No American explanation can assuage the humiliation suffered by India’s ambassador to the United States, Meera Shankar, who was subjected to frisking and a “pat-down” body search at an airport in Mississippi while returning to Washington after delivering a university lecture that was much appreciated. While it can be no one’s case that the action was India-specific, the US government will be foolish if it believes that Indian public opinion will not see it as a slight against this country. Ordinary Americans are likely to have reacted in much the same way if their ambassador in this country or any other senior dignitary had been subjected to equivalent treatment. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on iconic targets in the United States, there has clearly been far too much official American sanctimony — and hamhandedness — about implementing the concept of homeland security. While ordinary people in the US appreciate their government’s endeavours to safeguard the country from violent assaults by extremists — a perfectly natural, reasonable and needed response — many in America have now begun to feel irritation on account of some of the over-the-top procedures adopted by the authorities. A community has sprung up (and these are not minority or special interest groups) on the Internet to campaign against “pat-down” searches at American airports where every inch of the human anatomy of airline passengers is sought to be probed by security officials. This new feature, introduced not long ago, is in addition to full body scans which have existed for some time. These methods, which are nothing if not a deep invasion of physical privacy, are quite rightly widely resented.
A few years ago, former Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee had declined an invitation to visit the US on account of the possibility that he might have to submit himself to such treatment at a US airport. If one visits the wider picture, it is apparent that while the US routinely transgresses the physical integrity of individuals, including that of foreign dignitaries whose reputation and conduct are above suspicion, the world’s leading power with a monochromatic vision thinks nothing of transgressing the sovereignty of nations at will, as its military invasion of various countries under one pretext or another shows. In a country like Afghanistan it has also steadfastly refused to be held down to any rules of engagement, which gives its soldiers the right to do exactly as they please. It is patently hard to justify measures such as these in the name of safeguarding democracy. It was revealed that the late Edward Kennedy, one of America’s most prominent political figures, was also subjected to insulting treatment by gung-ho airport security officials. When the matter became public, the authorities made amends and rescued him from overbearing procedures. It is important that a similar latitude is extended to foreign nationals, when their bona fides can be established without subjecting them to degrading methods, as was the case with the Indian ambassador and many other Indians, including actor Shah Rukh Khan and former defence minister George Fernandes, who had once been strip-searched. External affairs minister S.M. Krishna voiced the nation’s anguish when he described the insulting treatment of our ambassador as “unacceptable”. If adequate, systemic recompense is not forthcoming from Washington after this, Mr Krishna risks appearing boy-scoutish if his government does not take immediate steps to be completely reciprocal with the Americans in the matter of taking steps to safeguard the country’s security. This has to be made absolutely clear in any communication with Washington on the subject. Otherwise, we will be taken for granted as a country, and India’s dignity can become a matter of frequent compromise through the overbearing conduct of big or small bullies, in our own region or elsewhere.