Is there a civilized Alternative to slapping?

Slapping of Sharad Pawar by an irate youth is being hotly debated. Pawar refuses to forgive him. A section of public opinion says that while the anger and frustration of the young man is justified, the way he gave vent to it is not. This anger and frustration was reflected in Anna Hazare who asked if he was slapped just once. Another section, miniscule but vocal, proclaims it as a grave offense and demands most severe punishment for it. This section has also called for enhancing the security of Pawar and other leaders. This confirms and underscores what I said about providing security to all sorts of netas in my earlier blog.


In the political arena initially a proper facade was maintained and the all the murky business was kept carefully hidden from public view and knowledge. Thanks to the media more and more detail of the murky dealings and goings-on are being dug out and exposed to public view. And the public is becoming more and more desperate and irate and getting more and more exasperated by the unabated murky dealings and irresponsible statements and acts of the political class. The political class, in turn, is getting more and more brazen. Their smugness comes from the knowledge that they have the levers of the system firmly in their control and an electorate hopelessly divided along the lines of religion and caste is in no position to displace them. With all these deep divisions the politicians need not work too hard at getting votes either. They can win by bagging a miniscule percentage of votes. And a disappointed electorate has no right to recall either.


So what does a deeply aggrieved member of the public do? How does he vent his anger? Well, if he is daring enough, he goes ahead and slaps any politician within reach. And politicians clamor for more security instead of mending their ways!!! I reiterate the need to take away all protection from politicians except those occupying the topmost positions like PM and President. Doesn't each party have its quota of goons who can protect their leaders as was done recently to protect Rajiv Gandhi? The same goons can also serve to attack the leaders of other parties. Leave the security forces alone and let them protect the public that is their primary job.

Why should politicians be given special protection?

How would you react if a soldier demanded protection against the professional hazard of getting shot? Though this a rather dramatic example, each profession carries hazards that must be squarely faced by those who engage in that profession. A statistically dictated number succumb to the hazards in each profession and are routinely replaced by new incumbents.

So why should it be any different for politicians? They think it is their job to play with public emotions. After all it is emotions that help them win votes and not real issues. None of them care for the real issues. They put up farcical fights to win certain groups over to them without ever acting on the real issues plaguing the electorate at large. An exaggerated example of this is provided by statements currently being dished out by Mr. Digvijay Singh and his counterparts in other parties on serious issues of corruption and governance. This entails obvious professional hazards. They should face such hazards squarely as people in other professions do. But instead they stridently demand and get special protection. There are hordes of them at various levels. We are told that there are more policemen allocated to guarding the politicians than to their hapless victims - the public at large.


Such special protection also betrays their lack of confidence in the system that they run. The system is created to implement the constitutional guarantees given to the public such as the right to life. If the system created by them is good enough to serve the vast ocean of general public, why should they insist on special treatment for themselves? And even if they had no protection and were to succumb to their perceived hazard, why do they consider themselves irreplaceable? And is this paranoia justified by the available data? As far as public memory can tell all successful and unsuccessful attempts have only been on persons occupying highest office of Prime Minister. It is only people at the very top who face dangers from outsiders. As such outsiders are not subject to our control, it may be proper to accord more protection to the said class than what is available to common citizen. Everyone else must must be on equal footing.


Accordingly I strongly suggest that the current system of providing special security to politicians / bureaucrats at various levels except to a few at the very top should be done away with.