View Full Version : India-US relations: cooling and warming up (merged thread)
Jedburgh
04-19-2006, 09:34 PM
...another RAND pub: War and Escalation in South Asia (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG367-1.pdf)
The advent of two nuclear powers in South Asia, discoveries of nuclear trafficking, and insurgencies and terrorism that threaten important U.S. interests and objectives directly have transformed the region from a strategic backwater into a primary theater of concern for the United States. The United States, to a great extent free of the restrictions of earlier sanction regimes and attentive to the region’s central role in the global war on terrorism (GWOT), has engaged the states of South Asia aggressively with a wide variety of policy initiatives. Despite the diversity of policy instruments, few are very powerful; indeed, only the U.S. military seems to offer many options for Washington to intensify further its security cooperation and influence in the region. This monograph highlights key factors in the region that imperil U.S. interests, and suggests how and where the U.S. military might play an expanded, influential role. The report notes that the current U.S. military force posture, disposition, and lines of command may not be optimal, given South Asia’s new status in the U.S. strategic calculus, and suggests seven key steps the military might take to improve its ability to advance and defend U.S. interests, not only in South Asia, but beyond it, including the Middle East and Asia at large. Beyond the specifics, however, the broader message arising from this analysis is straightforward: the region’s salience for U.S. policy interests has increased dramatically. It is therefore prudent to intensify Washington’s involvement in the region and to devote the resources necessary to become more influential with the governments within the region. Given the area’s potential for violence, it is also prudent to shape a part of the U.S. military to meet the potential crises emanating from South Asia, just as the United States once shaped its military presence in Western Europe for the contingencies of the Cold War.
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/1032/destabilizinginteractions0gr.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
U.S.-India Engagement: Laying the Foundations for a New Asian Security Architecture
http://www.heritage.org/Events/2011/11/US-India-Engagement
WHY INDIA IS CRUCIAL TO USA IN ASIA-PACIFIC
By Leon E. Panetta*
IDN-InDepth NewsViewpoint
NEW DELHI (IDN) - America is at a turning point. After a decade of war, we are developing a new defence strategy – a central feature of which is a "rebalancing" toward the Asia-Pacific region. In particular, we will expand our military partnerships and our presence in the arc extending from the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean region and South Asia.
Defence cooperation with India is a linchpin in this strategy. India is one of the largest and most dynamic countries in the region and the world, with one of the most capable militaries. India also shares with the United States a strong commitment to a set of principles that help maintain international security and prosperity......
http://www.indepthnews.info/index.php/global-issues/967-why-india-is-crucial-to-usa-in-asia-pacific
Growing Indo-US partnership
Need to look at domestic, regional realities
he writer is associated with the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi.
Finally, it may be noted that despite having shared values and shared interests because of the different state of domestic and regional environments, India and the US sometimes may appear to be taking different positions and postures on certain issues which should not be interpreted that they are working against each other.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/foreign-relations/34040-indo-us-strategic-dialogue-2012-a.html#post515076
Fuchs
06-14-2012, 09:53 AM
... a new defence strategy – a central feature of which is a "rebalancing" toward the Asia-Pacific region. In particular, we will expand our military partnerships and our presence in ...
This is quite some nonsense.
increased entanglement = increased probability of war = no defence strategy
increased presence in distant places = greater incentives for first strike, greater entanglement = no defence strategy
Panetta and others don't actually do or talk about defence, they do and talk about great power games. It's a small club's favourite leisure and of little use but great cost to the rest of their nation.
Politics is all about power and games!
Dayuhan
06-14-2012, 11:22 PM
Panetta and others don't actually do or talk about defence, they do and talk about great power games. It's a small club's favourite leisure and of little use but great cost to the rest of their nation.
The US government habitually classifies all military affairs under "defence"... witness, for example, Panetta's job title. It's a fairly transparent artifice, but the tradition is so well implanted that the incongruity is seldom noticed.
davidbfpo
07-23-2012, 08:50 PM
I picked up a hard copy of the USAF quarterly 'Strategic Studies Quarterly' at a London conference a week ago, having spotted an article 'Forging an Indian Partnership' and forwarded it to Ray, who responded:
It was fascinating and spot on!
