| The principle of it needs to be stated at the very outset so that a questioning of our credentials can thereafter be set aside. Security of life and liberty is our constitutional right, even if a pursuit of happiness, not being so enshrined, might not be. And what every citizen is entitled to, certainly the dignitaries are as well. Indeed, in their case, it becomes an institutional obligation. The agencies of state must provide that extra care to the security of the principal servants of our republic, because in the very discharge of their responsibilities, they (the servants) incur additional risk. The head of our republic cannot be permitted to endanger himself; of course not in the performance of his duties, but not even in the living of his personal life. In like manner, our prime minister is deserving of the closest guarding at all times, and from every compass. In their case, if ever harm is caused to them, it is not merely their person that is injured, it is an assault on the symbols of our state. That is why security provided to them must be of the most effective and efficient kind; it must have the total commitment of
all the citizenry. Yet, if in the process of protecting them we adopt a manner which arbitrarily excludes the citizens' rights; and a method that is deliberately inconsiderate to them, then such a security will potentially, always remain insecure.
Here, let me share with you two experiences: They are not based on hearsay or derived knowledge; they have been experienced by me personally. That by itself would not be of any special significance but for the fact that what I have gone through, thousands are daily experiencing in Delhi.
On a sparkling winter's day, cold and crisp, instead of boringly driving to the Parliament, I chose to walk. It is about two miles from where I live; 'a bracing walk would do a great deal of good to my head,' or so I thought. Soon after I had crossed the airy spaciousness of Vijay Chowk and was within hailing distance, as it were, of the majestic gates of our Parliament, rude police shouts accosted me: "Hey, you! Get away." I stopped, in deference, not to the rude shouts but to the propriety of the uniform. At which sign of obedience to law, I was instructed by its protector that I must immediately get off the road, on whose graveled verge I was, in any case. When I suggested that I was actually already off the road, being well to the left of it, I was peremptorily asked to get of
it altogether. Whereupon I referred to a difficulty, I thought reasonably, that where the road ended there was a hedge, beyond which was a scraggly lawn, on which a sign board expressly forbade me to set foot; even if I straddled the intermediate obstacle. To this with logic and brusqueness, I was advised not to argue like a 'vakil'. So I asked of our guardian of security what exactly was it that he wanted me to do and why. "PM ki savari aa rahi hai. jhari ke piche chup jao." (The PM's cavalcade is coming, go and hide behind the bush). This undignified suggestion I declined; whereupon I was informed that not only would
I be arrested but "would be shot on the spot, there and then." It was because I was not that I am able to write this column.
|
