http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022202446.html

I wanted to bring this to the notice of my US and international friends on this forum for their comments.

In this context, I read a front-page news item in our local daily about another prominent Indian scientist who had been humiliated and denied Visa by the local US consulate here. This is not the first incident of its kind either. Earlier a prominent politician from India was also denied Visa and it caused a huge uproar here. Small things, yes, but they all add up.

As an Indian I have to say that this kind of thing really pushes public opinion against America. In my opinion it is not the war in Iraq which is giving the US a bad name in other countries but the way low-level US officials overseas treat prominent and respected citizens of other countries.

This is not an anti-US rant or anything, but I hope that in future, such incidents will be avoided. I don't blame the US government for this, but rather the attitude of their staff overseas which cause this problem. A little bit of understanding and empathy towards other cultures might help them a bit.

Regards.

I fully support the need for cultural sensitivity--and I expect the other occupants of this neighborhood do too.
In a situation such as this, however, we cannot be expected to understand the totality of the circumstances involved and thus would be in no position to do anything except to agree in principle that all cultures and nationalities should be treated fairly.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what we can do.

One would believe that part of the problem lies with the bureaucratic nature of consulates and embassies worldwide. However, when a prominent scientist, particularly the head of a very reputed educational institution is interrogated like a common thief, it shows a particular lack of sensitivity.

No doubt, visa rules have changed since 9/11 but we in India believe in respecting people ahead of respecting procedures. When a person whose integrity is beyond question and who is a respected scientist, we believe in treating him with the respect he deserves.

Strictly speaking, the US consulate officials were within the rules, but of course, such incidents also carry emotional and political baggage and I do think that employees in the US service overseas should be made aware of such things. Countries value their pride and prominent personalities and respected citizens are often symbols of that pride. We are always sensitive to how they are treated and perceived by foriegn countries to judge their attitude towards us. If you treat a prominent Indian in any field with respect and dignity, we warm to your attitude and helps nations form closer people-to-people relations in the long run.

Ultimately, I always believe in the principle: "Give respect, take respect."

Whoa, hold on a second. A "common thief?" Nowhere in the story did I read anything about the process that indicates he was treated in such a way. According to his own (potentially biased) record of what transpired, he was:

1. inconvenienced - by having to travel 200 miles for this process to take place. This can't be considered part of the complaint for humiliation. Every Indian must follow this procedure. It's not like he was treated unfairly as opposed to the normal Indian population. The system may be a nuisance (as the article tries to say), but that's a separate issue--it's not personal.
2. waiting three hours - Maybe there's something here, but, I've been forced to wait longer than three hours for things. Life happens. Things get complicated and consequently, delayed. It sucks, but unless he can show the delay was purposeful in order to humiliate him, this can't be considered either.
3. accused of deception - Ok, this one is juicy and he may be able to say some humiliation here. But, we don't know what was asked or how the subjects were brought up. If the consular was following procedure and asking questions he was supposed to ask, then there's nothing here to be legitimately humiliated about. If the consular was abusive and unreasonable, then yes, that's a problem. We don't know what happened.
4. asked to fill out a detailed questionnaire - hardly humiliating. He's probably filled out more questionnaires in his life than he can shake a stick at.

All of that taken into account, what this humiliation boils down to is "I'm a prominent person and I should be treated specially." In some respects, that is true. In others, not so much. Sure, being a prominent member of an international scientific organization is strong evidence that this is not a "bad guy." But I don't think anyone would say it's absolutely conclusive.

Think of it this way. I use my ATM card to withdraw cash fairly regularly. It's never been stolen. I've never entered the PIN number incorrectly. Am I offended when I'm asked to enter the PIN number for the billionth time? I'm not upset or humiliated even though I have a long-established history of proper use. The procedures are to protect the bank and myself against that "next time" when my card is stolen or there's an attempt to use it improperly.

Procedures are put in place for a reason. Procedures are there to eliminate the influence of emotion and judgment calls. They are meant to be cold, hard, intellectual safeguards to make sure a request is handled properly.

If that procedure has proven itself valuable, then we can't afford to forego its use because local custom or culture finds it offensive. The US needs to protect its interests in security far more than protecting the feelings of the citizens of foreign countries. The same can be said of India. I seriously doubt India would open its doors without any procedural checks for all prominent American scientists.

