Politicians Under Threat?

With Nepal also falling in line, all the countries of South Asia are now democracies in various degrees and yet the political leaders who seek mandate from the people are the most threatened lot. It is ironical that even in India and Sri Lanka where democratic values have come to stay the cult of violence often determines the course of events. Ever since the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, leaders have had to live under some kind of threat. This is more so today when violence and terror have become tools for achieving political goals.

by HARBANS SINGH

The contrast cannot be starker. As the politicians in USA woo the voters not to become the President of that country but a candidate for it, they rub shoulders with people from early morning till late in the night and it is not just about rubbing shoulders or shaking hands. They spend much of their day waving enthusiastically and warmly responding to the people, identifying with them and getting connected. This should not surprise any one in a democracy but what surprises is the apparent lack of any security cover for these aspiring Presidents.

In contrast to the most powerful democracy’s functioning, we of the largest democracy are used to witnessing a blatant display of force not just by those in power but even those who claim to be devoting themselves to public welfare. Anyone who is someone can demand and get a security cover even if it is crude and flimsy and most of those who enjoy this privilege use members of this cover to either run their errands or intimidate others.

The truth is that those in power might feel threatened but their security is a constant threat to the common man on the road. The greater the threat to a person greater is his security a danger to the law abiding citizens on the road who travel in the mistaken belief that when following the law their rights should be respected and protected. Not too long ago a High Court hauled a Director General of Police of a State because his security escort had treated the car and the driver of a High Court Judge as they do the ordinary citizens of the country. The DGP was duly apologetic but this in no way gave respite to the common man for unlike the Judge of a High Court he has no power to bring anyone to justice.

While the security escort of the police officials might be forgiven for behaving in a brazen manner for no citizen in this country the police force to be civil, the case of the security to politicians brings out a cultural response that is typical of the subcontinent. For reaching the top echelons of power a budding politicians uses a number of grabs that are known as the grass root worker doing social work who rises to devote himself to the service of the people. However, when finally he gets to a position of power as a reward for his long service to the people it is time to announce to the world of his arrival. There is no effective way of doing this than having visible symbols of power of which the security cover is the most potent. Thus the importance of a politician is today judged by the security that he is being provided.

Interestingly, this was not so when the ‘tryst’ with destiny began though soon thereafter Mahatma Gandhi fell to the foul bullets of an assassin. Not only was visible security not provided to people in power but their interaction with the public was unhindered as any risk was considered to be an occupational hazard. This continued even when Mrs. Indira Gandhi began pursuing the politics of confrontation in order to hasten the process of social and economic change and came to be changed only after she was assassinated by her own security men. That event marked a watershed as security became an obsession. Since the politics of the era brought more and more politician under the list of ‘threatened’ an elitist force trained to perform such duties was raised. Ever since, the political importance of a person has come to be judged by the class of the people who guard his or her person.

Things have never been the same since the militancy began in Punjab for it was soon to be followed by terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir. Not to be left behind were the poor, landless and tribal people living in the States of Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhatisgarh and Andhra Pradesh who came to be known as Naxalites. They organized themselves as did the establishment that was more intent upon eliminating them rather than the cause that fed these organizations. As a result, all States that felt some kind of threat raised their own force to protect its ‘public servants’ though it must be added that could never inspire the awe and respect that the central commandos did.

What began in Punjab has unfortunately spread today to not only the Naxal affected States but almost the whole of the country as the diversity of issues has given rise to the general adoption of the threat of violence by aggrieved groups whether they be a religious minority, the largest being accused of getting extra territorial support and encouragement, or caste and class groups. As a consequence, anyone assuming power or threatening to assume it, is under some kind of threat.

This has been accentuated by the repeated statement of Ms. Mayawati, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh that the Congress Party should be held responsible in case she is assassinated. She and Uttar Pradesh government has sought elite Special Protection Group (SPG) cover for Chief Minister Mayawati — a security measure reserved only for the Prime Minister and former Prime Ministers and their families —citing ‘tremendous threat’ to her from terror groups.

In a letter to Union Home Secretary Madhukar Gupta dated December 28, 2007, UP’s Cabinet Secretary Shashank Shekhar Singh said the Chief Minister faced ‘tremendous threat’ from terror outfits. The letter, sent a day after the assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, said the UP Chief Minister, who is also the President of Bahujan Samaj Party, should be immediately provided with an SPG cover to guard her ‘round-the-clock’. Another reason cited by the state cabinet secretary for extending the elite security cover to Mayawati is that she has to travel to various parts of the country in connection with her party work and it was, therefore, necessary to have a centralised command for her security.

It needs to be pointed out that before Benazir Bhutto had repeatedly asked for effective security but was not provided and therefore many feel that the demand of Ms. Mayawati should be taken seriously. In fact, on finding the Centre lukewarm to the demand she is said to have explored the idea of importing security from Israel. Many others feel that this is but a crude attempt to demonstrate to her followers how important she has become!

It is also interesting to go through the list of politicians who feel they are living under the threat of death. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal and Sardar Buta Singh are the senior most for they have been under threat ever since violence became a tool of politics with the Punjab turmoil. Subsequently, Ms. Jayalalitha, Mr. Chandrababu Naidu, Mr. Mulayam Singh and various leaders, beginning with Mr. L.K.Advani to Mr. Rajnath Singh, have added their names to this list that of course includes the Chief Ministers of States that are genuinely affected by militancy. Even more interesting is that there are a number of Don politicians who claim that their life is under threat, especially in jail. Pappu Yadav and Shahabuddin lead such a role of honour.

This brings us back to the issue of politicians being under threat and how after winning elections and assuming power they appropriate the State apparatus to their personal security and to the detriment of the common man. This s true not only of Indian politicians but also those in the neighbouring Pakistan though the Sri Lankans and Bangladeshis are no less threatened.

In our context, it is obvious that the problem has been aggravated by the curious amalgam of the inability of the system to solve the problems in a democratic and just manner and criminalization of politics. While the inability to solve issue and by letting them fester we have allowed groups to resort to violence and feel justified, the State has responded by using force in equal measure to make those groups fall in constitutional lines. Thus when institutional response to violence came to be accepted, those who had mastered the art of subverting the system for their nefarious goals were quick to use it for demonstrating their hold over the system and law.

Today institutional security has veritably become a moving menace for the common man. As the convoys of threatened politicians claim the first right of the road, the common man is forced to not only yield but also cower in the face of the threatening commandos. It is only wistfully that one can watch Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama mingling with the people and wonder when was the last time that our VIP politician broke rank to be with his people for any length of time!