In an embarrassing moment for the U.S. and India, the Indian Ambassador to the U.S., Meera Shankar had to undergo a TSA pat down at the Jackson airport in Mississippi. The Indian Ambassador was singled out of the security line up for extra screening as she was allegedly wearing “bulking clothing” – the Indian sari in this case. A perfectly reasonable case can be made from the TSA’s ‘security concerns and procedures’ point of view. The TSA personnel were following standard security procedure, and some people might even want to pat them for implementing rules without any discrimination of rank or profile.
But this is the second time in three months that a senior Indian official has been pulled aside for security reasons at U.S. airports. The Indian Minister for External Affairs, S. M. Krishna termed the treatment meted out to the diplomat as “unacceptable.” The U.S. expressed regret over the incident and promised to ensure that such incidents are not repeated. It has however, not apologized.
Irrespective of its diplomatic implications, this incident is significant in terms of the invasive security measures undertaken by the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). What began as heighted security measures after Sept. 11, have merely increased in their intensity of invasiveness and discomfort to passengers. The ongoing debate on full body scanners at airports, have shown how the travelers personal space, privacy and dignity are disregarded, even causing trauma to some. ( Certain media reports talk of how rape and sexual abuse victims who are particularly sensitive to invasion of their personal spaces have reported being traumatized by the full body scans and pat downs.) While the importance of these measures is understandable, the TSA needs to reevaluate if they are truly helpful in eliminating dangers. Or do they add to tense paranoid atmospheres at airports, and take away the fun of travelling?
The TSA’s evaluation needs to consider how a person’s basic human dignity can be secured, along with securing borders. A smarter mechanism that outthinks terrorists, and not follows them (shoe bomber then screen shoes, panty bomber then full body scan etc) needs to be devised. A method that makes passengers want to volunteer cooperation would be much helpful over those that force them to do so. The screening procedure for foreign diplomats and other dignitaries should also be reevaluated such that the dignity of their office is not compromised even accidentally.
So will this public humiliation of the Indian Ambassador to the U.S. on U.S. soil affect bilateral relations? Unlikely. The fact that the incident came to light only through a local Mississippi newspaper and not through the Indian embassy shows that neither the Ambassador, nor India grants it enough importance to damage bilateral relations. It is highly unlikely to be perceived by India as a deliberate attempt to humiliate its diplomat. However, it is possible that a repeat of such incidents will dampen relations (particularly interpersonal relations) considering that protocol and formalities are an important part of such equation. For now though, such excesses are sure to be overlooked in the interest of the larger bilateral benefits and goals.
But this attack is very different from the horrific attack on Mumbai by commandos from Pakistan in November 2008. The attack on Mumbai was NOT terrorism, but a totally different operation. It was an exquisitely planned and flawlessly executed attack by professionally trained commandos armed with an arsenal of lethal weapons. Prior to the attack, the supporting cadres had scouted the targets, established base camps in nondescript buildings, and stockpiled on weapons and support material. The attackers traveled from Karachi to Mumbai in trawlers; they came ashore in inflatables in isolated portions off the Mumbai coastline at night, and went quietly to their planned rendezvous points. Then, like clockwork, they carried out their mission.
It is a characteristic of wolves to attack sheep. Where would you find wolves? You would look to the poor, destitute areas of Pakistan-Pashtunistan. No shortage there of young men who, for a relatively small amount of money, could be trained in military combat, bomb-making and other terrorist activities. These men could be infiltrated into India for specific missions, a simple task given Indian complacency and laxness. If these young men are successful, mission accomplished. If these young men fail, no harm done as long as the masterminds could claim plausible deniability.
Probably the most disparaging of comments about India is a poor assessment of the Cold Start strategy, a military strategy to be implemented in retaliation of terrorist attacks in India. The exposed document revels U.S’ doubts about the deterrent capability of Cold Start for Pakistan, and India’s intentions of every using it given that it did not do so after the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai. It also says that several senior government officials have neither “supported, endorsed or advocated” for Cold Start.
Some Pakistani analysts say that deracinating the Lashkar-e-Taiba is impossible because Pakistan’s establishment fears the repercussions of opening up another front by taking on Lashkar-e-Taiba which has powerful patronage networks in the country. Others aver that Pakistan’s military establishment needs such groups for the insurgency in Jammu & Kashmir and that they serve as a “strategic reserve” to achieve the strategic goals of the establishment vis-à-vis India. These reasons are anything but reassuring for anyone that believes in peace between the two countries.