Link:http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2012/summer/neuman.pdf
The article articulates the strategic necessity for the Partnership and the problem areas.
It indicates rather well how it has to be balanced to ensure that the core issues are in play.
This article from SAAG should also be read so that the perspective to the Strategic Relationship can be well understood.
INDIA-US STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP: STRATEGIC REVERBERATIONS FROM RUSSIA AND CHINA CREATE IMPLICATIONS FOR INDIA’S SECURITY
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers25%5Cpaper2423.html
davidbfpo
10-04-2012, 09:39 AM
A commentary by a previously unheard of US think tank on Asian matters, 'India’s Military Modernization: Plans and Strategic Underpinnings':http://www.nbr.org/research/activity.aspx?id=275
It certainly has some intriguing points, notably on out of area operations.
It ends with:
India’s military modernization, however slow it might be, will lead to a qualitative increase in defense cooperation with the United States and other strategic partners by enhancing the capabilities of the Indian armed forces for joint coalition operations, if they are in India’s national interest. Overall, India will gradually acquire the capability to act as a net provider of security in South Asia and the Indian Ocean region. This positive development will allow strategic partners like the United States to reduce their military commitments to the region to a limited extent. Hence, India’s modernization efforts will enhance and further cement U.S.-India relations.
Brig Gurmeet Kanwal is an interesting chap.
With the Pakistanis he is keen on selling out Siachen whereby China will have one link between the Shaksgam Valley (ceded by Pakistan to China), Karakorum and Aksai Chin and here, on the other hand, he sings a different tune.
It's time to melt frost in Siachen
GURMEET KANWAL Apr 22, 2012, 01.26AM IST
However, India should insist on building a clause into the demilitarisation agreement that in case of the agreement is violated, both sides reserve the right to take whatever action they deem fit, including offensive military measures. Simultaneously with the withdrawal of its troops from the glacial heights, India should create and maintain suitably structured reserves for counter-action across the LoC at a point of its choosing. These reserves would also be handy for intervention on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) with China should it ever become necessary.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-04-22/all-that-matters/31381836_1_saltoro-ridge-agpl-siachen
Poor chap, he does not remember how with all safeguards in place and all the peace parleys and bus ride diplomacy, Pakistan surprised India with a Kargil!
India should create and maintain suitably structured reserves for counter-action across the LoC at a point of its choosing.
This is exactly what a person who has no idea of High Altitude Warfare sitting in an armchair would advocate.
Fancy English does not change ground realities!
Bill Moore
10-21-2012, 02:11 AM
http://thediplomat.com/2012/10/20/seeing-china-through-indian-eyes-the-legacy-of-1962/2/?all=true
Fifty years ago, on the morning of October 20, 1962, China’s People’s Liberation Army assaulted Indian military positions along their disputed frontier. The Chinese attack, justified domestically and abroad as self-defense, resulted in the only major armed conflict in modern times between the world’s two most populous countries. The Indian military, poorly prepared and naively led, was routed. A second major Chinese assault the following month forced India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to write to President John F. Kennedy in desperation to request air support from the United States. Having brought India to its knees, Beijing declared a unilateral ceasefire on November 21, and the PLA withdrew to its pre-war positions.
That was 50 years ago.
By muscling up to India, what is China seeking to achieve? The present situation, ominously, is no different in several key aspects from the one that prevailed in the run-up to the 1962 war.
● The aim of “Mao’s India war” in 1962, as Harvard scholar Roderick MacFarquhar has called it, was largely political: to cut India to size by demolishing what it represented—a democratic alternative to China’s autocracy. The swiftness and force with which Mao Zedong defeated India helped discredit the Indian model, boost China’s international image, and consolidate Mao’s internal power. The return of the China-India pairing decades later riles Beijing.
