By Lagya Qracker Chindongnaan
The legislators opposing establishment of state police have their reasons for doing. But before you join in buying their narratives, remember they move in armed convoys who protect them and their families while me and you are left at the mercy of bandits, kidnappers and all sort of vulnerabilities you can mention.
If you can understand, the major concern of some of the vocal legislators is safety and assurances of votes during electoral circles which happens once in 4 years. This, they see a threat and perceive that Governors may use the proposed state police against political opponents. But would this be the case if those legislators share the same political party as the Governor? Is that a sustainable stand in the interest of national security or a partisan and personal interest built on fear and self?
Our concern meanwhile as citizens should be our personal and communal security which matters every single minute of our lives. This is where the debate for the establishment of state Police comes.
Going by this, it shows we have two different interests to align with and in reality everyone will choose the one that serves them most. So it's no crime some legislators oppose this bill, but it becomes surprising that even amidst the inadequate manpower in NPF and armed forces, some vulnerable are championing the crusade against a move that's meant to improve the security architecture of the country.
Know your priorities. Set out for them.
Is either we choose to stay in peace for 4 years while we work out ways to defend our votes against the perceived use of the state police, or we die in the hands of bandits while our elections (which sometimes is marred by irregularities, violence and may reflect the true votes) remain safe after every 4 years.
Point driven
ReplyDelete