Conflicting are the theories from the Haryana police about what provoked the Personal Security Officer attached to a judge in Gurugram into shooting his ward’s wife and son in a busy market place a few days back: the woman died in hospital, the son it still on a life-support system. One explanation is that he was irked after being reprimanded for having not stayed with the car with in which he had driven them to the shopping centre; another talks of marital discord, religious problems ~ all disputed by his kin.

Yet a query that demands a national response is what are a PSO’s duties? Is he required to “guard” the officer’s family, drive them on personal trips, function as a domestic aide? The misuse of ‘sahayaks’ in the defence forces and paramilitary is an old vexatious story: has the cancer spread to the civil sector too? Since security of varying degree is provided to a larger number of people it is incumbent on the home ministry to lay down the rules, put in place a grievance- redressing mechanism.

Men and women do not enlist in the security forces to be tasked with domestic chores such as washing/driving the car, walking the dog or helping cut the vegetables. Sadly that, and worse is not uncommon: cops deployed at one senior official’s residence were not permitted use of the bungalow’s taps ~ it was a caste issue.

There is an across-the-board demand for security. The PSOs carry the officer’s briefcase and files, they are deemed a status symbol. It was with much fanfare that the red beacons on cars were ordered removed, but the cleansing progressed no further. The discipline in the defence services and paramilitary averts many displays of resentment ~ there was an outbreak of it involving an officer’s wife in Ladakh some years back ~ but in the civil police the scope for resentment is massive. And few civilians show their PSOs due respect. It remains a wonder why Gurugram-like outbursts are not more frequent. Yet a time-bomb could be ticking.

The investigation into the Gurugram incident cannot be confined to the specific shooting. Maybe the scope of the SIT’s inquiries is limited, hence the onus devolves on the home and defence ministries. For much too long have critical queries been ducked by a cosy club of top officials and politicians.

Nirmala Sitharaman took a bold decision when opening several Cantonment roads to the public. Now she and Mr Rajnath Singh must carry the process to a logical conclusion. A thorough review of the system of PSOs and sahayaks would be in order, their duties specified, and the “beneficiaries” duly instructed about what is permissible, what is not. No person enlisting in the military, CAPF or even the local police must be relegated to a “domestic” ~ let officers pay for such help from their own pockets.