Security cover to VIPs and over stretched Central Police Forces

Photo: India Today

By Nebil Nizar

Media buzzed with reports of the Union government granting Y-category security for the protection of the leader of a newly floated political party in Kerala, which is close to the BJP. The Supreme Court, in the aftermath of the Delhi gang rape of December 16, 2012, had earlier raised concerns for diverting security personnel for VIP duties.

Keeping all this in mind, two questions need to be answered: first, who deserves protection? Second, which agency should provide them?

Security cover is generally granted to public figures or politically important persons who have threat from assault, kidnapping, assassination, harassment, loss of confidential information or other criminal offences.

The granting of security cover and stripping of the same is always a matter of political controversy in a country like India which doesn't have a witness protection programme owing to lack of funds and shortage of manpower.

Controversy erupted recently when the security cover provided to former Union ministers Salman Khurshid and Manish Tiwari was completely done away with. Former deputy home minister R.P.N. Singh got his security downgraded to Y-category.

C.R.P.F., an internal security
 maintenance force, is
providing security cover to a
business magnet.
Photo: DNA India

One the other hand, Baba Ramdev got his Z-category security extended all over India and Muzaffarnagar riots case accused Sangeet Som got Z-plus category. Similarly, the decision to give C.R.P.F. cover to business magnet Mukesh Ambani by the U.P.A. government turned out to be controversial.

The decision to give security cover or to modify it or even to strip it is now taken by a Protection Review Group headed by the home secretary and has officials from the intelligence bureau on board.

Another committee performing a similar function is the Security Categorisation Committee. The pressure allegedly exerted by the political executive always made the decisions of this committee controversial.

The Kargil Review Committee (KRC) set up immediately after the 1999 conflict insists on "One Border, One Force". On the lines of this recommendation, to avoid conflict and confusion by deploying more than one uniformed force, the government of India entrusted the duties of one border area to one force.

Nepal and Bhutan borders were entrusted to the Sashastra Seema Bal (S.S.B.), China to the Indo-Tibetian Border Police (I.T.B.P.), Myanmar to Assam Rifles (A.R), Pakistan and Bangladesh to the Border Security Force (B.S.F.).

National Security Adviser
Shri. Ajit Doval enjoys CISF
Protection, the agency tasked for this work.
Photo: Deccan Chronicle

One agency for protection duties is also a similar need. Now C.R.P.F., C.I.S.F., I.T.B.P. along with N.S.G. and S.P.G. forms the security detail of the protectees. The Union government has announced once again two years back that the C.I.S.F. will become N.S.G.'s substitute for VIP protection.

The decision to induct the C.I.S.F. into VIP protection was taken in 2002 on the recommendation of a group of ministers, which said that the N.S.G., I.T.B.P., C.R.P.F. and other security agencies providing VIP security be relieved from such duties so that they could concentrate on the tasks they had been created for.

A Pioneer news report dated March 27, 2014 says, the C.R.P.F. has decided to transfer the resources under its elite anti-naxal CoBRA unit to equip personnel engaged in VIP protection. The report further adds that the force is placing bullet proof vehicles in different parts of the country for VIP movement.

Keep in mind, the C.R.P.F. was created to assist the state governments in maintaining law and order and for counter-insurgency duties.

If officers and men are drained for VIP security duties from the C.R.P.F., then normally officers and personnel from border guarding forces like the B.S.F., I.T.B.P. and S.S.B. must be brought in for anti-Naxal operations. A country like India with a hostile neighborhood cannot afford that. Trained mercenaries were able to infiltrate the Punjab border and the tremor was felt in Pathankot recently.

C.R.P.F. protectees include B.J.P. leaders Amit Shah and Subramaniyam Swamy, former Punjab D.G.P. K.P.S. Gill, and DMK's M.K. Stalin. The VIPs under C.I.S.F. cover include R.S.S. chief Mohan Bhagwat, deputy home minister Kiren Rijiju and national security adviser Ajit Doval.

Delhi Chief Minister
Shri. Aravind Khejriwal

The Delhi government openly admitted in the Supreme Court that 8,049 police personnel were deployed to protect VIPs at Rs 341 crore a year in the capital alone. This number is in addition to the members of the elite protection units of the S.P.G., N.S.G., I.T.B.P., C.R.P.F. and C.I.S.F.

At a time when crimes against women are rising and domestic threats increasing, the need for rationalization of security cover is of extreme importance. The influence of the political leadership should be stripped and a committee to recommend security cover should be headed by a serving/retired Supreme Court judge. Intelligence agencies shall aid the said committee. Also, the protection duty must be entrusted to the CISF alone as this special force was created for this duty and all other forces should be relieved of VIP duties.

(Originally published at http://www.dailyo.in/politics/security-cover-vip-duties-internal-security-threats-rpf-cisf-itbp-nsg-spg-anti-naxal-cobra-protectee/story/1/8797.html ) 

Dangers of opinions manufactured on Twitter and Facebook

Photo: designntrend.com

By Nebil Nizar

The Friday sermon delivered by the Imam of the Grand Mosque in Makkah last Friday slammed irresponsible social media use in Saudi Arabia. This serious misuse of the digital space is not geographically limited to West Asia alone. News feeds buzzed with updates about the transfer of an Indian Police Service officer in Kerala.

In an age when revolutions were tweeted, a transfer engineered by the activists at the tip of their mouse is no big thing.

Democracy is not just a form of government in which the government are elected by the people; it is also about plurality of ideas. As noted political thinker, JS Mill advocated in On Liberty, truth does not emerge by itself; it is only through a conflict of opposing views that truth emerges.

Right to freedom of speech is recognised as a human right in Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is also recognised as a fundamental right in the Constitution of India.

