Sociology

In Varadarajans 2005 commentary about terrorist profiling, it is clear that he wants to get a message across to readers about how it can be for people who are able to fit the profile of a terrorist.  Although it is sometimes unfair that many innocent people come under scrutiny, Varadarajan points out that it is common practice in many cultural circles for people who even loosely fit the profile of what could be a terrorist to be visually targeted and examined.  Although Varadarajan is of Indian decent, as are many people who are wrongly considered to perhaps be Muslim extremists in the United States, he is certainly not outside of the realm of deep mistrust.  He explains how terrorism has a way of dividing people, of making people wary of one another when otherwise they could be friendlier and more trusting.  As a person who is a member of a certain ethnicity which is similar to the ethnicity of many terrorists, Varadarajan has intimate knowledge of what it feels like to be cut off from mainstream society, to be doubted, and even to be feared.

Commentary Style
By exploring this cultural phenomena from a personal perspective, Varadarajan casts light on the ways in which people like himself are profiled, and how people can aim to analyze one another with intelligence and open mindedness.  It is interesting that although Varadarajan writes about himself as a targeted Indian, he contends that profiling does have its merits, that it is necessary for people to come under scrutiny in times of potential or actual terrorist attacks.  To not analyze potential or actual social threats would be dangerous and irresponsible of society.  However, on the other hand, he stresses that many times people should only be scrutinized, not punished.  If there is no actual evidence which matches up a face with a crime, then police and citizens alike should use much caution in not pointing the guilty finger at innocent people.  Varadarajan is correct in pointing out the example of the police offer who either hesitates or shoots his suspect.  It is always vitally important to ask oneself if the target is actually the criminal, and further, if this suspect is potentially the criminal or even actually the criminal, to consider what the correct and most prudent reaction should be.

Conclusion
Varadarajan writes his commentary from a highly personal perspective, and it is wonderful that he is able to see both the benefits and the downfalls of terrorist profiling.  Although he has endured the suspicion and mistrust of people who judge him as perhaps being a part of a terrorist organization, he understands why it is important for authorities and citizens to be careful about their surroundings and thorough in their environmental analysis.  However, as a person who is often profiled, Varadarajan is highly in touch with what it feels like to fear the possibility of having someone judge him as guilty when he is not.  He effectively communicates what he understands about societys need to scrutinize potential terrorists as well as his own need to be considered innocent until proven guilty.  Varadarajan supports the careful examination of suspects, yet correctly hopes that the justice system does not step out bounds and punish the wrong people.