RISING VIP CULTURE IN DEMOCRACY

RISING VIP CULTURE IN DEMOCRACY

2-JULY-ENG 4

RAJIV NAYAN AGRAWAL

PATNA---------------------------One of the greatest ironies of Indian democracy is that elected representatives are increasingly identified not by their ideas, actions, or public service, but by their security cordons, convoys, and protocols. The democracy originally envisioned as a system where leadership lives among the people appears to be gradually transforming into a setup where a formidable wall of security personnel, barricades, and official paraphernalia stands between the leaders and the public.

Today, whenever traffic is suddenly halted, roads are cleared, and police personnel are deployed at intersections in any city, the common citizen instinctively understands that a 'special' person is about to pass through. This scene is no longer unusual. In a democracy, halting the public to make way for those in power—rather than prioritizing public convenience—has become a standard administrative procedure.

Security categories in politics—X, Y, Y+, Z, Z+, and SPG—were originally established based on security risks. Their objective was to protect individuals from genuine threats to their lives. However, over time, these categories have acquired a new significance; they have become symbols not merely of security, but of political prestige and influence.

The level of security assigned to a leader sometimes garners more attention than their actual political contributions.

The irony is that the more prominent a leader is considered to be in a democracy, the more distant they appear from the public. If an elected representative is accompanied by two security personnel, they are viewed as ordinary; if by ten, as influential; and if an entire convoy brings traffic to a standstill, their political stature is automatically assumed to be established. It is as if the proof of popularity lies not in public trust, but in the number of security personnel.

The picture was vastly different during the freedom movement. In those days, prominent national leaders would interact with crowds of hundreds of thousands without any special security arrangements. Their strength lay in their ideas, and their protective shield was the love of the people. Today, the country is technically more secure, yet the political leadership appears more insulated than ever before. This is not merely a matter of security; it also reflects the changing relationship between politics and society.

In a democracy, the bond between elected representatives and the public is rooted in trust. When this trust is strong, leaders feel no fear in mingling with the people. However, when politics transforms into a medium for optics and image management, security arrangements gradually begin to displace direct dialogue. The distance from the public widens, and the security cordon expands in equal measure. There is also a psychological dimension to this situation: security ceases to be merely a means of protection against threats and becomes an instrument for projecting power. Long convoys, sirens, escort vehicles, and dozens of security personnel convey the message that the individual holds special significance. Symbols wield immense power in politics, and security itself has evolved into a political symbol.

The irony is that the burden of these arrangements ultimately falls upon the public. Vast police forces are deployed to manage security, protocols, and the movement of VIPs. A significant portion of resources—which ought to be utilized for the safety of ordinary citizens—is instead diverted to the protection of prominent figures. It is only natural to question what the priorities for resource allocation should be in a democracy.

Controversies regarding security frequently surface in Indian politics. At times, there are demands to upgrade a leader's security, while at others, a reduction in protection is perceived as a political slight. Often, the issue of security becomes more about sending a political message than addressing actual threats. Consequently, debates surrounding security categories transcend administrative concerns and become deeply political. ..take on a different hue as well.

Viewed through the lens of a satirist, the situation appears even more intriguing. It seems that in today's politics, increasing the number of security personnel is an easier way to boost one's stature than garnering public support. Even as the public drifts further away, a long convoy ensures that prestige remains intact. This spectacle of democracy sometimes resembles a grand theatrical production, where the greatness of characters is gauged not by their dialogue, but by the grandeur of their entrance onto the stage.

It is also worth considering: do the people truly pose a threat to their leaders? In a country like India, most political leaders mingle with millions during elections—shaking hands, holding rallies, and conducting outreach campaigns. At such times, the very same public constitutes their strength. Yet, once the elections conclude, that same public is seen standing outside the security cordon. This paradox shakes the very soul of democracy.

The reality is that the greatest security for any democracy lies in the trust of the people. History has seen leaders whose popularity was so immense that the public itself would stand up to protect them. Conversely, prestige built solely on government-provided security often proves fleeting. Convoys, security details, and protocols change with the shifting of power, but if public trust endures, the individual's respect remains intact.

Today, there is a need to strike a balance between security and democracy. Individuals facing genuine threats certainly deserve adequate protection. However, security arrangements should not become a wall separating the public from their elected representatives. The strength of democracy lies in proximity, not distance.

The ideal democracy is one where a leader can move freely among the people, and citizens can reach their representative without fear, hindrance, or formality. The day politics begins to be evaluated based on public service rather than security categories, the dignity of democracy will be further strengthened. After all, history has never deemed a leader great because of their security detail; greatness is forged by their ideas, their actions, and the trust of the people. This is the eternal truth of democracy.