Lessons from Rajiv: Congress must amend Modi's security

RPN Singh, Minister of state in Home Ministry has got his facts completely wrong. He is either not aware of the basic history of contemporary Indian politics, that too on issues concerning his own party icon, Rajiv Gandhi or in his over enthusiasm to denounce the BJP he chose to make a completely erroneous narration.

“it’s extremely unfortunate that that the BJP has chose to politicise security concern of one individual. It’s also easy for me to politicise. Former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had a maximum threat perception. The BJP was in power then. But the security they provided him was just sub inspector level. Subsequently he was assassinated. So they shouldn’t talk about security”, Singh said while reacting to the BJP’s demand for enhanced security cover to the main opposition party’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi.

Singh, a rising young Minister has faltered on more than one count.

As minister in-charge of internal security, his concerns should not be guided by affiliations to the politics of the Congress party.

But first perhaps, he needs to correct his sense of history. When Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated on 21 May in Sriperumbudur 1991 while campaigning for general elections, Chandra Shekhar was Prime Minister.

RPN Singh should look elsewhere to find his answer to the question of who should be blamed for the kind of security Rajiv Gandhi had. The situation leading to his death has been effectively narrated in John Abraham’s movie, Madras Café.

An old time Congress leader told Firstpost that after Rajiv Gandhi was ousted from power, the Congressmen, more prominently KK Tiwari used to vociferously demand SPG security to Rajiv Gandhi but both VP Singh and Chandra Shekhar had disagreed.

Here are some facts.

Congress leaders should get to the records of parliamentary proceedings. The SPG Act was enacted by the Rajiv Gandhi government in June 1988,  in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi’s assassination. The bill was piloted in Parliament by P Chidambaram, in his then avatar of Minister of Internal security and personnel. During the course of the debate, the opposition members (who were in a minuscule minority in the face of a brute three fourth majority) kept demanding that the purview of bill be extended to all leaders who faced a grave threat perception, instead of just the Prime Minister. Chidambaram, a senior leader pointed out, was completely unrelenting and the bill was passed with singular purpose, providing proximate security to the Prime Minister.

It was on this basis that when Rajiv Gandhi lost power and Congress started demanding SPG protection, that Janata Dal leaders would sarcastically tell them of the position they had taken just one and a half years before. As subsequent events show us, they were wrong. Rajiv Gandhi was killed.

The Congress then demanded an amendment in the SPG Act to give security to Sonia Gandhi and her children. The Act was further amended by the Narasimha Rao government in 1991 to give SPG protection to all former Prime Ministers and their immediate family members for a period of 10 years from the date on which the former Prime Minister ceased to hold office. SPG cover for any period beyond this is based on an assessment to see if the level of threat justifies the continued provision of proximate security. Members of the Gandhi-Nehru family are the exception to that general rule. The Act has since been amended four times.

This really means that an Act (SPG), which has been amended four times in 17 years, can’t be amended one more time. The government can keep SPG as an exclusive force for proximate security to the PM, but it can also create a separate force of similar calibre to provide security to other top notch leaders whose threat perception and related security issue is a national concern or issue. The UPA government, which has on too many occasions chosen to go the ordinance route on various issues, can’t press for one more ordinance to extend security cover to Narendra Modi or any other leader. But throwing the rule book is not always a good solution.

Just as the Congress was not wrong in 1990-91 to demand SPG cover for Rajiv Gandhi, the BJP  cannot be blamed for showing its concern on the threat perception faced by Narendra Modi and demanding enhanced security for him.

The Home Minister says that Modi has already been provided with Z Plus security and has NGS cover. The NSG, which was again created in the aftermath of terrorism in Punjab and Indira Gandhi’s assassination in 1984 was not created for proximate security to leaders and bureaucrats.

Modeled on the pattern of the SAS of the UK and GSG-9 of Germany, the NSG is a task-oriented Force to tackle all facets of terrorism in the country. Its objectives state that “the NSG is a Force specially equipped and trained to deal with specific situations and is therefore, to be used only in exceptional situations. The Force is not designed to undertake the functions of the State Police Forces or other Para Military Forces of the Union of India.”

But over the years, NSG has been better known for the provision of proximate security to leaders of all hues. In some cases it provides security to those who have a genuine threat perception and in other other cases to those who manipulate the system to use that as status symbol.

The simple reason being the SPG security cover is guided by an Act of Parliament and thus has a statutory mandate in negotiating (for instance, advance security liasoning or ASL) on various aspects of the security arrangements with the state administration and police as and when the SPG protectee visits that particular state or region.

The Home Ministry has indeed enhanced Narendra Modi’s security cover. When Modi made his second visit to Bihar on 2 November to console the families of the six serial bomb victims, Firstpost was the first to report on the upgrading of his security by the centre.

But perhaps because of the politics around Modi’s name in the ruling establishment or because of strategic reasons, the MHA has kept quiet and not made any official announcement to that effect. The new security cover is in fact, an improvement from what was once designed for his party elder, LK Advani in his erstwhile position of Deputy Prime Minister who like Modi then faced serious threats from Jihadi terror groups.

This is precisely why despite JD(U) leader’s raves and rants, the Bihar government quietly gave all logistical support to the Gujarat Police and Central, as well as tier two and three security to all six places Modi visited.

“Narendra Modi is our dream target”, arrested IM kingpin Yasin Bhatkal told his interrogators from the Intelligence Bureau. This was not something new that the IB officers were hearing from a key terror operative. There are reports that the ISI is actively onto the job of activating sleeper modules of various terror groups including Khalistan terrorists. The IB concern has definitely been heightened after the Patna serial blasts.

The Congress has given a chance to the BJP to politicise and even gain mileage on the issue, even if the BJP Parliamentary Board picked up the issue rather belatedly. But it can’t be blamed. Security, after all has always been as much a political issue, as much a real technical issue.