In My Blog Opinion...
What George Bernard Shaw actually meant to say went something like this: 'Those who can, do; those who can't, teach (or write or blog!). But those who can, and do, often do so after reading the teachings (or writings or blogs!) of those who can't.
Kalam as president cared little for protocol, much of which was derived from the British rulers of yore. For instance, there is a staff member to help the president remove and put on his shoes. Abdul Kalam had stopped this practise, removing and wearing his shoes himself. And so, in a similar vein, when asked to empty his pockets before entering the aircraft, he did so with minimum fuss.
Now compare this with the way our politicians behave. Some years ago the then Lok Sabha speaker Somnath Chatterjee refused to fly when he was told that he would NOT be exempted from being frisked/search at US airports. There was a ruckus in Parliament after George Fernandes was searched at a US airport. Then there is the strange case of Anand Sharma. In the last government, this then minister of state in the ministry of external affairs had thrown a fit when he had to go through security checks while boarding a flight in New Delhi. A craven government quickly had the rules changed; thus, all ministers of state are now exempt from security checks.
This is the real problem.
India’s list of people exempted from security checks airport is virtually endless and includes not just the president and former presidents along with the vice-presidents but also the prime ministers and all ministers and ministers of state; governors, chief ministers and deputy chief ministers of all states and union territories; Supreme Court justices and high court chief justices; cabinet secretary and chiefs of staff of the armed forces; and all members of the Sonia Gandhi family. That works out to some 200 persons and counting, which is, frankly, 190 too many! You can also be sure this list will rise as ever more politicians and bureaucrats insist on the same privileges.
Abdul Kalam wasn’t insulted by Continental airlines; he was insulted by the Government of India that treats Kalam no better than a minister of state for sports (er, what’s his name?). And for those who are angry with the US for frisking Kalam, please note: after September 11, 2001, there have been no major attacks in the US; after the attack on Indian parliament on December 13, 2001, India suffered an even bigger attack on November 26, 2008. Our security checks are a joke, and the way we exempt every minister, judge and babu from search merely reflects this disdain.
Oh! before we forget: terrorists entered Parliament in a white car, looking very much like ministers and hence were not stopped by the protocol-conscious security men. How long before a bomb-laden terrorist walks in claiming he is a minister and hence cannot be searched?
Incidentally, parliamentarians are now demanding that India must no longer exempt foreign dignitaries/ambassadors from being searched or frisked. But the only reason they were exempted in the first place was because our politicians expected a reciprocal privilege.
It is high time India did away unnecessary privileges for politicians and bureaucrats. We can start by removing the red lights on their cars, a relic of the British raj that was created to awe the natives and which continues for the same reason. Our politicians are no better than us; they cannot be exempt from security searches, here or abroad. If a giant like Kalam doesn't mind being frisked, then for sure these men and women, who are pygmies in comparison with the ex-president, should not mind either.
When we demand that every two bit politician be exempt from searches, we behave like a two-bit African nation!
:-)
I agree. Kalam should not have been frisked. But when the government submits lists of 200 persons, who will take it seriously?
:-)