The canister-hit at Parliament House by a group of youths on Wednesday afternoon was both shocking and sinister. Viewing it from an impassioned angle, one might take it as a godsend. For, it caused no harm as such but exposed the security flaws in the glittering new edifice. More than the group of six youths, this is time to take the security wing of the Parliament to task for what has happened. The breach of security was glaring. Had it not been the case, there was no way these youths could pass even the first post, the entrance to Parliament House, as security personnel have been specifically assigned the task of doing a detailed physical check of each visitor other than the parliamentarians. Security personnel by and large know who is who. It is incumbent on them to ensure that visitors are subjected to a body check. When two of these youths entered parliament, reached the visitors’ gallery and then jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber, it was principally some bold MPs themselves who confronted them. The watch and ward came into the picture later, as could only be expected as they are not omnipresent inside the two houses or the central hall. They would troop in when they are summoned in the event of a bedlam. Security is deployed mainly at the entrance and it is there where the two men managed to hide the canisters and walk past.
That this security breach happened on the precise day of the stunning Parliament attack by Kashmiri terrorists in 2001, and shortly after homage was paid by Parliament to the martyrs of that fateful day, underscores the seriousness of the present security lapse. Likely, with such weak security, terrorists themselves could walk in without much hassle yet again. The youths engaged in this reckless act were, prima facie, not part of any terror module or criminal gang though they planned the action well in advance, did a recce and enacted the drama in a coordinated manner. They say they grouped together on a social media platform some 18 months ago. No ideology seemed to guide them. They were obviously from the lower strata of the society, some of them were educated and some jobless. Other than shouting vaguely against “dictatorship,” no specific issue seemed to have stirred their minds. Unless proven otherwise, they were disgruntled youths out to “make a mark,” and hog publicity by crude yet simple means. They might be ready, too, to face the consequences thereof, as this was not an abrupt action. Yet, in a democracy, there’s space for them. Invoking provisions of the anti-terror act against them is perhaps unwarranted.
