The breach in the security run of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Punjab sets a dangerous precedent for institutional sanctity in the country.

The Prime Minister could not take the aerial route because of inclement weather and decided to take the road route towards the National War Memorial at Hussainiwala border with Pakistan. Half an hour away from the venue, which was reportedly about two hours from the airport, the cavalcade was halted on a flyover as protesting farmers had blocked the road.

The convoy returned for the airport in 15-20 minutes, and the Union government accused the state of not making required arrangements to clear the route.

The security drill of the Prime Minister is planned well in advance, with the SPG, the state police and the IB making elaborate plans and any route is taken only on the clearance of the state police.

The Congress went into combative mode, with Randeep Singh Surjewala saying this was a “drama” enacted to skip the Ferozepur rally due to low attendance. He also said that the PM made the decision to go by road at the last moment and the Punjab police was making arrangements for the same. If the farmers suddenly came to block the road, should the police have shot them dead, he asked?

The war of words, however, digresses from a serious lapse. Can any approach road on a route that the PM’s security cavalcade has taken be blocked despite police presence?

There are serious dangers in this. If the farmers just came in at the last moment, almost dramatically, it is clear that the Punjab police neither knew if they were armed under their woolens or if there were weapons or explosives in their vehicles. Or, indeed, even whether they were farmers. No frisking, obviously, would have been possible.

The difference between non-violent protesters and attackers isn’t written on their foreheads. Nor do attackers display placards that they have come to attack a Prime Minister. All evidence points to the fact that the Punjab police either could not — or did not want to — secure the path of the PM’s convoy, something which is a bare minimum when the head of the government is travelling to any state in India.

As for the protests that the state government claimed were not unexpected, one does not know how protests on the road in the PM’s route make sense when the farm laws have already been repealed and the protesters on the borders of Delhi dispersed. And why the police should go so soft on compulsive protests in violation of the official procedures that have been set to secure Indian Prime Ministers.

The Union government further said that Chief Minister Charanjit Singh Channi did not respond when he was sought to be apprised of the situation. Channi on his part said that he had a conversation with Union Home Minister Amit Shah so that the PM could take an alternative route, but claimed that Shah told him that Modi had decided to return.

Channi asserted that there was no threat to Modi and that the Centre had been requested to defer the rally due to inclement weather and farm protests. The CM said that the road had been cleared the previous night but the farmers returned.

Yet, this lapse was not serious just because people in vehicles could block the route and outsmart the police. What if some among those who had blocked the road been able to move forward towards the PM’s car, which had been fenced by SPG vehicles, with photographs showing armed SPG personnel standing guard with guns? One more failure of the Punjab police to hold the protesters back could have led to SPG personnel retaliating and the situation turning ugly.

India has seen in the past how uncontrolled unrest and disregard for the state led to disproportionate action in Punjab during the Indira Gandhi years, the assassination of Mrs Gandhi and then years of militancy and strong police action in the state. One trigger either way can lead to the situation deteriorating.

The least the Congress could do was to avoid a counter-offensive by claiming that the Prime Minister returned because his planned rally had thin attendance. As a party that has been in power for decades and also lost two Prime Ministers to attacks, this was best avoided by the Congress as an official response. And even if pure political one-upmanship, suggested in the claim that the PM wanted to skip the rally because of low attendance, is now the only language of politics, the Congress would have done well to remember that it hasn’t been able to garner the requisite seats to get the Leader of Opposition post in the Lok Sabha twice in a row.

With polarized opinions on the matter — from “security breach” to “political drama” — it is clear that all institutional sanctity is now a thing of the past. While many intellectuals have been blaming the government for “damaging institutions”, it is clear that even the Prime Minister’s cavalcade is no longer assured of an unhindered run in opposition-ruled states.

It isn’t about just the government and the opposition. Some heads in key official positions would most likely have rolled if this had happened with the PM in a BJP-ruled state.

Lastly, while protests are a constitutional right of people, an atmosphere of protests for their own sake that has been created seems to have begun to do potential damage. The protests were about the farm laws, which now stand formally repealed. The protest sites have been emptied after that. What, then, explains violation of the security run of the PM and the Punjab Police’s helplessness in being able to disperse the protestors?

— The author, Vikas Pathak is a columnist and media educator. Views expressed are personal

Read his other columns

(Edited by : Ajay Vaishnav)

First Published:Jan 6, 2022 5:10 PM IST