● Just as the Dalai Lama’s flight to India in 1959 set the stage for the Chinese military attack, the exiled Tibetan leader today has become a bigger challenge for China than ever. The continuing security clampdown across the Tibetan plateau since the March 2008 Tibetan uprising parallels the harsh Chinese crackdown in Tibet during 1959-62.
● The prevailing pattern of cross-frontier incursions and other border incidents is no different than the situation that led up to the 1962 war. Yet, India is repeating the same mistake by playing down the Chinese intrusions. Gratuitously stretching the truth, Indian officials say the incursions are the result of differing perceptions about the line of control. But which side has refused to define the line of control? It speaks for itself that China hasn’t offered this excuse. The fact is that Chinese forces are intruding even into Utttarakhand—the only sector where the line of control has been clarified by an exchange of maps—and into Sikkim, whose 206-km border with Tibet is recognised by Beijing.
● The 1962 war occurred against the backdrop of China instigating and arming insurgents in India’s northeast. Although such Chinese activities ceased after Mao’s death, China has come full circle today, with Chinese-made arms increasingly flowing into guerrilla ranks in northeast India via Burmese front organisations. In fact, Pakistan-based terrorists targeting India also rely on Chinese arms.
● China’s pre-1962 psychological war is returning. In recent years, Beijing has employed its state-run media and nationalistic websites to warn of another armed conflict. It is a throwback to the coarse rhetoric China had used in its build-up to the 1962 war. Its People’s Daily, for example, has warned India to weigh “the consequences of a potential confrontation with China.” China merrily builds strategic projects in an internationally disputed area like PoK but responds with crude threats when others explore just for oil in the South China Sea.
● Just as India in the early 1960s retreated to a defensive position in the border negotiations after having undermined its leverage through a formal acceptance of the “Tibet region of China,” the spotlight now is on China’s revived Tibet-linked claim to Arunachal rather than on the core issue, Tibet itself. India, with its focus on process than results, has remained locked in continuous border negotiations with China since 1981—the longest and the most-fruitless process between any two nations post-Second World War. This process has only aided China’s containment-with-engagement strategy.
● In the same way that India under Nehru unwittingly created the context to embolden Beijing to wage aggression, New Delhi is again staring at the consequences of a mismanagement of relations. The more China’s trade surplus with India has swelled—jumping from $2 billion in 2002 to more than $30 billion now—the greater has been its condescension toward India. To make matters worse, the insidious, V.K. Krishna Menon-style shadow has returned to haunt Indian defence management and policy. India has never had more clueless defence and foreign ministers or a weaker Prime Minister with a credibility problem than it does today.
http://chellaney.net/2011/10/29/dragon%E2%80%99s-familiar-dance/
The Himalayan Stalemate
Retracing the India-China Dispute
Link (http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.claws.in%2Fdownload.php%3Fact ion%3D1299513429MP_27.pdf&ei=LpWDUI61DcXtrQenhYGwDw&usg=AFQjCNGvgUNA4_XyZ6FdXaGb3ccJD_7XCg)
The issue of China mentioned in the above posts are aide memoirs for understanding U.S.-India Engagement: Laying the Foundations for a New Asian Security Architecture.
Bill Moore
10-21-2012, 05:33 PM
Ray,
Extracted from the document you provided a link to, overall does India's leadership concur with the US view depicted below?
It is perhaps fair to surmise that US policy is not inclined in pursuing a zero-sum contest with China in South Asia and the rationale in opening a dialogue with Beijing on the subcontinent is to reassure China about US intentions and seek collaboration for US objectives in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Simultaneously, Washington is seeking to reassure India that a Cold War-type condominial relationship with China will not reappear in South Asia. Robert Blake, US diplomat for South Asia, remarked after his bilateral interactions with his Chinese interlocutors, “We understand that the Chinese understand that India can be a very important force for good and for stability in this part of the region. So it is important for all of us to work with India.”58 The US and India too, held their first strategic dialogue at the level of Foreign Ministers in June 2010.
I wonder if anyone believes that US line.
It merely sounds too ambivalent with loopholes.
It is the Bush dictum - either you are with us or against us - it is the reverse throwback to the US.