Am I trying to say this guy's feelings are not legitimate? Not at all. I have no doubt they are genuine. However, I would like to point out respect goes both ways. He needs to respect the US's right to protect itself by implementing security procedures. There's more respect that needs to flow in this situation--not just a flow from the US consulate to him. He needs to approach this situation as he approaches his work: objectively.

Should he get a visa? Probably, but I'm not going to fault the consular for being thorough. And yes, I realize one man's "thorough" is another man's "intrusive." The question simply boils down to: did the consular act within the scope of the procedures he was obligated to follow?

If that answer is a "yes" and there was still humiliation, then the Indian government can talk with the US about ways to adjust the procedure to guarantee the US's security concerns are met and address India's problems as well. But the US's concerns cannot be met with "I'm prominent, so just give me a visa."

If that answer is a "no" then there should be some kind of reprimand, punishment, or dismissal for the person(s) involved.

Not taking sides or anything but I don't think he'd have gotten a Visa in Australia either, not until he stops calling me asking if I want to change my broadband plan.

No doubt, they are technically right to subject him to the same treatment as anybody else but practically it is a humiliation, because it is not the first incident of its kind and the US has a history of doing this to prominent Indians. The outrage is very real because it was not a difficult thing to grant him exemption from the usual procedures.

While criticizing him, keep in mind that he was:

(A) The head of a prominent educational institute comparable to Harvard or MIT in India.

(B) He was invited by a US University to lecture there.

(C) He was also a scientific advisor to the Prime Minister of India!!

With all three in mind, the impression we Indians get is that if such a high person with absolutely sound credentials can be interrogated and subjected to such degrading interviews what of we common people?

Would a prominent American scientist allow himself to be subject to such treatment (fingerprinting, screening, stress interviews) before he can visit other countries? Be honest...

Again, the US government itself may not be to blame, but the attitude of their staff overseas does not endear itself to even its own friends or allies.

Probably not but Americans have an very high opinion of themselves. What you must ask yourself is how does this incident effect you? If it doesn't, move on and let your government worry about it. If they don't worry about it enough to satisfy you then vote for somebody else next election

I see no reason why he should be exempt from normal procedures, if I were in his position I would fully expect to be subject to the same procedures as the 'common man'. Equality and all that.

He (or she) shouldn't be. Why? Because they're screened like that whenever they fly an airplane domestically. Prominent scientist, politician, or regular working-guy. I've been caught in security screenings that have (honestly) taken three hours for me to get through (waiting in line plus the process itself). On one particular flight, I was one of the "lucky" people randomly selected for close screening. I was asked to step outside the normal line for "personal" attention. It was extra special fantastic for me because I had two layovers on my trip, and the mark for close screening follows you. I had to go through the process three times.

Because the selection process is random, I am absolutely certain prominent scientists have undergone that kind of scrutiny. I'm also sure that some of those same scientists have been accused of responding "evasively" or possibly even seeming deceptive to the security screeners when questioned about their luggage, what they are carrying onto the plane, "what's in these jars," "why can't I open this container," etc.

Again, that is simply for domestic air travel. Why would it make any sense to believe the process to gain permission to arrive in a foreign country would be any less stressful?

I don't feel that I criticized him. The only statements that might be considered a criticism are that his account could be personally biased (and nobody on this planet can achieve 100% accurate recall of events) and that he should look at the situation objectively. The only reason I say that is because his quotes from the article seem to indicate he let this situation get under his skin. The fundamental requirement of science is to remove emotion from analysis. I think the intellectual approach toward the situation would serve his and India's concerns of respect far more. By saying he was "humiliated" automatically tells me emotions have already taken control.

And I think we'll have to disagree as to the treatment of prominent individuals. I'm going to make an example here, but I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to analogize/compare/associate to anyone. It's meant only to be illustrative and demonstrate the foreseeable problems with giving special treatment to prominent individuals.

Now for the example:
Travel back in time to pre-9/11 America. There's a man applying for a visa to the United States. He's descended from the Saudi Arabian royal family and is a religious leader among a zealously devout group of individuals. Sounds prominent to me. Should he get special treatment in obtaining a visa? Does it matter that his name is Osama bin Laden?

