State paranoia

State paranoia can manifest itself in many ways. There have been some outstanding examples of it in history. The first to show the symptoms was Britain in 1914, when the World War I broke out.

It enacted the Defence of the Realm Act that allowed the government to suspend civil rights. Not a dog barked then, though later there was some typically discreet whining.

In France, the Revolution of 1789 added knobs to their natural apprehensiveness that the rest of the world had nothing better to do than to undermine France.

The Germans have always required citizens to inform the police station if they move house. Of the Russians the less said the better. In Singapore, you can criticise the government "" mildly and in jest alone, if you please "" in one restaurant. And so on.

But the US, which is generally tolerant, has a special knack for over-reacting. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941, all Americans of Japanese descent were rounded up into concentration camps as enemies.

In the 1950s, thanks to Senator Joseph McCarthy, a few thousand decent people lost their jobs and livelihoods because of the anti-Communist paranoia that he fanned. 'Better dead than red', was the slogan.

In 2002, the US persuaded scores of countries, through a Security Council regulation no less, to enact severe anti-terrorism laws. Our own POTA is in part a consequence, as are similar laws elsewhere.

Its latest effort is to require visitors from all but 28 countries "" that is, nationals from countries that don't require visas "" to be fingerprinted on arrival.

The idea is to have a huge database to which these prints will be referred and, perchance, should Mr bin Laden or some of his lads turn up in disguise, US immigration will be on to them in a flash and off they will all go to Guantanamo Bay, there to rot until George W. Bush is voted out in 2008.

This piece of nonsense takes the cake not just for the paranoia it demonstrates but also for the utter futility of it, not to mention its humiliating aspects for the millions who visit the US each year.

Is incurring such ill-will more US national interest than the near-zero probability that it will catch a real terrorist in this manner? Only the Bush administration is capable of thinking so.

It is also noteworthy that not a single country except Brazil has had the courage to retaliate on grounds of reciprocity "" and there a judge has stepped in. The US is pressuring it to remove the requirement.

Others, including various sanctimonious NGOs who set such high moral standards for all but themselves, have also been silent. Especially regrettable is India's acquiescence.

Gandhiji, it will be recalled, had organised his first successful protest in South Africa when Indians were asked to get cards. The Congress, one would have thought, would have organised at least a token protest. But amazingly even the Left has not done so.