Governments all over the world sensed the importance of directly communicating and thereby engaging with the people at large. In India, Shashi Tharoor was one of the first politicians to use microblogging website Twiter to connect with the masses. It is now used by almost every leader and the present Prime Minister Narendra Modi has used it as a diplomacy tool many times.

Internet as a free space is also used by activists to campaign for causes which the mainstream media is never interested to carry. The Hashtag activism started with the Occupy Wall Street protest, initially with an aim to coordinate twitter conversations, spread to other social media outfits as well. Internet enables activists to communicate inexpensively and also in a timely manner.

The real issue starts when opinions are manufactured in the digital space. The Makkah Imam observed that there was a tendency on social media to find fault with others and spread lies and half truths about other people and the country. The medium can be used to spread dissatisfaction.

Many people will like/follow/share and view only those pages or sites which are in harmony with their inflexible world view. When a feeble-minded person sees another with the same mindset, a bond develops between them. The situation turns worse when they decide to take on digitally the one who disagrees with their view.

The recent passage of the Juvenile Justice Amendment Act by the Indian Parliament stands out as a textbook example of being swayed away by the opinion of a mob. Social media believes that by the passage of the Act, all abuses against women in India are over.

The last Republic Day saw abuses on social media against the vice president of India, Hamid Ansari, for not saluting during the parade. The abuse went to the extent of calling him a traitor and even a jihadi sympathiser. Later when the protocol was checked, the vice president, a former member of elite Indian Foreign Service, was right and all those who saluted, sans the president were wrong.

In a developing nation like India, millions are stopped from meaningfully engage online due to technological illiteracy or lack of access to technology. Then how can the opinion of a few be claimed as the opinion of the community at large?

Social media is a double-edged sword. A party, a recent phenomenon in Indian politics, showed us that opinions can be gathered from the common man directly before arriving at an important decision. Every decision by the high and mighty state should be objectively taken after weighing the pros and cons.

In a vibrant democracy, where people gave their mandate to the government to rule through free and fair elections, we should not bow to the pressure created by a few netizens in the name of the majority.


(Originally published at http://www.dailyo.in/politics/social-media-twitter-shashi-tharoor-narendra-modi-juvenile-justice-bill-mob-mentality-trolls-hamid-ansari/story/1/8679.html)

Make study of the Constitution compulsory for Indian lawmakers

Central Hall of Indian Parliament
Photo: http://www.abdulkalam.nic.in/

By Nebil Nizar

The values and ideals cherished by the people of a country are enshrined in their Constitution. Similarly, dreams and aspirations of the citizenry of the world’s largest democracy can be seen in the Constitution of India. The smell of the blood of millions who lost their lives in the freedom struggle and the millions who suffered at the hands of the mighty British Empire can be heard. This brilliant work is the cornerstone of this great nation called India.

The president of India, as the head of state, takes the oath of defending the Constitution of India. The head of state can be impeached for the sole reason - violation of the Constitution of India. The Constitution in Part IV, i.e. titled Fundamental Duties, says it shall be the duty of every citizen to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions. All laws made in the country must be in tune with the Constitution. Any violation follows a consequence: striking down by the judiciary.

The Supreme Court of India in Keshavananda Bharati case has evolved the basic structure doctrine, which bars Parliament from altering the core principles of the “holy book” of Indian democracy.

Few days back, a responsible functionary of the Delhi government thundered: “Rajya Sabha has let down the entire country. Had the MPs in the Rajya Sabha passed the amendments to the Juvenile Justice Act, this man (the convict) would have been in jail. But today he is walking out free.”

Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of India states this on ex-post facto law. It simply means that a person may be convicted only for an act which was an offence at the time of committing the act. Similarly, Article 20 (2) of the Constitution bars “double jeopardy”. A person cannot be punished for the same offence twice. These provisions make it extremely clear that the juvenile in Nirbhaya case cannot be subjected to an enhanced punishment. The Constitution clearly protects him from being subjected to a jail term for the same offence twice. The provision is same in all civilized states of the world.

It makes things evident that the honourable functionary, whom I have quoted above, has never read the book which she’s to abide by and work according to its directions. The common man got carried away by the new eye-catching, but legally impossible, slogan.

Father of Indian legal education, Professor NR Madhava Menon, has written about an incident at the Kerala Legislative Assembly where he went to lecture on the Constitution for amateur law makers. One of them said to him during the course of lecture, “I do not know what the Constitution of India is; I will do what my party says”.

The MLA had entered office taking an oath expressing true faith and allegiance to the same book. These incidents showcase the urgent need to make none other than the lawmakers understand the “law” and also  the importance of imparting legal education to any person drawing salary or remuneration from the state exchequer. Also, there is the need of introducing legal education in the school curriculum.

Famous jurist Lord Denning, in his address to the Society of Public Teachers of Law, expressed three purposes of legal education:
1. To show how legal rules have developed, the reasons underlying them and the nexus between legal and social history.
2. To extract the principles underlying the existing legal rules.
3. To point out the right road for future development.

The immediate reason for the Revolt of 1857 was a rumour. History is still unable to assert whether the content matter of the rumour was true. Whatever that be, damage was caused.  Lack of information and knowledge is the major reason for people being carried away easily by feelgood slogans, unwarranted rumours and other forms of sensationalism.

We as a nation cannot leave majority of the people to remain “legally illiterate”. The demands for stopping the release of the juvenile convicted in the Delhi gang rape case stands as a live example.

God save this great nation!


(Originally published at http://www.dailyo.in/politics/constitution-of-india-nirbhaya-rape-case-juvenile-justice-act-parliament-rajya-sabha-lawmakers/story/1/8234.html)