top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Red Romance

For long, the Naxalite in news was recognisable by the gun. But the more insidious version of Naxalism has never needed a rifle. It has thrived in varsity classrooms and newspaper and magazine columns, fostered by men and women sympathetic to it. These academics and other members of the so-called intelligentsia have long enjoyed their status as ‘respectable dissenters’ even when their politics offered intellectual alibis for Naxals carrying guns. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent...

Red Romance

For long, the Naxalite in news was recognisable by the gun. But the more insidious version of Naxalism has never needed a rifle. It has thrived in varsity classrooms and newspaper and magazine columns, fostered by men and women sympathetic to it. These academics and other members of the so-called intelligentsia have long enjoyed their status as ‘respectable dissenters’ even when their politics offered intellectual alibis for Naxals carrying guns. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent Independence Day warning about “dimaagi Naxals” should therefore not be dismissed as another political label. His larger point was that an insurgency does not survive on ammunition alone. It survives on ideas and people willing to make violence appear morally fashionable. The most revealing feature of India’s Maoist movement was never simply its brutality. It was the strange attraction it exercised over sections of the metropolitan Left elite. The Naxalite with an AK-47 could be transformed into a romantic revolutionary while the policeman he killed became an instrument of an oppressive state. This was not merely naïveté. At its ugliest, it was the intellectual laundering of political violence. The fantasy of the romantic revolutionary has always been seductive. In this narrative, amplified through sympathetic media priding itself on telling ‘truth to power,’ India was not a constitutional democracy struggling with inequality and corruption but an inherently illegitimate state waiting to be overthrown. In the minds of this elite Left, Maoist violence has often been recast as resistance while attacks on infrastructure as blows against capitalism. The armed overthrow of the Indian republic was the liberation they craved for. Some of India’s most celebrated intellectuals have flirted dangerously close to that moral inversion. The issue here is whether intellectual prestige can be used to sanitise an ideology whose practitioners have murdered civilians, policemen and public servants and terrorised some of India’s poorest districts. A university cannot be the place where Maoist romanticism acquires the legitimacy of a fashionable campus cause. Professors who turn armed insurgents into heroic revolutionaries are not merely exercising academic freedom. If they knowingly excuse violence, they are helping to construct the moral vocabulary that makes violence possible. Let’s be clear here. A professor who criticises the Indian state is not a Naxal while a journalist who exposes state excesses is not an enemy of India. But an intellectual who repeatedly excuses, glorifies or rationalises political violence cannot hide behind the word ‘dissent.’ India has paid an enormous price for the Maoist fantasy. Thousands have died. Entire regions were held back by fear while development was obstructed. The people supposedly being liberated were often the first to suffer. The armed Naxal is now being pushed towards extinction. But the Indian republic cannot afford to leave behind the romantic mythology that made the gun respectable. A democracy can tolerate dissent. It should never be expected to tolerate the glorification of those who seek its violent destruction.

When Bureaucracy Stymies Security

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

When Bureaucracy Stymies Security

The assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991, in Sriperumbudur, and the second attempt on former U.S. President Donald Trump on September 15, 2024, in Florida, illustrate a striking similarity: how bureaucratic inertia can undermine the security of the most threatened individuals.

The second attempt on the life of former US president Donald Trump on 15 September 2024 was foiled by an alert Secret Service (SS) agent who spotted a muzzle of a gun sticking out through the thick foliage while Trump was playing golf. Trump’s sprawling West Palm Beach golf course is next to his iconic Mar-a-Lago mansion in Florida.

Unconfirmed reports said that the agent’s attention was drawn to that portion of the foliage when he heard a cough. When he saw the muzzle, he fired in that direction. Upon this, suspect Ryan Wesley Routh tried to flee through Inter-State 95 but was caught by the police. The Washington Post said that digital footprints of Routh’s cell phone revealed that he had hidden for nearly 12 hours in the bushes around the former president’s golf course. It is not clear whether drones were used to sweep the vast area surrounding Mar-a-Lago.

Normally US security authorities should have taken added precautions to guard the periphery of Trump’s engagements in addition to his proximate security, after the failure of US SS on July 13 in Pennsylvania. On that day Trump escaped death by a whisker when Thomas Crooks, who was hiding in the periphery, shot him, injuring his right ear.

In this background, it was surprising to hear Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw saying on September 15 that “we would have had the entire golf course surrounded” had Trump been the president. “Because he’s not, security is limited to the areas that the Secret Service deems possible.” In other words, security goes only with the rank and not whether the person is the most threatened, as the 1991 Rajiv Gandhi assassination would prove.

SS acting director Ronald Rowe said Trump received its “highest” level of security. Yet the golf course was not checked in advance as it was not in Trump’s official programme. When Trump suddenly decided to go, a security ‘bubble’ checked the area and detected the assailant. However, he did not clarify why drones were not used.

When asked about this, President Joe Biden reportedly said: “The service needs more help. And I think Congress should respond to their need.” This was apparently after Speaker Mike Johnson of US House of Representatives criticised the allocation of manpower to protect Trump.

After the July 13 incident, Johnson had taken serious note of the failures of SS and had held a Congressional hearing which finally led to the resignation of the then Director Kimberly Cheatle on July 23.

A similar bureaucratic failure marked the first serious attempt on Rajiv Gandhi’s life on October 2, 1986, at Raj Ghat. Much like the Florida incident, intelligence warnings had been issued. India’s R&AW had alerted security agencies to an impending attack by a terrorist disguised as a gardener, lurking in the bushes when Gandhi, President Zail Singh and other top leaders would assemble at ‘Rajghat’ to pay homage on Mahatma Gandhi’s birth anniversary. While security forces scoured the area, the assailant, Karamjit Singh, eluded them by hiding in a tree for over 16 hours.

He then fired a few shots at the gathering, causing superficial skin-deep injuries to some, as he had only an old pellet shot weapon. Had he been able to get a more deadly weapon like AK-47, the entire leadership of the country could have been wiped out.

Events preceding Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination on May 21, 1991 resembled the bureaucratic answer given by Sheriff Ric Bradshaw. Although Gandhi demitted power after the December 1989 general election, he was the most threatened person in India. As long as he was PM, he was guarded by the Special Protection Group, (SPG) modelled on the American SS. However, a law passed in 1988 allowed only the PM and family to be protected - not former PMs.

Hence former Minister of State (internal security) in the Congress government wrote to the late G.S. Bajpai, then Security (Security) on 3 February 1990, to extend SPG protection to the Gandhi family.

Documents filed at the Justice Milap Chand Jain Commission enquiring into the failure of Central and State authorities in giving due protection, commensurate with the threats faced by the late prime minister, revealed a cavalier manner with no decision.

Had the Tamil Nadu State organised security commensurate with the threats faced by the late prime minister, they could have ensured a sanitised area around the VIP to prevent unauthorised persons gaining access to the VIP. It was not done, resulting in the ghastly assassination on May 21, 1991.

(The writer is a former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat. He was part of the two-man high level committee, appointed by Maharashtra government to enquire into the police performance during the Mumbai 26/11 terror attacks. Views personal).

Comments

bottom of page