieve this cannot reward them with extra security specifically for them.
In cities such as Mumbai one can see the sorry state of the infrastructure available to the people. Travel is a nightmare for the people of the city, but the politicians have ensured their place of residence is close if not right next door to the place of work. If they do have to travel, they either stop the traffic to ensure they reach their place of destination comfortably. Or take a helicopter ride to ensure they do not have to go through the same hardships as the common man.
In case of the security apparatus this is clearly evident. The service that is made available to the common man from a security standpoint is the Police which is not well-equipped to handle the current day scenario. They are at best an investigative agency which would track down culprits only after the crime is committed. The Police neither has the right training nor has the right numbers to preempt crime from happening.
The political class is well aware of this situation and has decided that instead of improving the service; they built a new service for their brethren; the "Z Class" security. Why is the Politician unhappy with the security provided by the Police? Is it because they do not trust the capability of the Police to do the job satisfactorily? If that is so, why is this incompetent setup assigned the responsibility of providing security for the common people. This gives a sense that lives of the common people are expendable and lives of the Politicians and their families are more precious.
Since the politicians salary and the infrastructure is being built using the tax paid by the common man, the common man is the employer and the politician is the employee. So how is it that the employees' safety is more important than the employer's. It has to be equal. The political class has decided to term itself as the leaders of the country to explain the special treatment, when they are not even the representatives of the common people.
If a common man reports a threat to his life, the Police provides him with a havaldar who might carry a stick or might carry a World War I .303 rifle; and nothing more. In a similar scenario the Politician would get a team of NSG personnel adequately equipped with the latest weapons. The politician's life is no more important than the common man's; he should be provided the same protection than is available to the common man or vice-versa.
When we take away the special privileges of security from the Politicians; their own personal security will become dependent on the State's security establishment. This will automatically compel them to improve, upgrade, and maintain the security infrastructure. Else it will bite them where it hurts the most; there is no better incentive for the Politicians to act.
This is a democracy, we do not need to provide our representatives with special facilities and hope for them to return the favor. If they fear attacks they need to do something as the common man on the streets feels the same fear. If they fear they might be knifed, shot, or mugged without their additional security cover, the same fear exists in the common man's mind as well. Unless we have the politician using the same system as the common man; there will be no incentive for the political class to improve the facilities.
Figuring out how to improve the Policing system is the job of the Politicians and that is why the common people have elected them. They need to ensure it is improved to suffice their own as well as the common people's needs.
Way forward
In my view we need to ensure the following:
1. Ensure there is a one year deadline on the special security being provided to the politicians and their families. This will give enough time for them to improve the security establishment.
2. We need to ensure we have a mechanism in place (perhaps a legislation) that will act as a control. Today, we have no control over such special privileges taken for themselves by the Politicians.
Arguments against the plan
Argument #1: There is bigger threats to politicians. If the Special Security is taken away they become easier targets for attacks.
Defense: The Security establishment is supposed to be managed by the politicians, thats precisely the reason in a democracy we elect our representatives. Threats exist for everyone today; but to execute the threat one needs to have the right weapons and local support. As per law in India no one can own weapons; which either has to be bought locally or smuggled in. Without access to local support no criminal can procure or perform the necessary reconnaissance. The Police needs to be geared up to stop both these activities; the procurement can be easily stopped and so can the smuggling activity. The local support can be broken by Intelligence. Thus if the Police is strengthened not only the Politicians but also the common man will be protected.
Argument #2: Enemy states can target the Politicians by launching penetration attacks deep into India soil.
Defense: If this is possible today, it means the defense establishment needs to be beefed up if not revamped. Enemy states have been offloading equipment on Indian shores using the regular smuggling network which is working hand-in-glove with the customs. If the Border Security Forces, Coast Guards, and Customs is strengthened it will solve this attack problem not only for the Politician and the common man, but also solve the problem of smuggling which is destabilizing the nation's economy.
Argument #3: It is not that easy to secure the Politicians with the Police force. And if this is done, the entire Police force will be redirected to this activity, leaving no one to protect the common man.
Defense: This is not really an argument that should be entertained. This means that the current quality and quantity of the Police force is not enough to protect the Politicians and the common people. This is exactly what the Politicians have been elected to correct, inability for them to achieve this cannot reward them with extra security specifically for them.
Comments
Post a Comment