The same day that newspapers carried reports of Indian ambassador to the United States Meera Shankar being singled out for a “pat-down” security check in Mississippi because she was wearing a sari, I happened to fly from Chennai to Delhi and sitting next to me was a foreign lady, most probably of European origin. On landing at Delhi’s infamous Terminal 3, while the rest of us unhappy mortals prepared for a long trudge from the landing gate to the car park (at least one kilometre), this lady got into a car that was brought right up to the aircraft and was whisked away. Upon enquiry I was told that she was the ambassador of some country to India. While obviously, I have nothing personal against this particular lady, I was absolutely filled with rage to reflect upon the difference in the treatment meted out to our ambassador to the US.
As everyone will remember Ms Shankar had passed through the metal detector without setting it off and was standing in a queue with about 30 other people. The TSA (transportation security agent) apparently singled out Ms Shankar for a pat-down security check because she was dressed in a sari. Furthermore, the agent refused to relent even when Ms Shankar told him that she was a diplomat and India’s ambassador. Even worse, although she requested that the pat-down be done in a private room it was conducted in a transparent glass cubicle in full public view. Naturally, India protested. External affairs minister S.M. Krishna made his displeasure clear, and US secretary of state Hillary Clinton responded with inanities. Apparently, someone in the US state department apologised to Ms Shankar.
However, the matter cannot be dropped there. This is not about Ms Shankar but about how the representative from India was treated even after revealing her diplomatic credentials. As a citizen of India, I would like to know from the US authorities why the TSA thought that a lady in a sari was a security threat? Particularly when she passed through the metal detector without setting it off? Also, especially when she stood in a queue, did not misbehave or gave rise to any kind of suspicion. Above all, when the security agent was told that she was India’s ambassador, why s/he still insisted on a pat-down search? In this case, an apology is simply not sufficient. We need to know what action was taken against the security authorities that perpetrated this insult on our ambassador.
After the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in New York on September 11, 2001, it is common knowledge that security at US airports has been considerably tightened. It is proudly claimed that fortunately there has not been a recurrence of a 9/11-type attack on the US only because of the very strict security protocols that have been introduced there. It is also proudly claimed that the Transportation Security Administration is a completely autonomous body and conducts the work of ensuring security with complete independence. Be that as it may, the question now is whether the US will accord respect to the internationally recognised and binding Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations by which all countries have agreed to the inviolability of diplomats from their countries. Clearly the pat-down of Ms Shankar is in violation of these norms and unacceptable without even going down the slippery slope of ethical considerations of racial profiling and the balance between racial profiling and security concerns.
Those who travel to the US are largely resigned to racial profiling in airports. It is allegedly “random”. But in practice, those of Asian origin and those with names belonging to a particular religion are almost always “randomly” selected for thorough security and body probes. The security staff is almost always ungentle and very rude, making it a hellish experience to travel in or to the US. There are several people I know who have stopped travelling to the US for this reason. This certainly begs the question of whether a terrorist from Asia will actually come dressed in some obvious Asian outfit and stand in an airport line advertising his/her intentions for all to see. Even more baffling is the assumption by the security personnel that a lady in a sari was wearing a “bulky” dress and was therefore liable to be thoroughly searched. It is a mystery to any thinking person how a graceful sari could be considered to be a bulky dress as opposed to voluminous dresses and coats.
Within days of this incident making headlines in India, our permanent envoy to the UN, Hardeep Puri, was similarly insulted and asked to remove his turban at another US airport. I have not heard of any apology to Mr Puri from the US and can only wonder why after India offered such warm and gracious hospitality to US President Barack Obama the security establishment in the US would insult our diplomats in clear violation of the Vienna Convention.
It is nobody’s case that security of any country should ever be compromised or avoided. Indians are by and large peaceful, law-abiding people and, particularly when travelling abroad hate, to enter into confrontation. For the most part, you will find Indians standing quietly in lines and following all the rules in airports and elsewhere. However, when there are well-established international norms agreed to by all countries on how visiting dignitaries or diplomatic personnel should be treated, it is totally unacceptable for us to sit back and watch the continued violation of these norms when it comes to dignitaries and diplomats from India.
We still remember that former President of India A.P.J. Abdul Kalam was accorded the same treatment as was then defence minister George Fernandes and more recently, civil aviation minister Praful Patel. Now we have the utterly inexplicable indignity handed out to Ms Shankar and Mr Puri. Notwithstanding formal expressions of regret from Ms Clinton and the state department, these incidents continue to recur and the US cannot simply shrug its shoulders and point to security and the autonomy of the TSA. The US government has to immediately put a stop to the indignity accorded to our diplomats and visiting dignitaries. Otherwise, as citizens, we should call for full reciprocity and treat US diplomats and dignitaries in exactly the same way they treat us. Perhaps then they will understand our outrage.

Jayanthi Natarajan is a Congress MP in the Rajya Sabha and AICC spokesperson.
The views expressed in this column are her own