But then, I presume India has to make the best of a bad bargain!
I wonder if anyone trusts the Red Chinese.
“We understand that the Chinese understand that India can be a very important force for good and for stability in this part of the region. So it is important for all of us to work with India.”
This is a real gas!
The Chinese understand anything beyond their own expansionist interests? One has to check the Chinese history of imperialist expansionism to include Mao and his Red Chinese successors!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Territories_of_Dynasties_in_China.gif/300px-Territories_of_Dynasties_in_China.gif
The concept of Han culture began with the Shang dynasty, 1750 -1040 BC, whose political centre was located north of the Yellow River. The Shang provided China’s first written history as well as the assertion of central cultural superiority over the surrounding people by designating as barbarians everyone who did not yet acknowledge the central government supremacy. The Chinese distinguished between ‘raw barbarians’ (shengfan) or the unassimilated people and the ‘cooked barbarians’ (shufan) or assimilated taxpayers who enjoyed the fruits of Chinese culture. For example, Han Chinese officials separated the ‘cooked’ Li of the coast of Hainan, who enjoyed the benefits of Chinese civilisation, from the wild ‘uncooked’ Li of the central forests, far from the influences of Han culture.
Barbarians were given generic names in the Chinese classics and histories: the Yi barbarians to the east, the Man to the South, the Rong to the west and Di to the north (when westerners arrived by sea, they were officially designated until the late 19th century as Yi). Until the 1930s, the names of outgroups (wai ren) were commonly written with an animal radical: the Di, the northern tribe, were linked to the Dog; the Man and the Min of the south were characterised with reptiles; the Qiang was written with a sheep radical. This reflected the Han Chinese conviction that civilisation and culture were linked with humanity; alien groups living outside the pale of Chinese society were regarded as inhuman savages. To be labelled a barbarian was a cultural rather than racial distinction.
That the custom of sharply distinguishing went along with calling China the Middle Kingdom (zhong guo), , which began by ruling the Central Plain (zhongyang) in North China. Rather than using outright military conquest of outsiders, the theory of ‘using the Chinese ways to transform the barbarians’ (yongxiabianyi) was promulgated. By Chinese cultural absorption or racial integration through intermarriage, a barbarian could become Han Chinese (hanhua). To be counted within China, groups accepted the rituals and cosmology that gave the Han dynastic state the Mandate of Heaven to rule over mankind. Non acceptance of this politicised culture left one outside of Zhongguo or China.
This is paraphrasing from James Olsen's An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of China
omarali50
12-17-2013, 11:56 PM
Any thoughts on maid-gate or whatever they are calling the brouhaha about the Indian diplomat strip-searched in NYC?
Madhu
12-18-2013, 04:18 AM
Omar:
Maidgate is the desi Bonfire of the Vanities:
Wolfe deliberately set out to make The Bonfire of the Vanities capture the essence of New York City in the 1980s. Wall Street in the 1980s was newly resurgent after almost the whole of the 1970s had been bad for stocks. The excesses of Wall Street were at the forefront of the popular imagination, captured in films like Oliver Stone's Wall Street and in non-fiction books like Liar's Poker, Den of Thieves, and Barbarians at the Gate.
Beneath Wall Street's success, the city was a hot-bed of racial and cultural tension. Homelessness and crime in the city were growing. Several high-profile racial incidents polarized the city, particularly two black men who were murdered in white neighborhoods: Willie Turks, who was murdered in the Gravesend section of Brooklyn in 1982 and Michael Griffith in Howard Beach, Queens, in 1986. In another episode that became a subject of much media attention, Bernhard Goetz became something of a folk-hero in the city for shooting a group of black men who tried to rob him in the subway.
Burton B. Roberts, a Bronx judge known for his no-nonsense imperious handling of cases in his courtroom, became the model for the character of Myron Kovitsky in the book.[1]
1. Class (not caste, non-desis, get this straight for a change).
2. Diplomatic ineptitude, Indian and American.
3. Corruption (A desi fiddling with visa paperwork? Say it ain't so).
4. Cops treating an upper or middle class person like they treat the poor or minorities? Hey, the upper and middle class only care about police behavior when it affects them, okay? Everyone else is going to get treated like cattle, that's the Homeland Security-ization of America!
