Recent unsavoury incidents involving security personnel of VIPs and the general public have highlighted the need for circumspection, moderation and caution in our approach to VIP security. The state has equal responsibility to protect the VIP and to ensure that the fundamental rights of the citizen - the VOP (Very Ordinary Person) - are not trifled with.

Till the advent of Sikh terrorism, Indian politicans frowned upon protection arrangements as an affront to their stature as ‘public’ leaders. But after the assassination of Indira Gandhi, unobtrusive security gave way to obtrusive security.

Elimination of political adversaries is the credo of terrorists of all hues. Their ever-expanding ‘hit lists’ make it imperative that more and more political leaders be given protection. So much so that the company of ‘Black Cats’ ‘Grey Hounds’ and their ilk is much sought after and exhibited to satisfy one’s ego.

The kidnapping of a Union home minister’s daughter threw open the floodgates of demands for protection of the kith and kin of VIPs. Close on its heels came the demand for security for high officials and others. As the number to be protected rose, professionalism of the security personnel was diluted and hence the recent incidents.

There is therefore a pressing need to reexamine the situation and to take bold measures to make the arrangements more effective. Only then can we avoid VIP casualties and national embarrassment.

‘Protection’ and ‘protocol’ arrangements are not the same and many a time they work at cross purposes. The sole criteria for providing security should be the ‘risk’ and ‘replacement’ factors. The very nature of their duties and responsibilities exposes some VIPs to great risks. Murder of some VIPs poses a great threat to the stability of the nation, too. It is these two categories that need the greatest protection. Going by these standards, many who are low in the political pecking order would need enhanced security and those higher in the order may not need any. The rest should have the same arrangements as all citizens.

It is next to impossible to pinpoint the dangers to a VIP. At best intelligence agencies can indicate the general area from where the danger may emanate. Seldom can they provide a clue about the executors of threats. Thus, security arrangements take the form of a ‘blanket’ - all encompassing in character. The idea is to eliminate all possibilities of an unkonw danger from reaching the VIP, hence the restrictions on a access to VIP areas and on movements of the public. This impingements on the basic rights of the VOP which also causes him inconvenience can be lessened by reducing the number of persons provided with enhanced security.

VIP security is a function of general orderliness and criminal-free environment. It is erroneous to assume that numbers and sophisticated arms enhance the security. it would be suicidal to allow a threat to reach the VIP and use arms and numbers to elimate it.

The drawing away of policemen from their regular duties for VIP security increases the risk to VOPs’ lives and property. Criminals have a heyday in the absence of the long arm of law.

What is called for is an ‘area security’ concept instead of the emphasis on ‘individual security’. This means that the surrounding areas also receive careful attention. Otherwise a would-be assassin can strike at a VIP target and get away. Foot and mobile patrols, drop barriers, vehicle checks etc. would make escape difficult for the assailant. The holistic approach would also benefit the public.

VIPs can help in minimising the hardships caused to the general public by avoiding visits to places where large number of people gather - like Kumbh Mela and Mahamaham. High-risk VIPs like the President and Prime Minister could confine visits to predesignated placed. All functions in which the President participates could be held in Rashtrapati Bhavan itself. A similar place could be located for the PM near his reisence. The recently introduced practice of the PM having his departure/arrival formalities connected with his foreign tours at the Race Course Road complex itself should be taken to tis logical conclusion. Perhaps he could use a helicopter from his residence to the airport for all his journeys. Smaller functions should be held in the residences of the vIPs themselves.

Public meetings as a means of reaching out to the people have lost their rationale. Not only are they a waste of infrastructure and money but they also provide an easy opportunity for an assasin. It should be possible to use the lectronic media to advantage and thereby eliminate public meetings.

There is no such thing as fail-proof security. Security measures can only reduce the chances of mischief. VIP security is an exercise in constantly anticipating the next move of a ischief-maker and trying to thward him. This calls for a clear understanding by the VIP and his cooperation with the authorities making the arrangements. This is lacking and hence security arrangements get diluted.

Professionalism in VIP security is lacking except in specialised organisations like the Special Protection Group. Exaggerated importance is given to physical prowess and mechanical skills; almost no attention is paid to the development of mental faculties to respond to stressful situations. In a crisis, quick thinking and quick reflexes of a security guard alone can save a VIP. It should also be impressed on the guard that better results are achieved by politeness than by being rude or by displaying physical strength. VIPs and VOPs are not opposite ends of the equation. In fact, VIP security duty does not confer on the men powers to ride rough-sod over fellow-citizens.

We have to learn to live with VIP security since it is a feature of our times. But with a little imagination and forethought, the considerable sums spent on VIP security could also be made to benefit the common man.