Much has been said about the Newark airport incident. But what about the bigger picture? Was the matinee idol the first to have been detained at the airport? It is a big NO. In fact, most Asians and people from the Middle East go through this. Security check has not become lax even eight years after 9/11. The visitor is helpless when the immigration authorities tell him to step aside and follow the red lines to an adjacent room at the immigration counter. One can understand why Shah Rukh Khan, who is treated like a king in India is upset, but he would have been released any way once the US immigration was convinced of his identity.

The argument in favour of the US is that it is a sovereign country and has every right to follow its own regulations for entry, more so after the 9/11. Also kudos to the authorities that no terrorist incidents had been reported after that. Can the same be said of India, particularly after the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks?

Secondly, no one is above law and the security and immigration cannot be influenced by political bosses in the US, U.K or Israel and many other countries. Remember how US President Obama had to make up with the Boston police last month after calling it stupid for arresting Harvard Professor Gates in his own house for trespassing? Obama was quick to make amends by hosting a beer party at the White House to both the offender and the offended. The US track record shows that bigger American personalities including former US Vice President Al Gore and Senator Edward Kennedy were not spared by the security men but instead of making a fuss they had taken it in stride.

Thirdly, the Shah Rukh Khan incident is not isolated. Last month, a furore was raised about frisking former President Abdul Kalam at the airport but Kalam never raised any hue and cry. Before him, even cabinet ministers like George Fernandes had undergone such treatment in the US airports. The then External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee was frisked in Moscow last year. Some time ago a cabinet-rank VIP was detained for an hour right in front of the New York Consul General and they could do nothing until the interrogation was over.

Remember how the request of the MEA not to frisk former Speaker Somnath Chatterjee was turned down by the U.K and Australia last year? A piqued Somnath Chatterjee decided not to visit those countries on principle that being a constitutional authority he would not subject himself to frisking. So others who object to these security checks should either put up with it or not go abroad. Only recently, the government came up with a long list of people including all the council of ministers to be exempted from frisking after an embarrassment to one of the ministers at the airport.

The Shah Rukh Khan incident brings us to the broader issue of security regulations in India. Why this hue and cry from ministers like Ambika Soni and Praful Patel criticising the Americans for doing their own security check? Ambika Soni has said that India should also follow a tit-for-tat policy but who is stopping this? In fact tightening the security check and doing away with a long list of VIP exemptions is what is needed now. While the Shah Rukh Khan incident may soon be forgotten the political bosses should begin to think of how we should emulate the Americans and Israelis in dealing with security.

There are some who think that it is time to put an end to the VIP culture in India too. The Supreme Court has already shown the way by stopping the VIP darshan in the famous Tirupathi temple. It is amusing to see the netas standing in a queue to cast their votes during elections but as soon as they are elected, this aam admi image is forgotten. The common man often wonders why the politicians should be exempted from security checks at the airports and elsewhere. Why should they hold up the traffic and cause inconvenience to the public? They would earn praise if they voluntarily go through the security checks to be a model for others.

The other worry is about political intervention. Why is it a different story in India? The demand to end this kind of political intervention is slowly increasing. For instance, when the traffic police did its duty by stopping a Trinamool Congress M.P for coming in the way of the Prime Minister's convoy a fortnight ago, two police officers were sent to the MPs house to apologise. After all the policemen were only doing their duty. It is common sight in many airports that some VIPs and their families are whisked away without any check and some even go up to the aircraft to board the plane. Congressmen who take pride in following Nehruism should remember a story often narrated by the old timers. It appears that Nehru was stopped in an AICC meeting by a security guard. Nehru not only submitted himself to the guard's scrutiny but also praised him for his diligence.

In view of the growing security concerns, the government should look afresh at the implementation of security regulations and tighten the rules if necessary instead of relaxing them to please politicians. The practice of junior officials going to the tarmac to receive even junior functionaries returning from abroad should be done away with.

No doubt, Shah Rukh Khan, who is called the King Khan, has reasons to crib about his treatment in the US. But it is time to look within to improve our own security regulations rather than blaming other countries for following their laws. (IPA Service)