..an ex-elected reprepresenative by the elected representatives be any less or more important than the people who elected them? Why should the so-called VVIPs be exempt from certain rules that apply to the common man? Why should occupying the highest public office in the past be a 'certificate' for exemption?
These questions need to be answered before India's politicians raise hue and cry over an ex-president being frisked. As a self-respecting individual, I find it offending that some people equate routine security checks with "public humiliation". Asking questions that have nothing to do with security is humiliation. I can understand providing diplomatic immunity to ministers traveling on government work, because it's an understanding between 2 governments. However, a person, who once occupied a public office, should not be entitled to any such immunity just for his personal trip.
The feudal mindset in India needs urgent 'reforms'.
These questions need to be answered before India's politicians raise hue and cry over an ex-president being frisked. As a self-respecting individual, I find it offending that some people equate routine security checks with "public humiliation". Asking questions that have nothing to do with security is humiliation. I can understand providing diplomatic immunity to ministers traveling on government work, because it's an understanding between 2 governments. However, a person, who once occupied a public office, should not be entitled to any such immunity just for his personal trip.
The feudal mindset in India needs urgent 'reforms'.
2 comments:
I think the issue is one of double-standards, if anything. Would Continental frisk, say, Al Gore, the same way? If so, then our MP's ought to shut up.
i would guess, from what I have read, they do frisk ex-presidents as well. Atleast they are supposed to. But maybe not in practice.
Post a Comment