http://www.timescrest.com/world/saree-for-the-inconvenience-4267 AMERICAN IDYLL Saree for the inconvenience Chidanand Rajghatta | December 11, 2010
Expect the Indian chatterati to be foaming at the mouth over the next few days over the reported slight/humiliation/dishonour (depending on how much hyperbole you work into the episode) of the Indian ambassador to the US. By the time some of our more excitable television channels are through with the story, they would have put poor Meera Shankar through a 'vastraharan, ' the storied disrobing of Draupadi in the Mahabharata, by those evil Kauravas (US airport security personnel ). Under media and public pressure, New Delhi would have issued demarches to Washington DC, extracted meek apologies from American diplomats, saved the saree from Western discrimination, and notionally restored national honour - till the next such episode. Most of this will be orchestrated by a mob wedded to the Western sartorial habits and style, including a posse of anchors and news readers togged in pant-suit, tie-jacket etc. Hand it to Meera Shankar, though. Whether it is a White House ceremony, a state department reception, or a think-tank gig, Her Excellency is invariably draped in an elegant saree, rather than the business suit that many female foreign diplomats resort to when sent to Washington DC. This is true of most Indian women diplomats posted across the world, including our current foreign secretary Nirupama Rao. In addition to the intellectual brio and diplomatic finesse they bring to the table, they also carry themselves with sartorial grace, a fact that does not go unnoticed or uncommented in Foggy Bottom or 1600 Pennsylvania, where there are equally accomplished, but mostly pant-suited, women at work. But to expect the uniformed airport security personnel in America, tasked with spotting the next undie-bomber, shoe-bomber, wig-bomber etc, to recognise sartorial elegance and diplomatic accomplishment, is a bit much. Apparently, in the TSA handbook, individuals can be subjected to secondary screening if security personnel cannot "reasonably determine" that clothing is free of a "threat item. " In this case, the agent thought the saree was capacious enough to merit greater scrutiny, diplomatic niceties be damned. Yes, there is an element of sartorial cultural discrimination here, but that's not unique. Sikhs have experienced it with their turban across the world, including in India itself, particularly during the 1980s. Trying wearing an Arabic dish-dasha or kaffiyeh and walk through any airport, including New Delhi and Mumbai. At this point, saree aficionados can scream themselves hoarse that the garment is famously said to reveal as much as it hides, but that is beside the point. The face of the matter is that in America, uniformed personnel feel, and act, in an extraordinarily empowered manner. You don't mess with anyone in uniform, not even if you are Al Gore or Bill Gates. Especially, if you are Al Gore and Bill Gates;because the uniformed bloke (or woman) relishes nothing more than taking you on and having your travails splashed across the media, giving you, already famous, your fifteen minutes of notoriety, and him/her fifteen minutes of fame. But in the subcontinent, steeped in a VIP culture, security typically defers to fame and fortune. Politicians, film stars, sportsmen and other "VIPs" expect to be waved through because of their "status. " Flunks come to the security gates to ensure they are whisked through. It's a cultural thing. Most stories about painful screening of VIPs from the region typically turn out to be bogus, the product of an injured ego or minor inconvenience. Notice how the travails of ordinary folks seldom make it to the headlines or streamers;we just grumble and get on with life. It's only the "VIPs" who have so many issues with security. In the case of Ambassador Shankar, the issue is not that she had to undergo secondary scrutiny, but that she was not afforded the courtesy and dignity of a private pat-down which is mandated under TSA rules. Even in the case of Sikhs, the community in the US fought long and hard to arrive at a reasonable compromise with the TSA about having their turbans searched. Under current rules, turbaned passengers can subject themselves to a pat-down by a TSA screener or pat down their own turban, and have their hand swabbed for traces of chemical explosives. They can also request a private screening (in a room outside of public view) of their turban. The issue is still not settled. Last month, TSA announced that Sikhs should now expect their turbans to be searched every single time, sparking off another round of dialogue. Let's face it;security is a tangled issue and it will only get worse. It's the times we live in. -