5. Election season in India.
6. Indian politicians thinking, "hey, this might get the unhappy electorate off our backs for a change. Don't look at us, look at them!"
7. Desi thin-skinnedness: "we will give them such a slap on their faces, they will never know what stings!"
8. Cable news screws up everything everywhere, you know?
And so on. I will know that the American Desi community has reached full maturity when it can satirize its own faults as well as others. And there are plenty of faults on both sides. Oh, wait, we are so beyond that. You know someone like Anna John will have a field day with this....
Maybe I should try and write the novel....haha, like I could stick to anything for that long with my ADHD....
Journalists read this site sometimes, amiright? Please use my Bonfire of the Vanities line. Please....
If by 'maidgate' it means he case of Devyani Khobargade the Indian Deputy Consul, then in so far as the case of the Deputy Counsel in NY is concerned , it is not so much for breaking of law, as it is for the 'handling' of the case, where the lady diplomat was p[ublicly handcuffed, strip searched and jailed with common criminals.
On the issue of breaking US law, there are US diplomats in India who have same sex 'companions' and that is against the Indian law.
Should India arrest them?
What would the US reaction be?
The US is notorious for 'saving' US citizens on foreign land who have broken local laws.
Take the case of Raymond Davis, the former United States Army soldier, private security firm employee, and contractor with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), who killed two Pakistanis. The US asserted that Davis was protected under the principle of diplomatic immunity due to his role as an "administrative and technical official" attached to the Lahore consulate.The U.S. government claimed that Davis was protected under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and demanded he be released from custody immediately. President Barack Obama asked Pakistan not to prosecute Davis and recognize him as a diplomat, stating, "There's a broader principle at stake that I think we have to uphold."
In the case of Devyani, she was a genuine consular diplomat.
Consular staff have lower diplomatic immunity, but are to be treated with dignity as per the Vienna Convention on Consular Staff.
May see:
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/131217/news-current-affairs/article/diplomat-arrest-india-returns-kind
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Diplomat-Devyani-strip-searched-India-snubs-US-team/articleshow/27488890.cms
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jJMNtil4LAXxYE6T7IenONUg8U6A?docId=f9c94aea-34ba-4ec1-b62a-83c921795618
Madhu
12-18-2013, 04:35 PM
You are correct Ray, US policing has ugly aspects to it that the poor and less connected are very aware of but others don't see.
Same too with the treatment of poorer migrant Indians abroad at the hands of well-to-do Indians which sometimes raises the ire of locals back home in India but often doesn't.
What you may not realize from a distance is that there is a certain amount of corruption among the Indian community living in the US that goes down very badly with long term Indian Americans. We are aware of this behavior and it is not pleasant to watch. It very much hurts some people living abroad, just as much as the bad treatment of Indians in, say, the Gulf. Some people justify anything. Perhaps this is overly coloring our perception.
But you are correct that this was handled badly and India has a complaint. But Indians are not the only people arrested for this, Saudi diplomats and others have been arrested too for abusing domestic help stateside but their cases did not get as much attention.
I just don't see how two wrongs make a right or how ###-for-tat diplomacy makes the situation any better. There are other ways to show displeasure and mete out punishment for ignoring diplomatic protocol. Others are watching both the US and India and likely making a negative judgement.
omarali50
12-18-2013, 04:57 PM
There are many aspects of maid-gate. Obviously she doesnt have any "right" to keep a maid while breaking local laws...in this case the law specifying what wages a maid should be paid. But the outrage seems more about:
1. The public arrest, strip search and imprisonment. Hardly standard practice for middle-class and above in India and not for Mafia chieftains, friends of Dick Cheney or senior bankers in the US either, so why was that done to her? My initial guess was that it was just standard NY Marshals douchebaggery, not India-specific. The police culture in the US being what it is (which is, in MANY ways, far superior to police culture in Pakistan or India, but that distinction may not be the first thought in the mind of an educated Indian, since our police douchebaggery is very class conscious and no diplomat would be treated like this in INdia or Pakistan unless express orders were given to the police to behave in this way)
2. Which brings us to the second cause of the outrage: the widespread belief that "this couldnt happen unless the state department wanted it to happen"..i.e. it is a deliberate insult.
