Preferring show of force to discreet security
If one goes by the premise that all human life is precious, then how is one dearer than another? One could argue that the nature of the job makes some people more vulnerable than others. Then again, what is the risk and how should they be protected? Intelligence agencies carry out a threat assessment and the Home Ministry categorises security as Z+, Z, X and Y, based on the threat perception. Various types of forces are deployed to perform this task, including the Special Protection Group (SPG), the National Security Guard (NSG), paramilitary forces and the police. These have to be trained in the art of close protection and equipped accordingly. State governments have to play their role. There is also the need to look after the logistics and administration, particularly when the security personnel have to live and operate from private houses.
Let us for a minute leave aside the application of protection to high-risk individuals, such as politicians, bureaucrats and police personnel, and view the entire spectrum from the prism of senior military commanders. They, too, are at equal risk by virtue of their job profile.
Senior military commanders, while conducting counter-insurgency operations or handling complex internal security situations, have to take decisions which can result in the loss of life and at times cause excessive inconvenience to the public. This can invite a backlash. GOC-in-Cs and their equivalent ranks in the Indian Air Force and the Navy, who are vested with judicial powers like judges, may in this process of dispensation award harsh punishments which could result in their becoming targets both during service and after retirement. Their personal protection during service is ensured through soldiers under their command. Retired chiefs have been provided security for a limited period after retirement, but this probably happened after we lost Gen AS Vaidya to a terrorist attack in 1986. The threat to the life of others does not vanish after relinquishing command. Since no such facilities are extended to them, they manage their lives accordingly.
The raising of the Rashtriya Rifles division in the Kashmir valley brought in a large number of troops. Despite the high level of threat to commanders, it was not possible to spare a large contingent of troops for their personal security. It was well-known that the moment a commander left his base, the terrorist network became active and would start broadcasting his location. Some commanders decided to give up flying flags and displaying star plates to prevent them from being identified and targeted. Others felt that it would adversely impact the morale of the troops and continued with the practice.
Once while I was passing through CPM leader MY Tarigami’s village, a number of shopkeepers, seeing the flag and stars, requested us to halt to listen to their grievances. Generally, my ADC and the protection party of six soldiers would not allow me to have any close contact with a gathering of civilians in built-up areas, but I made an exception and halted. We found out that many shopkeepers had suffered a loss when jawans had bought goods at prices advantageous to them. After apologising and compensating them, we distributed sweets among the children who were gathered there. On the way back on the same route, a boy stopped our vehicles. We were shocked when he handed over a live grenade to the ADC which was meant to have been thrown at our convoy from a side street. This was our reward for our sympathy and interaction with the shopkeepers; we realised that good relations with the public are in themselves a form of protection.
Some years later, when I was the Director General, Military Operations (DGMO), newspapers reported that the Prime Minister had decided to send me to Pakistan for a military-to-military dialogue with my counterpart. The next day, a handwritten message on a rough piece of paper was dropped off at my private residence, stating that if I undertook this journey, my family and my life were at risk. When this was shown to the authorities, their first reaction was to enhance my security. It was tempting to move around in Lutyens’ Delhi with gun-toting soldiers. It did not take me long to visualise its impact on my family life, entertainment and golf being the first casualties. I abandoned the idea as fast as it had formed. But the organisation insisted that some measures had to be undertaken. It was decided to increase my guard at the residence and install security lights around the bungalow. All went well till a huge electricity bill was received. This led to an upheaval in the household. The very next day, finding a solution to this problem by the staff took priority over the operational briefing! A few days later, when two unidentified motorcyclists were observed lurking outside the Chief of Army Staff’s house, he called me to say that they were actually looking for me! The whole episode then died a natural death.
There is no doubt that high-risk persons must be guarded with all the resources at our disposal. Protection parties must be well-trained and vigilant at all times. Unfortunately, there are only a limited number of highly trained personnel who can fulfil this task with efficiency and integrity. Since the number of individuals who demand security far exceeds the availability, they have to be supplemented with persons whose primary role is policing. Statistics reveal that not many security personnel guarding an individual have lost lives defending him or her.
It is amusing to see VIPs leaving their security personnel in the car parking while they spend four to five hours playing a round of golf. So, what is the deterrence? Unless they have made arrangements like this British friend who was commanding a brigade in Northern Ireland at the time of the Troubles. I was curious to find out as to how he was able to ensure his security while playing golf. He said that they laid greater emphasis on discreet security rather than a show of force. His caddy, who was a sniper, carried his weapon concealed in an umbrella. We have so much to learn.
Our Constitution makes the State responsible for the security of every citizen. Administrators are vested with the duty to protect the citizenry. When a large number of administrators remain behind an iron wall, how can they know about the vulnerability of the public and ensure their security? Most of their time is taken in making arrangements for their own protection. Are they the protectors or only the protected?
