My respect for former President Dr Kalam has gone up after he, almost alone, refused to object after being frisked by an airline. But the furore it created was inevitable. The outrage over his frisking has a deep rooted connection with a still-fragile post-colonial mindset: the fact that the airline was an American one — cue for sharp intake of breath — made it that much worse. Nevertheless, despite many Indians’ gossamer-thin skin at any real or perceived slight by foreigners, this is a good opportunity to reexamine our own assumptions about special privileges.

After initially holding firm that it was only abiding by the US Transport Security Administration (TSA) rules, which do not recognise an Indian ex-President as exempt from frisking, the airline is subsequently reported to have apologised. This was entirely predictable, not just because there is an Indian law exempting ex-Presidents from security checks, but also because the civil aviation minister personally assured Parliament that the recalcitrant airline would be brought to book.

That is as it should be. That is, Indian laws and rules should be taken seriously by any entity operating in India. But my cavil is with the law itself. Why should an ever expanding list of VIPs be exempt from security checks at the airport? Why should we still have a feudal mindset that our ruling elite be treated differently from the average citizen?

It has sometimes been argued that this mindset, more than just being a feudal relic, is also specifically a third world mindset. The logic goes that third world countries are only tolerable (to the elite) when there are special privileges to shield them from the rigours of everyday life in such countries. It is a vestige of twentieth century India that still lingers on even as the country itself is trying to come to grips with the kind of mindset that is more suited for an emerging twenty-first century power.

... contd.