-->
Recently the Government decided to provide Z-level security
to Shri Mukieh Ambani based on the recommendations of Intelligence Bureau(IB)
who investigated the incidence of Mr Ambani receiving a threatening letter from
a terrorist group warning him of an attack on the tycoon's residence, Antilla.
Lots of discussions and debates followed about the Govt's decision to take the
responsibility of providing the highest security cover to him which is normally
provided to VIPs of the Govt or the legislative bodies. ET columnist Shri Sruthijth K K supported the Govt decision and even said that
the Govt should have borne the cost of the arrangement on the premise that many others who enjoy such security cover
(like politicians Subramanian Smarmy, DMK's MK Stalin or political and social
activist Teesta Setalvad and many others) do not pay and that by accepting
payment for its services, our Govt or the society is ‘reducing the brave men of our para
forces into hired mercenaries’ (Why GOI Should’ve
Paid for Ambani’s Security', Economic
Times, 23 April 2013). Supreme Court criticised the Govt's decision saying
that 'those who suffer from a threat perception must engage private security' (SC
Slams Z-Security for Ambani, ET, 2/5/13)
And Mr. Sruthijith goes on to assert that the procedure
followed by the Govt in deciding on the security cover to Mr. Ambani will be
applicable to anybody who were similarly threatened. I sincerely don't know. Of
course, as an ordinary citizen of the country, I may not receive a threat
from any terrorist group, though.But while one may like to question Mr-Sruthijith's
contention, there are other issues that need to be discussed and addressed:
1)Will the Govt provide such security cover to other industrialists,
if they also receive such threats? Does the govt have sufficient trained
personnel to cater to such demands?Other rich industrialists can also request
for such cover because of the potential threats to them, now that Mukesh has
received such a threat. Will Govt apply some yardsticks for providing such security
covers?
2) Going by Michael Spence's signalling theory, Mr. Naveen Jindal
must be more valuable than Mr. Mukesh Ambani
because Mr.Jindal earns (would you like to use the term' takes '?.) a salary of
Re.73.42 crores compared to a salary of Rs.38.82 crores earned by Mr.Ambani,
according to the company reports (Annual Report 2011-12,RIL).( Of course, Mr-Ambani
has put a voluntary cap on his salary at
Rs. 15 crores).
While these are the questions one may have about the specific
case of Mr. Ambani, much broader issues
also arise and need to be dealt with. Eventhough I may not receive a threat from
any terrorist groups, I live in a county where
there are frequent communal riots and bomb blasts, threatening my life
frequently. Also, the marginal rupee earned by me will be far more valuable
than the value of the marginal rupee
earned by Mr.Ambani or any other industrialists.
As the sole earner in my family, any threat to my life will be detrimental not
only to my immediate family but also to the society as a whole as other members
of my family may become a burden on the society.Why don't the Govt
provide cover to ordinary people to protect themselves of the anxiety about
future if something happens to them unexpectedly. Every citizen of India, irrespective
of whether he is an industrialist or an
ordinary wage earner, shall be provided such a security.
It is interesting to note that despite all the loose laws
regarding possession of arms, the US Govt don't provide any special security to
some of the world’s richest people in their country likeBill Gates or Warren Buffet.
Ironically, Mr. Sruthijith's statement that "No individual in India, irrespective
of his wealth, can make a competent effort
to protect himself from a terror attack" very clearly states that the Govt
should take steps to protect anybody (including Mr.Ambani) from terror attacks.
Then, why he is biased towards security
provision for Ambani and not every citizen of the country?
No comments:
Post a Comment