The Security Surrounding the Gandhi Family in Modern India: A Comprehensive Analysis
Security measures for the Indian Prime Minister and the President have recently undergone changes. This article delves into the recent developments regarding the SPG (Special Protection Group) cover for the Gandhi family, debunking common misconceptions and providing a detailed analysis of the security policies in place.
Understanding the SPG Cover in Present Context
Currently, the SPG cover is applicable solely to the Prime Minister and the President of India. This policy has been in place due to the evolving threat perception landscape in the country. The threat assessment is continually reviewed, and security measures are adjusted accordingly to ensure the safety of all key personnel. For the recent assessment, the Gandhi family has been provided with 'Z ' security, which is the next level of protection after 'SPG'.
Security Assessments and VIP Protection
The security of all VIPs, including the Gandhi family, is meticulously assessed by top security officials in the country. These assessments are conducted to determine the appropriate level of security needed based on the current threat perceptions. Over the past three decades, members of the Gandhi family have been granted the highest level of security, including SPG protection, following rigorous evaluations.
Justification for the Removal of SPG Cover
The replacement of SPG cover with Z security is a justified decision. Despite the Gandhi family having no members as Prime Ministers since 1989, they have consistently been provided with the highest level of security for over three decades. On several international trips, members of the Gandhi family have refused SPG protection, indicating a willingness to reduce their security measures. Nevertheless, they continue to receive Z security, which includes the following components:
Z Security Details
A team of 36 personnel, including over ten highly trained NSG (National Security Guard) commandos.
Equipped with state-of-the-art weapons and electronic devices.
Provided 24/7 protection.
SPG vs. Z Security
The only individual currently receiving SPG protection is Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It is important to note that the removal of SPG cover for the Gandhi family does not mean they are left without any security cover. They continue to receive Z protection, which is still a highly robust and comprehensive security measure.
Rahul Gandhi's Perspective
Rahul Gandhi, a prominent member of the Gandhi family, complained about SPG protection, citing issues with surveillance. He often left India without SPG protection and did not inform them of his whereabouts. Despite these complaints, the family continues to be granted Z security, which exceeds basic security needs.
Further Criticisms and Controversies
Some critics argue that the Gandhi family can afford their own security measures and thus should not be entitled to government-provided SPG cover. However, under the current security policies, even those who are not entitled to NSG protection receive Z security if deemed necessary based on threat assessments.
Security Resources Available
The Indian Armed Forces, including the Army, Navy, and Air Force, are readily available for any security needs. Additionally, Sonia and Priyanka Gandhi, despite not being in high government positions, have been granted Z security, a level typically reserved for members of the Cabinet and state ministers.
The question of whether Sonia Gandhi deserves a huge bungalow (Janapath) is irrelevant to the security discourse. As an MP, she is entitled to a certain level of security based on her official capacity and the assessments made by security officials.
Conclusion
While the security of the Gandhi family has raised some controversies, it is entirely justified given the evolving security landscape and stringent threat assessments. The provision of Z security ensures their safety without overemphasis on their political influence. Criticism based on the idea that they do not deserve such protection under current policies is unfounded and should be reconsidered.
For further understanding of the complex security measures in place, readers are encouraged to review official security policies and recent assessments conducted by top security bodies.