I once missed a flight in spain after 9/11 and ended up having to buy a
one-way ticket to the states from Spain. At Amsterdam, the security picked
me out for a "random" check and wanted to know why I had a one way ticket. I
was irritate enough to want to ask: do i have to be more responsible just
because i am indian or not american when I travel? unfortunately the
question is just rhetorical. last year on work travel back from sri lanka i
was stopped in hong kong similarly....must do something about the eyebrow
growing under my chin;-)))
all jokes aside, Indian security while it seems like a pain, is quite
welcome if it protects one from terrorists of any persuasion. I am often
more scared of the police/army/security (certainly a real fear in Sri
Lanka). This notwithstanding my childhood as an air force brat living all
over the place in desh.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:39 PM, Deepa Mohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wrote this in the heat of the moment; I am sure I do not understand the
> complexity many of the issues involved...would like other's opinions.
>
>
>
>
> I have had my TV set on since yesterday night....and it is ironic that
> yesterday evening, I visited two public spaces, and was musing about what a
> farce our security systems are in general.
>
> I went to Spar Hypermarket on Bannerghatta Road, and later went to a movie
> at the INOX theatre, at the new mall that has come up where Swagath theatre
> used to stand.
>
> At both places, visitors had to walk through the usual "electronic arch"
> that has become ubiquitous; at the INOX theatre, my handbag was inspected.
>
> But the checks were so extremely cursory, that I could not help thinking
> that it would not deter any determined terrorist at all. The security was
> nothing but what silklisters have aptly dubbed as "security theatre"....a
> farce, an acting out of various steps that are supposed to be done, totally
> half-heartedly.
>
>
> Another factor which I find too often is that the security guards (surely,
> an underpaid and undertrained lot..more about this later) have a weakness
> for what they perceive to be figures of authority, power or money. Perhaps,
> bitter experiences have taught them to respect such figures, as the
> reprisal
> from such figures, when crossed, can be very harsh, especially in our land
> of inequality. So, when a person is well-dressed, and exudes an aura of
> wealth, power or just plain purposefulness, s/he is often not challenged at
> all. I often find that the meek, far from inheriting the earth, spend the
> longest at security queues.
>
>
> Security agencies are under pressure to provide people, and it is not
> uncommon for these guards to work for very long hours, with continuous
> shifts at different locations. Most security guard positions were...well,
> until recently, perhaps...thought of as soft jobs, and there is a huge
> demand-supply gap, with the security agencies getting away with paying as
> little as they can. I still fail to see how an underpaid, undertrained,
> physically frail guard, who has been on duty already for several hours (or
> shifts) can be effective in any way whatsoever.
>
> The corruption in our police and security forces exacts its own penalties
> of
> the value of the security provided. Very often, security guards are in
> closest contact with criminals...and the insidious nexus develops. I often
> find police constables or security guards obsequious towards politicians of
> people of power, and domineering and bullying, and incredibly senseless in
> enforcing stupid and irrational rules, with the general public.
>
> Indeed, it has been my observation that in movie theatres, at least at the
> Forum, the security guards seem to be more keen to screen any food or drink
> carried by moviegoers rather than anything else. Food is confiscated so
> that
> patrons have to buy the incredibly expensive and shoddy, fat-rich snacks
> that are sold inside the theatres. It's a racket.
>
> It was also a matter of record that after the bombings at IISc, the
> security
> measures were as lackadaisical as before within the space of a week. The
> blasts at various places in Bangalore is almost a forgotten event in the
> very-short public memory.
>
> It's an invariable rule that the terrorist or the
> security-breacheridentifies a loophole in the security arrangements,
> and it's the innocent
> who have to bear the brunt of later security measures, while the criminal
> merrily goes on to something else! The terrorist may develop a bomb with
> some new material and walk through, while the security guard is throwing
> out
> my moisturising lotion and making me go barefoot at every security check.
>
> So...how do we tackle this very difficult problem? Profiling is one answer
> that the Americans seem to have come up with; I don't know how effective
> it's been, but having been on the receiving end (on one trip to the US, I
> had that dreaded quadruple S ("SSSS") stamped on my boarding cards on 12
> consecutive flights, and was subjected to "random" intense screening, until
> I wrote an email to the Airports Authority...and I was spared further
> misery.)I can say that for the innocent person, such measures are an
> intense
> harassment at worst, an irritation at best, and a tremendous waste of time
> and resources. But...can security measures be avoided altogether? No, of
> course not; we are dealing with ruthless people, who, in the very nature of
> things, know what they can get away with, when, and how.
>
> This, I think, is the true evil effect of terrorism; they need not even
> kill
> anyone.... they can just make it hellish for common people to use public
> spaces and public transport, and slow up the system to the point of chaos.
>
> Security, I think, will, for one thing, always lag behind the ingenuity of
> the determined criminal, and also almost never be preventive, except in
> rare
> instances that cannot be publicized because the successful security measure
> often has to be one that cannot be talked about. No security organization
> can talk about the coups or terror attacks that have been prevented; they
> can only be publicly associated with their failures. A truly demotivating
> factor for security agencies.
>
> Security, alas, is also only as good as the weakest link in the security
> chain, and the terrible truth is that the terrorist or the criminal has to
> be lucky only once, where the security agencies must be lucky again and
> again in their preventive measures.
>
> A very knotty problem, and one that I am unable to find any kind of
> sustainable solution to, though I keep thinking about it.... I would like
> to
> initiate a dialogue between common citizens and the members of the police
> force or other security agencies, to see how best we can tackle this
> particularly insidious evil.
>