Regarding the items you listed... for (A), well, as a college-educated individual, I have no clue who the heads of Harvard or MIT are. It really wouldn't bother me (personally) if either were denied a visa to another country. If that country wants to deny access, that's their choice. It wouldn't bother me anymore if it was Venezuela (where they're looking for any excuse to try and piss off Americans) or Great Britain. Part of that philosophy is because the scientist no longer needs to travel to conferences. There are tons of technologies out there for scientists to share ideas and communicate. There may be no substitute (regarding efficiency of communication) for a face-to-face meeting, but I cannot fathom a situation where the same information cannot be conveyed through other means via the Internet.

For (B), he may have been invited before, but that doesn't guarantee a future pass. Like the ATM card example I gave earlier... Just because a prior history has been developed does not mean that all future use is guaranteed to be legitimate.

For (C), sure. That scores some big credibility points. As an ally of the US, that makes a very strong argument that if anyone is entitled to bypass security checks, it would be the heads of state and their close advisors. The question is, how much can they bypass and how much judgment is left to the grunts in making those low level decisions? I would rather the grunt follow procedure as closely as possible, and then let the "higher ups" decide if any special treatment is warranted.

I think the entire world is working through "growing pains" regarding security. Backgrounds need to be checked, questions need to be asked, etc. In earlier times, those practices would clearly be intrusive and considered demeaning. Mainly because simply being asked implied that person "looked guilty" or was of questionable character. These days, those questions are asked as a matter of routine. People need to choose one of two things:

1. Accept a world with less security and end the practice of background checks and questionings

2. Come to accept it as part of life/grow thicker skin/whatever. Being asked about prior history, focus of work, etc. doesn't mean that person has done anything wrong or that they are of questionable moral character. It's just routine. And for any folks chomping at the bit to scream "1984" - I didn't say to blindly accept all security provisions. Each person needs to determine what is acceptable, and that may be part of the disagreement in this case. The Indian culture may feel these checks are excessive whereas Americans do not.

There are probably as many explanations available as there are people reading this thread

And I need to stop writing small novels for replies...

Probable cause was getting in the way of security, so probable cause has been dispensed with. Mere suspicion is enough nowadays. Not that he was a U.S. citizen anyway... but if the U.S. government doesn't have to treat it's own citizens respectfully (and according to the constitution) why would they some guy from India? He should be greatful they didn't strip search him just for fun. That's a new requirement of all job applicants here in the U.S. BTW, right after they make you p1ss in a cup and sh1t in a can. So welcome to the socialist security states of America. Wasn't originally designed this way, we had to pass the Traitor Act to make it so.

Why do I get the feeling from these replies: One rule for Americans, different rule for others.

Other countries also have national pride, you know.

There is a qualitative difference between showing respect during security checks and blatant disrespect.

Allowing a prominent individual whose credentials are beyond question to bypass the security checks would have scored a few political gains for the US ahead of President Bush's visit here. On the other hand there was nothing to be gained out of putting this individual through the motions of security just to prove that you guys don't make exceptions for anybody.

It affects me because I am a red-blooded Indian passionate about my country as you are about yours. I won't sit back and enjoy watching people who are highly respected in our society get subjected to such treatment... especially considering the fact that it seems to be reserved for people of a certain colour of skin.

Only those countries that have been historically affected by imperialism will understand my sentiments. It's not as black and white as some people make it out to be.

Uh, maybe because he was on american soil at the time? Why do I get the feeling that your caste system makes you think some people are better than others. In this country all people are (supposed to be) created equal. If he doesn't like that concept he should go back to India.

Deleted... ... ... ...

....... .... ..... ..... . ................. ..... .. ............ ..... ..........

Let's leave it here. I'm feeling too hot to discuss this issue right now. Quite frankly it's emotional in nature and you people cannot understand this from my perspective. It's more than clear now...

Let me report it for closure. It was a bad move on my part to discuss this at LQ, which, quite frankly is one of the most unsuitable forums for a discussion on such issues... Time and again I've seen that.

Forgive me once again. I hope not to repeat this mistake, until next time...