MONTHLY FEATURE uuu POLICE AND SECURITY uuu OCTOBER, 1994
ELECTIONEERING AND PROTECTION OF POLITICAL LEADERS
Dr.S.Subramanian, IPS (Retd.)
Elimination of political adversaries is on the agenda of terrorists, secessionists and extremists. With the call of PWG to boycott the election in A.P.; the strident posture adopted by the militant elements against elections in Jammu & Kashmir; and increase in the activities of Pro.I.S.I. elements in the country, there is need to take special care of the protection of political leaders during electioneering. Political parties should realise their responsibility in this field and cooperate fully with the authorities in providing protection to their leaders. It should be remembered that any harm befalling a popular political leader will have far reaching consequences on the fortunes of political parties at the hustings. Recall what happened after the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi.
History is replete with instances of assassinations and attempts at assassinations of VIPs during electioneering. While campaigning for his party Rajiv Gandhi was killed by a human bomb. Prime Minister of Pakistan was killed in 1951 at a public meeting. Sri Lanka lost two of her able leaders during electioneering. Presidential candidate Theodore Roosevelt was shot at in 1912 on campaign trail and was saved by the thick wad of speeches and the metal spectacle case in his coat pocket which reduced the velocity of the bullet. In 1933, President-elect F.D.Roosevelt was fired at after a speech. In 1975, a frail lady from the crowd tried to shoot at President Ford. Smt.Indira Gandhi was seriously hurt in the nose in a stone throwing incident at a Public meeting in Bhubaneshwar.
Danger to personal safety is an occupational hazard for a political leader. Votaries of political violent movements; enemy agents; disgruntled citizens; and psychopaths have carried out successful assassinations in the past. Danger stalks the political leader because of his eminence, power and authority. Since the precise source of danger is not known, all contingencies are to be anticipated and elaborate counter measures are to be devised. Election campaigns are exercises in public relations for the VIPs to woo the public to vote for their party. They wish to stress on informal interaction and project an image of a person close to the people. Informality and bonhomie are the accepted and popular methods. Unfortunately, the ‘personal protection system’ to be effective works on the principles of ‘strict access control’ and ‘keeping the unauthorised persons far way from the VIPs.’. This basic divergence in perception and practice create innumerable problems to the officers entrusted with the protection of VIPs. They have no say in the preparation of programmes, itinerary, mode of travel, selection of places of stay etc. as ‘election tours’ are termed ‘non-officials’ and the arrangements are expected to be made only by the political parties.
In the years after Independence, when charismatic political leaders enjoying the adulation of the masses were on the scene, the basic problem of security authorities was one of controlling friendly crowds. It was assumed, by the security personnel that they need only to provide the lead to the friendly crowds to neutralise any mischief monger. Further, with the same party in power at the Centre and the States, it was possible to make satisfactory arrangements by utilising the official machinery. As years rolled by, as different political parties came to power in the States, dilution in the protection arrangements started taking place as the States were not willing to foot the massive expenditure involved in making foolproof arrangements, particularly so, when the protected person was undertaking the tour to campaign against party in power. Notwithstanding these reservations, everyone ensured that the security authorities had freedom of action to ensure that no harm or mischief befell the visiting VIP.
The simmering political discontent, presence of leaders with no charisma and public adulation; political violence and criminalisation of politics have brought about a sea-change. Availability of sophisticated weaponry, explosives, electronic priming devices, etc. in the hands of miscreants have made the task of VIP protection personnel very difficult. Professional standards demand that the high security cover be given based on ‘Indispensability Quotient’ and ‘Risk Quotient’. The former is determined on the basis of the impact the sudden death of the protected person will have on the nation and its affairs and the latter on the ‘real dangers’ facing the dignitary. Unfortunately, in our country, a third dimension, ‘Status Symbol’ has been added diluting the security arrangements.
VIP Security is a complete package. Unless the professionals are allowed to have a say in the planning and execution stages of the itinerary, programmes and other activities of VIP, it wilt not be possible to ensure their protection. Mere provision o heavily armed and highly trained security personnel with the VIP, will not help as strict access control and anti-sabotage measures are to be enforced. The Special Protection Group, which looks after the security of the Prime Minister, is a able to do its job effectively because it is consulted at all stages. S.P.G. cover has been extended to many other VIPs, but the SPG has no say in the planning of their programmes, travel, place of stay, etc. The threat to the security of leaders of democratic political parties is very real and they are to be effectively protected. Political parties should cooperate with the security authorities in enabling them to do their duty. Some essential steps are :
(1) All political parties should appoint a senior functionary at Delhi to liaise with the Union Home Ministry and the Special Protection Group on a day-to-day basis in formulating and implementing security arrangements for leaders provided with SPG cover.
(2) At the State capitals, a senior political functionary should maintain liaison with the State Police authorities on a day-to-day basis providing them with information and support for security arrangements.
(3) Wherever possible, no two VIPs with SPG cover should be present at the same place. This would enable the local authorities concentrate on making adequate security arrangements. Political parties should also ensure that not more than one high risk category VIP - either of SPG Protection or ‘z’ category - is present on the rostrum at public meetings. Similarly, no two high risk VIPs should travel together.
(4) Political parties should undertake the responsibility of carrying out visual anti-sabotage check of all places of function of the VIPs and call in the Police Bomb Disposal Squad, if any suspicious objects are found.
(5) Political parties should enforce strict access control and keep the surroundings of the VIP clear of all unauthorised persons.
(6) Disorderliness enhances threat to the security of VIP. Therefore, political parties should ensure that orderliness is maintained at all places of functions of VIP.
Police are overworked and understaffed. It wilt not be possible for them to make arrangements at hundreds of functions that will be organised in connection with the elections. Political parties should train their youth wing to take on functions of a regulatory and preventive nature and cooperate with the police.
With feelings running high and in the surcharged atmosphere during the campaigning and polls, the danger to top raking political leaders are ever present and the political parties should realise their responsibilities and take all steps to make the work of security authorities successful. The emphasis should be on prevention and not on throwing the blame on authorities. Future will judge us by our mistakes and inaction.
(The author is formerly Director General, CRPF and NSG)