A few related developments during the last fortnight or so have put the media spotlight on Rahul Gandhi, the Crown Prince of India, as he fondly referred to by some.
On November 8, Rahul Gandhi attended the Congress Working Committee meeting in
During the AICC meeting, notwithstanding a few minority discordant and drowned voices like Arjun Singh, speeches by Congress leaders from the Prime Minister downwards had one basic theme: the baton of the leadership of the party, and therefore the country, I may add, was being passed on to Rahul Gandhi formally.
There was another interesting and very significant twist in this milestone political development.
On November 17, it was splashed all over the media that the police had arrested three militants near
The very next day, while the AICC session was in progress in
Even the National Security Advisor (NSA) appeared on a number of national television channels and newspapers to inform the country that Rahul Gandhi was a prime target for militants, as indeed was the whole Gandhi family, and that his security needs would be reviewed.
There is already talk that this foiled militant plan to kidnap Rahul Gandhi was a part of the elaborate plan of the Congress party to launch him into national limelight as the only leader and hope of young India.
Be that as it may, the real question that should worry Indians is: Whose security is more important, our politicians' or our country's?
For those who may not be aware, it may be mentioned that security of some of our top leaders is taken care of by the elite Special Protection Group (SPG). It broadly consists of three layers. The outermost periphery comprises armed local police, or paramilitary forces. The inner ring comprises of commandos deployed on rotation basis by the SPG. The security cover is scaled up or down depending on the threat perception. Also, every movement of these VIPs is guarded by a mobile protection team of the SPG. In short, the aim is to ensure zero possibility of any attacker penetrating the security cordon and reaching the person of the VIP to cause him any physical harm.
Now let us examine the security threat to
The security cover required by a country is in many ways similar to that required by a person; only it is much more complex and requires more number of intricate layers, whose thickness and strength should be dictated by the ever changing security threat. Every other nation in the world, including
The same NSA who appeared on TV immediately after the threat to Rahul Gandhi was uncovered, has been strangely silent and ineffective in doing anything to protect the country better. He had once mentioned in one program on television that the Al Qaida is a mindset. Disclosing that seemed to be enough for him. He made no effort whatsoever to suggest that he had even the foggiest of ideas or plans to effectively counter and defeat the threat posed by that mindset. As to why
Immediately after 9/11, the
This is what the US Homeland Security Country Report on Terrorism, 2006, had to say about
There is nothing new in that assessment that our leaders or their security advisors have not known for decades and-this is the indictment from which there is no escape-have not addressed as they should have.
Again, this year, as reported in the Hindustan Times of September 11, 2007, as per a United Nations report submitted to the Central Government, India is virtually losing the war on terror because structures vitally required to fight it are either not in place or are in a disarray. The report highlights in detail the major gaps in the anti-terror framework which need to addressed urgently.
What action did the government takes on this report? It ensured total silence in the media and elsewhere. No discussions, no talk of any new measures to tackle this grave threat. It seems almost as if the government feels it has no responsibility to do anything and is living on the hope that this menace will gradually die. So what if many more thousand lives of innocent, ordinary, expendable Indians are lost in the process?
Somewhere, our politicians have forgotten a few very basic facts: They are because the nation is, the nation is not because they are; the nation protects them only so that they can better protect the nation.
Sadly, our leaders and the structures of the government react swiftly to the danger of terrorism only when it affects their persons individually. The danger to the 'person' of India does not seem to elicit the kind of response that has been shown by all other nations affected by the same threat. Perhaps the politics of vote banks does not permit them to do for the nation what needs to be done more urgently than ever before.
The individual has, alas, become greater than the nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment