Public Funds for Private Security?
A recent Wall Street Journal article headline reads, “India’s Elite Covet Security Guards, Flashing Lights”. The article dealt with how the central and state governments are struggling to cope with increasing demands by public and private citizens for status symbols in categories such as VIP and Very VIP. The last letters (X, Y, Z, and Z+) of the alphabet are in huge demand. The government indulges in such largesse on not only political personalities and Bollywood stars but also newly minted billionaires, star athletes, retired judges, and a whole gamut of celebrities. The measure involves 16,500 police and paramilitary troops dedicated solely to protecting these VIPs. X level gets 2 armed cops, Ys receive 11, Zs get 22, and Z+ (the highest rating) gets 36 guards with weapons and escort vehicles. To some extent this is a carryover from the days of the British Raj. In addition to top government officials, India extends an official security rating to some well-heeled civilians who are very wealthy or famous. The economic burden of such protection forced the Home Ministry to consider revamping the system in order to shrink the security forces.
According to the story in Wall Street Journal, in September of last year the Bollywood megastar sustained a blow to his prestige as one of India’s officially designated VIPs. His government security category was reduced a notch to “X” from “Y”. That reduction meant the removal of nine government-paid police guards leaving only two plainclothes officers to shadow him. Pity the “Big B”! Of course, Big B can afford and does maintain his own private security guards numbering two dozen.
What is aggravating is that B’s “fans” are protesting the government move, characterizing it as a “slight” to their hero’s prestige! Many of these fans perhaps do not have three square meals a day. Subramanya Bharathi wrote during the British rule, “enRu maDiyum engaL aDimaiyin mOham?” (When will our infatuation with servitude disappear?) What would he say now?
While the rich and powerful can afford their own private security they cherish the government rating for bragging rights. While the government rating is not published anywhere conversations about who is “X”, “Y”, or “Z” in private gatherings add some spice and mystique. The Maharashtra state government has 550 people under police protection. While some of them are charged for the service many do not pay. Some bold officials are taking a stand to dilute the privilege, as are public interest lawyers.
Even Britain spent taxpayers’ money in the 1990s to protect celebrities such as writer Salman Rushdie during the years when Rushdie went underground on account of the fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini for committing blasphemy against Islam and prophet Muhammad in his novel The Satanic Verses published in 1988. The publication of the book provoked unrest in the Muslim world and created diplomatic wrangles between Britain and Iran. The fatwa is still valid, according to the Revolutionary Guards of Iran, although the fervor has mitigated now and Britain is not spending anymore for Rushdie’s protection.
Spending taxpayers’ money to protect “privileged” private citizens is considered quite unethical and immoral by many. The government should protect only its top leaders. Private citizens, especially the wealthy and famous ones, must have their own private security. The society, consisting of taxpayers, had already given them the opportunity to earn a fortune. The taxpayers should not have to support them any further. In the US private citizens of all cadres hire their own security force. It is time that India got rid of the obligation to provide police protection to private citizens. But the rich and famous do have connections in the highest political circles and hence the task is staggering. When those in power succumb to political influence and/or the politicians misuse their influence it is the responsibility of concerned citizens and the fearless press to bring the issue to light and rectify the situation.
