FIDA IQBAL
Prior to 1947, when the subcontinent was finally freed from the clutches of autocracy, people had to give way to the cavalcade of a Maharaja and show him respect. Today, after more than seven decades of democracy, we seem to have hundreds of VIP cavalcades on our roads—not merely seeking passage, but often enforcing it at the expense of ordinary citizens.
I would not dare to suggest that our democracy is fundamentally flawed or ill-conceived by our leadership. Yet, somewhere along the way, something has certainly gone wrong. Our politics appears to have acquired a materialistic face and, at times, an authoritarian character. Such a culture can hardly augur well for our journey towards a prosperous nation and a healthy society.
However, I am not here to deliver a lecture on democracy. These observations are merely a prelude to my principal concern: the safety and dignity of ordinary commuters and pedestrians on our roads.
A simple drive through the streets and intersections of Srinagar reveals a disturbing spectacle: sirens wailing and beacon lights flashing on government vehicles and even some hired commercial vehicles. We know that ambulances, fire engines and police vehicles performing authorised duties may legitimately require warning devices. Certain security and escort arrangements may also be necessary under applicable rules. But such privileges are governed by law; they are not a licence for unrestricted use of public roads.
The question, therefore, is simple: who is entitled to use these devices, and who is ensuring that the rules are obeyed?
There are estimates of approximately 700 protected persons in Kashmir Province. Even if we accept this figure for the sake of argument, being a protected person does not automatically confer the right to use a siren or beacon light. Security protection and entitlement to special vehicle warning devices are two different matters and must not be confused.
Government notifications, statutory provisions and judicial directions regulate the use of such devices. The distinction between authorised emergency services, eligible official vehicles and vehicles using warning equipment merely to secure preferential passage must be respected. The mere presence of a government officer or a person enjoying security protection cannot, by itself, justify the use of a siren or flashing beacon.
Yet, on our roads, one frequently encounters vehicles that appear to use these devices to force their way through congested traffic. Some overtake recklessly, some appear to disregard traffic signals, and others activate their sirens and flashing lights precisely when traffic becomes heavy. On certain occasions, the driver seems to be the only occupant.
If such practices occur without lawful authorisation, they represent not merely a breach of traffic discipline but a mockery of the rules intended to protect the public. A public road is not the private passage of an official, nor does a government designation place anyone above the law.
The problem is not confined to sirens and beacon lights. Another disturbing practice is the display of small boards behind the windshield, on the dashboard of vehicles, proclaiming departmental names or designations such as “GOVT. OF INDIA”, “GOVT. OF J&K”, “DIRECTOR” or “MAGISTRATE”.
Such displays may sometimes serve a legitimate official purpose. However, where they are unauthorised or create a misleading impression of special privileges, they become another means of intimidating ordinary
road users. The practice is particularly questionable when hired commercial vehicles carry such boards even when the official concerned is not on board.
A department’s name or an officer’s designation cannot be allowed to become an unofficial traffic pass. Nor should an ordinary driver be made to feel that he must surrender his lawful right of passage simply because another vehicle displays an imposing title behind its windshield.
There is, of course, no objection to genuine emergency services using legally authorised warning devices when circumstances demand them. An ambulance rushing a patient to hospital, a fire engine responding to an emergency, or a police vehicle performing an authorised operational duty must be able to do its job. The issue is the unauthorised fitting or misuse of such equipment and the unnecessary obstruction, intimidation and inconvenience inflicted upon other road users.
The problem extends to excessively bright headlights and the prolonged use of high beams, particularly during evening and night driving. Dazzling lights can temporarily impair the vision of oncoming drivers and endanger pedestrians. Our traffic regulations address these hazards, but enforcement remains essential if the rules are to have any practical meaning.
The consequences of this culture are serious. Unnecessary sirens and flashing lights create anxiety and confusion; reckless overtaking and disregard for signals increase the risk of accidents; and attempts to clear congested roads for unauthorised or unnecessary preferential passage can aggravate traffic bottlenecks. Ultimately, it is the ordinary citizen who bears the cost in lost time, compromised safety and daily humiliation.
The authorities must therefore act—not through occasional drives designed to make headlines, but through sustained, transparent and uniform enforcement. The competent departments should clearly identify the categories of vehicles legally authorised to use sirens, multi-toned horns and beacon or warning lights. Vehicles fitted with unauthorised equipment should be inspected, and violations should attract action in accordance with law. The use of escort vehicles, official-looking dashboard boards and dazzling headlights also deserves appropriate scrutiny.
Above all, enforcement must be impartial. The law must not change its meaning according to the rank, designation or political influence of the person travelling in a vehicle. Genuine security requirements must be respected, but they cannot become a pretext for unchecked privilege.
Our roads belong to the public. The taxpayer who waits patiently at a traffic signal has as much right to safety, dignity and lawful passage as the most influential person in a convoy.
We have replaced the Maharaja’s rule with democracy. Surely, we did not intend to replace one Maharaja with hundreds of self-appointed neo-Maharajas.
The authorities must take note and ensure that the writ of law prevails. Otherwise, a day may come when these neo-Maharajas make the movement of ordinary taxpayers not merely difficult, but virtually impossible.
The author can be reached at mail@fidaiqbal.com
