Patna blasts: Whose responsibility is it anyway?

The spat between the Gujarat and Bihar police over alleged inadequacies in security arrangements made during the Gujarat CM’s recent visit to Patna raises many interesting questions over accountability. I am not talking about who is right and who is not. It would be unfair and preposterous on the part of a total outsider like me to comment on either of the police forces, both of which have been doing a difficult job, and certainly have some outstanding leaders. My anxiety is about the future of policing in the country. There is, undeniably, a political dimension to the controversy. This at a time when all of us are aware that, despite all that the apex court has done to ensure autonomy and professionalism in police functions, the Indian Police is deeply mired in politics. It is unfortunate that no DGP can tell a Chief Minister to mind his own business and not meddle in what should strictly remain within his (DGP’s) province. This is the sad situation in the country. I do not see any prospects of a change for decades to come.

Coming back to where I began, VIP security does not brook political interference. It does not allow political directions on how much protection should be given or not to a dignitary who faces threat.

This is best left to the judgment solely of a DGP who should not look up to a Chief Minster for instructions. From all accounts, the current Bihar DGP is an officer with a good track record, and I have no reason to believe that he did not rise to the occasion. Nevertheless, there is a feeling fuelled by some political heavyweights and the media that the Bihar police did not do enough.

This is despite some prompt and, therefore, commendable arrests of suspects for the explosions at the Gandhi Maidan in Patna.

We cannot forget the 1991 tragic event of Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, and the charge that this could have been averted if the VP Singh government had not withdrawn the SPG cover to Rajiv.

Basically, in the present surcharged atmosphere, no dilution of personal security to our political class is ever warranted. I quite concede that some people ask for security for sheer status. But there are processes in place to call their bluff.

It is in this context that police chiefs of two states whose heads of government do not exactly see eye to eye will have to be dispassionate and objective, and should be ready to stretch themselves to provide the best to protect a visiting dignitary. There is no substitute for face-to-face meetings between the two DGPs involved before each visit, so that all issues are thrashed out. I would even suggest drawing up of minutes on the nitty-gritty of arrangements. No protocol or ego considerations should stand between the two chiefs in the matter. Such a procedure also sends a message down the hierarchy that there is no politics involved here, and that arrangements will be foolproof. In such a process, accountability is so clear that no single officer can allow loopholes.

A final word on the Intelligence Bureau’s role in all this. It has a well oiled machinery to share its expertise on VIP security matters. This could come in handy if there are contentious issues between two police forces. IB help could be invoked by one of the two parties if it believes that there was a likely conflict on the quantum of protection to be extended to a visiting VIP. No right-thinking Chief Minister would ever stand in the way of such a healthy and professional intervention by a body as skilled as the IB. This is a triangular arrangement which could be institutionalized over the years.

The writer is a former CBI Director