Indian industrialist Mukesh Ambani of Reliance Group of industries sought and was granted Z-category security by the Government of India, on payment basis. Too many questions are being raised if it was appropriate for the government to provide such security. The issue is being confounded with security to the people at large, making a case as if providing security to Mukesh Ambani is going to adversely impact public security. The judiciary too has erred on this issue. While this question might be academically relevant, it is flawed in the context of the reality on ground in India. Everybody is insecure in India, but the industrialists and businessmen are more so. It reveals the anti-businessmen attitude of the Indians in general. Under the influence of crooked logic of socialism or Marxism of their own interpretation, as opposed to the original political thinkers of socialism and Marxism, campaigning against businessmen has assumed the sole meaning of all brands of progressive political thought in India. How many criminals of politicians in jail are enjoying security at the cost of the state exchequer is public knowledge. Does it behove the political class then to question the provision of security cover to the wealth creators of the nation?
Our industrialists and businessmen have always been under threat of violence. The Manmohan Singh government prides in calling itself UPA or United Progressive Alliance. What kind of progressivism does this alliance practice is not clear, but it has been riding a gravy train is known to all. Even then the behaviour of the social and political leadership has not changed a bit towards the entrepreneur class,as the which has now come under attack from organized crime variously called under- world or terrorists or Bhai Log or robbers or kidnappers seeking ransom. Most of these criminals enjoy protection of the political executive. They have no fear of law. They can eliminate anybody for a fixed sum. The police is indifferent to their security and instead of taking prompt action to prevent crimes against them, freely indulges in making money out of the plight of these soft targets. The judiciary is aware of the plight of these targets but makes unwelcome and un-assuring observations when they seek security from the state. The judiciary should have compared their plight with criminal politicians, who are enjoying high category security cover of the state even while jailed for serious crimes. For the politician, it might be a matter of bloated ego to get security cover, but it is a matter of life and death for the creators of wealth and jobs in the country. In fact, they have never been honoured as “creators of wealth and jobs”. They have been targeted, humiliated, derided, bullied and threatened regularly. Tradition has made it all Maayaa or illusion and actively discouraged due respect for wealth and the creators of wealth. Like many such other tricks, this campaign against wealth creation has been mounted by the most covetous opinion leaders, not unlike the politicians of today.
Human societies have registered great economic progress when entrepreneurs were supported actively by the state. It has been the case in princely states of Jaipur, Hyderabad, Gwalior and Baroda in India to give a few instances. As against it, the hard economic times of the decades of the 1950, 1960 and 1970, which necessitated state regulation of investment, was defamed by the covetous political and bureaucrat class as the licence-quota-permit Raj for rent seeking for every government approval needed for starting any economic activity. In states like West Bengal, industrial activity was stalled by left violence and witnessed flight of capital and enterprise to other locations. It is the same mind set continuing to surface when an industrialist of the stature of Mukesh Ambani is provided security cover by the state. Can anybody hold out any assurance that it would be easy for them to provide an alternative to the entrepreneur Mukesh Ambani were something untoward to happen to him if his security is compromised? The condition of the public sector undertakings and banking institutions is proof of the lack of competence in the government to run these big enterprises as efficiently as the private sector can run them under the leadership of a Mukesh Ambani or a Ratan Tata or a Narayan Murty or Ajim Premji. Has their contribution to development of infrastructure, institutions, entrepreneurs, jobs, state revenue and national prestige as an industrial power been acknowledged and appreciated as it should have been? All those Indians who hate these economic leaders of the country have made tons of illegal wealth called, which they have stashed away in foreign banks or in benami (unaccounted) transactions, creating a parallel economy, burdening the honest tax payer with excessive rates of tax. The result is reverse industrial growth under the Man Mohan Singh government. Had we learnt to respect entrepreneurship, had we appreciated the contribution of the individual wealth creator, had we understood the value of money in raising living standards of the masses, had we promoted a culture of wealth creation rather than wealth aversion and hatred of the wealthy, India would have been a rich nation. Had we grown above mere sloganeering promising half a million jobs at every election time and understood the need and value of job creation, we would have enough work for every hand and enough food for every belly. Instead, our slogan has been Roti-kapadaa-and makaan, no less hollow than other promises from our incapable establishment. Mukesh Ambani and others have not only created millions of jobs, but quality employment. Can we or should we allow them to be eliminated by some criminal or mafia gang? The answer is an emphatic no.
The state on its own must come forward and protect all wealth and job creators. Extortions must come to an end. The coercion of the kind inflicted on the government servants like the Railway Board Member to pay up for promotion & posting, should cease to be employed against the industrialists and businessmen. The violence in Maharashtra, UP, Bihar or Haryana is well known. So is the killing of builders and kidnapping for ransom of businessmen public knowledge. But monikers like Tatas, Birlas or Ambanis have become internationally famous. They represent Indian economic prowess. If they need security, there should be no hesitation to provide them the necessary security promptly. A politician or a judge or a media person can easily find a substitute but not an entrepreneur. Try privatizing Air India and see the magical transformation of its books from red to black in less than a year. That is the difference between an entrepreneur and an officer or an activity in the private sector free from all constraints and the chained operations in the government sector. There is, thus, no case to take any offence at the Government providing Z category security to Mukesh Ambani.