I have no idea if it was deliberate or not. My guess would be "probably not"..at least not meant to be specially insulting. The State department may have felt the need to have her arrested because their quiet complaint (apparently sent in September to India) had not had any effect. Another cross-cultural misunderstanding perhaps? In this case the state department may have forgotten how fast things are processed in India?
But the dominant feeling among Indians on my timelines seems to be that "this was deliberate and meant to be insulting". Even if they are wrong, that is not a perception that will be very helpful to the US image in India.
The most interesting aspect could be what a friend from Mumbai has raised. He believes MANY diplomats from third world countries have maids (or semi-slaves) kept on lower wages in the same manner. And this may cause many of them to lose their maids. Oh the humanity!
I personally think the diplomat should have been charged once quiet messaging had not worked. But the public arrest and especially the strip search, were gratuitously insulting and unnecessary. And if they are standard part of american police culture, then that culture too needs to be looked at again...
Maid-gate:
I don't know much about this case. There doesn't seem to be much in the American press. So these comments will be general. Also I don't know any NYPD guys or whoever arrested her.
As far as publicly arresting somebody, that isn't unusual. You pick them where it is most convenient and if they don't like it, tough. As far as a strip search goes, that would depend mostly upon the procedures in place at the facility she was booked into. I would hope such a facility wouldn't make an exception because of somebody's status. Then of course perhaps they had discretion and chose to exercise it because she ticked them off. Also I've read that diplomats in NY severely abuse their privileges so there might be a bit of payback involved when one does a crime they can get hooked up for.
Judging by the bail, this isn't a little crime. They are taking this seriously. Lastly, it seems to me that Americans get ticked off when somebody enslaves somebody else, especially when the enslaver is a guest in the country.
If that makes American cops d--------s, so be it.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/photo/27609120.cms
The above gives the gist of the case.
The interesting issue is that while the maid was paid an appalling salary by US standards, then how is it that she will support her husband and two children the the US.
The US vets visa applications very stringently.
How come this passed muster wherein the family will surely not be able to sustain itself and will be a burden on the US?
*****************
The diplomat was subjected to also 'cavity' search.
Is wage dispute a 'grave' crime in the US?
Do those, who are not even diplomats, but are US citizens who employ the illegal Mexicans down south, subjected to these indignities?
Report: Some at U.S. diplomatic posts earn less than $1 a day
The report from the department's Office of the Inspector General looked at how the U.S. pays more than 51,000 local, non-American employees in about 170 missions. In addition to the hardship caused to the workers because of inadequate pay, the report found that the U.S. is losing staff to other higher-paying employers and may not be able to fill vacancies with qualified people.............................
The report says the hardest-hit local employees are those at the lowest levels, and quotes some employees as saying they make less than $1 a day.
Some U.S. missions are in impoverished parts of the world where low salaries are common, and there is a wide range in pay depending on what jobs are performed and where. But the report sets out a stark picture of the richest country in the world paying some of the lowest salaries.
"Twenty-seven missions presented compelling arguments that their lower-grade employees fall short of minimal living standards," the report said......
"These arguments included accounts of LE [locally employed] staff: removing children from school, cutting back to one meal a day, sending children to sell water or little cakes or toiletries on the streets ... employees depending on salary advances and defaulting on loans in order to cover basic expenses ... [pay]grades 1 to 3 earning less than $1.00 per day."
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/13/state.employees.pay/index.html?iref=werecommend
****************
May see this also
http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=821486
Ray:
The time line you cited sounds like a defense attorney's slant on things. Maybe its true. Maybe not. The criminal complaint will be the interesting thing and important thing to read. It is really the only thing that matters.
