April 30, 2006
 

Working in Afghanistan is risky business

Suryanarayana, working for a Bahrain based company in Afghanistan, was killed by the Taliban apparently while trying to escape earlier today. The Taliban had given a deadline until this evening for India to stop aiding the Indian government in any form as a pre-condition for releasing Suryanarayana. Reports from Yahoo! News and Google News.

While the killing is obviously a dastardly act, entirely consistent with the Taliban's attitude towards human life, it is unfair to blame the Indian government for the killing.

When Suryanarayana went to Afghanistan, he fully well knew the risks of going there. Should the Indian government be responsible for every single Indian citizen employed outside India, in every nook and corner of the earth, regardless of how dangerous a place it is? I think not.

Rambled @ 10:34 PM

Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

4 comment(s)

Jagadish,

It's a very dangerous argument that the government shouldn't be responsible for the welfare of it's people, wherever they are.

As it is our embassies/consulates seldom support Indians caught in difficult situations, even in non-dangerous countries! I shudder to think what will be the fate of expat Indians if 'watch your own a**' were to be the state policy.

Per your argument, India also needs to close it's consulates/embassies in every dangerous country. If they don't help Indians there, what other purpos would they serve there?

By  Anonymous (May 1, 2006, 8:15:00 PM)  

Vivek. My argument is that Suryanarayana was mature enough to realize the dangers of working in Afghanistan currently, unlike say the truckers who got kidnapped in Iraq. In such a situation, if the individual chooses to work in a dangerous place, is it fair to blame the Indian govt.?

My argument is not about how the government should have a say in where people work. If it is the individual’s choice to go into a “war-zone”, why should the govt. be responsible?

My argument wouldn’t apply to a country where there was no risk, even if the probability of getting hit by a speeding car in a “non-dangerous” country is the same as the probability of being kidnapped in Iraq/Afghanistan.

By  Jagadish (May 1, 2006, 8:29:00 PM)  

Vivek, a country becoming dangerous suddenly is a totally different argument. Afghanistan has been a dangerous place to work in for over 15 years now, and by a conservative estimate, a decade at least.

As for my comment on maturity, my understanding of the situation, the truckers didn't know they were actually headed to Iraq when their employer sent them somewhere. I may be wrong on that count, but my argument is that Suryanarayana knew where he was going.

By  Jagadish (May 2, 2006, 10:36:00 AM)  

nitin: Fair call. But India's citizens could do themselves no harm if they chose to stay out of places like Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Mind you, Suryanarayana's case is totally different from those deputed to Afghanistan by the Indian govt. to build infrastructure etc. In those cases, the govt. will have to be ultimately responsible. Not in Suryanarayana's case. But will this killing be a wake up call for the govt. to call the bluff on Pak's continued assistance to the Taliban? All that bullcrap on how the north/northwest of Pakistan is basically out of Islamabad's control has to be rubbished.

By  Jagadish (May 3, 2006, 2:41:00 PM)  

I'd prefer if you posted comments with your real name to add more credibility to your opinions. Obviously comments containing offensive and unsuitable language will be deleted. The opinions in the comments are your own views. You are welcome to provide a URL to your own blog, especially if it discusses issues you find here.