11-23-2007, 02:22 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Family yes, Army no </b>
The Pioneer Edit Desk
UPA doesn't trust service chiefs!
It is absurd and disgraceful but not surprising, given the wayward track record of the UPA Government in this matter, that it will not extend the courtesy of exemption from frisking at airports to the three armed forces service chiefs. To his discomfiture, Defence Minister AK Antony had to inform the Rajya Sabha that the <b>UPA Government turned down his Ministry's request in this respect. Shamefully, the civil aviation authorities' view is that the inclusion of the chiefs in the exempted persons' list "could lead to similar demands from some other authorities"</b>. Without giving the military undue importance, it would seem quite obvious that service chiefs are fairly unique. The necessities of ensuring civilian primacy have meant their subordination to the executive, but their roles nonetheless are of supreme importance, and they are certainly worthy of this minor privilege. It seems ironic that those entrusted with our nation's highest security cannot be trusted with a civilian aircraft. There are also important principles involved in this issue for it concerns how public decisions are to be made, which must be fair and transparent. There have to be very compelling reasons in a democracy to exempt a few from the travails the rest of the citizenry has to go through. <b>Exemption from security formalities may be somewhat of a feudal relic, but the dignity of high office is perhaps a reason worthy enough to favour a few office-holders</b>. Sadly, some people have seen such exemptions as status symbols or as devices to flaunt importance in a cheap way. Far from the service chiefs initiating a scramble for exemption, it has already been a prominent feature of the UPA era.
Speaker Somnath Chatterjee, it may be recalled, cancelled a visit to Australia rather than allow security officials to frisk him. <b>He also objected to security personnel frisking his wife at Calicut Airport.</b> Union Minister of State for External Affairs Anand Sharma created such a fuss that it ensured that yet another category was included to this ever-expanding exclusivity. What, however, most pricelessly takes the cake is the scandalous inclusion of Mr Robert Vadra in the list of those exempted from being screened at airports. Mr Vadra, with no claim to fame apart from being UPA chairperson and Congress president Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law, already enjoys our Government's munificent hospitality by living in a spacious bungalow allotted to his wife on 'security' grounds. With no contribution to national life other than as a private citizen and holding no senior Government post, his exemption, specifically by name, stands out in sharp contrast to the refusal to extend the same courtesy to our service chiefs. Indeed, most existing exemptions are clear cases of arbitrary and sycophantic favouritism and have no justification. The claim of the three service chiefs to this privilege is so superior to that of Mr Vadra that it can only laughably be compared. In any case, service chiefs are ahead of quite a few in the Warrant of Precedence already exempted such as, for example, the Chief Justices of High Courts. These exemptions have to be principled and limited. Sadly, those with political clout are merrily having rules twisted for privileges and the UPA Government is allowing this to happen, while the deserving are ignored. While unnecessary vying for this privilege must be discouraged, the service chiefs fully deserve it and the UPA Government must reconsider its decision.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Pioneer Edit Desk
UPA doesn't trust service chiefs!
It is absurd and disgraceful but not surprising, given the wayward track record of the UPA Government in this matter, that it will not extend the courtesy of exemption from frisking at airports to the three armed forces service chiefs. To his discomfiture, Defence Minister AK Antony had to inform the Rajya Sabha that the <b>UPA Government turned down his Ministry's request in this respect. Shamefully, the civil aviation authorities' view is that the inclusion of the chiefs in the exempted persons' list "could lead to similar demands from some other authorities"</b>. Without giving the military undue importance, it would seem quite obvious that service chiefs are fairly unique. The necessities of ensuring civilian primacy have meant their subordination to the executive, but their roles nonetheless are of supreme importance, and they are certainly worthy of this minor privilege. It seems ironic that those entrusted with our nation's highest security cannot be trusted with a civilian aircraft. There are also important principles involved in this issue for it concerns how public decisions are to be made, which must be fair and transparent. There have to be very compelling reasons in a democracy to exempt a few from the travails the rest of the citizenry has to go through. <b>Exemption from security formalities may be somewhat of a feudal relic, but the dignity of high office is perhaps a reason worthy enough to favour a few office-holders</b>. Sadly, some people have seen such exemptions as status symbols or as devices to flaunt importance in a cheap way. Far from the service chiefs initiating a scramble for exemption, it has already been a prominent feature of the UPA era.
Speaker Somnath Chatterjee, it may be recalled, cancelled a visit to Australia rather than allow security officials to frisk him. <b>He also objected to security personnel frisking his wife at Calicut Airport.</b> Union Minister of State for External Affairs Anand Sharma created such a fuss that it ensured that yet another category was included to this ever-expanding exclusivity. What, however, most pricelessly takes the cake is the scandalous inclusion of Mr Robert Vadra in the list of those exempted from being screened at airports. Mr Vadra, with no claim to fame apart from being UPA chairperson and Congress president Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law, already enjoys our Government's munificent hospitality by living in a spacious bungalow allotted to his wife on 'security' grounds. With no contribution to national life other than as a private citizen and holding no senior Government post, his exemption, specifically by name, stands out in sharp contrast to the refusal to extend the same courtesy to our service chiefs. Indeed, most existing exemptions are clear cases of arbitrary and sycophantic favouritism and have no justification. The claim of the three service chiefs to this privilege is so superior to that of Mr Vadra that it can only laughably be compared. In any case, service chiefs are ahead of quite a few in the Warrant of Precedence already exempted such as, for example, the Chief Justices of High Courts. These exemptions have to be principled and limited. Sadly, those with political clout are merrily having rules twisted for privileges and the UPA Government is allowing this to happen, while the deserving are ignored. While unnecessary vying for this privilege must be discouraged, the service chiefs fully deserve it and the UPA Government must reconsider its decision.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->