The 'diplomat' became a 'prisoner' the second she was arrested. If the jail's procedures require a cavity search during processing, then that is what will be done. She was a prisoner, not a diplomat-prisoner.
At the risk of being inflammatory, what caste is the maid and what caste is the diplomat? Who is higher in the caste pecking order?
Ray:
The time line you cited sounds like a defense attorney's slant on things. Maybe its true. Maybe not. The criminal complaint will be the interesting thing and important thing to read. It is really the only thing that matters.
The 'diplomat' became a 'prisoner' the second she was arrested. If the jail's procedures require a cavity search during processing, then that is what will be done. She was a prisoner, not a diplomat-prisoner.
At the risk of being inflammatory, what caste is the maid and what caste is the diplomat? Who is higher in the caste pecking order?
This is what the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations states:
Article 40 of Vienna Convention speaks of 'protection of consular officers'.
It says that the receiving State shall treat consular officers with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on their person, freedom or dignity.
Also, Article 41 of the convention says that consular officers are not liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority.
It further says that consular officers cannot be imprisoned or be subjected to any other form of restriction on their personal freedom, unless there is a judicial order.
In case, a consular officer is arrested, he/she should appear before the competent authorities and should be conducted with the 'respect due to him by reason of his official position', says the Convention.
Article 43 says that consular officers and consular employees shall not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the judicial or administrative authorities of the receiving State in respect of acts performed in the exercise of consular functions.
I would add that the US diplomats have been accorded facilities beyond the Convention. This includes the consular staff.
Further, the Indian Govt has allowed US diplomatic staff to being their "companions' into the country. Companions here mean same sex 'married' people.
Sec 377 of the Indian Penal Code declares homosexuality a criminal offence.
There is a clamour that these diplomatic staff have broken Indian Laws and so they must be prosecuted under Indian Laws since they have broken Indian Laws.
Further, the Indian staff in the US Embassy and the Consulates, which are taken to be sovereign US territory, are paid less than US rates of pay.
Why are the US diplomats not being subjected to the same treatment as Ms Khobragade when they are blatantly flouting US laws?
In India it is felt that the US has double standards.
*****************************
At the risk of being inflammatory, what caste is the maid and what caste is the diplomat? Who is higher in the caste pecking order?
No, you are not being inflammatory.
It is just that you feel caste is a big deal in India, To be frank it is not as is imputed by foreigners.
However, to answer your question.
Both are SCHEDULED CASTE!
Therefore the idea that high caste vs low caste is at play is not there.
It also shows that caste does not play any major role in India, unlike what is popularly felt abroad, as the whole nation is inflamed, debunking that caste plays a role in asking for justice and fairplay.
Madhu
12-19-2013, 01:35 PM
Hey carl, I was having this conversation the other day with a friend when discussing this case.
To look at everything in India through the lens of caste for India is the equivalent of using terrorism to understand everything about Muslim societies.
Corruption, connections, class privilege, regionalism, gender, language dominance and caste, among all the other myriad motivators of human behavior, matter too. It's not that caste doesn't have an importance but the world is rapidly changing and with the migration of people from rural to urban areas and the rise of NGO activists of all types with that migration comes a very complicated and dizzying perspective of change.
I can assure, those with more money lord it over those with less caste or no caste. A sense of privilege is complicated business. Why this mistake seems to keep occuring in American media of either a left or right variety is a surprise to me....
Sorry for the lecture but you know me :)
Madhu
12-19-2013, 01:44 PM
Breath in Deep: http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?edorsup=Sup&queryed=820009&querypage=8&boxid=18945&id=56829&eddate=2013-12-18&ed_date=2013-12-18&ed_code=820009&wintype=popup
There are a lot of allegations being thrown around and the reports vary depending on which source you look at, so I would be very careful. Both the diplomat and maid have reasons to put things the way each one does.
As for "Indian" opinion, if you look at the comments to many of the articles, you will find at least half of the commenters complaining about the behavior of Indian officials and they are sympathetic to the US case.
It may be that the Indian government is reacting this way because the case hits too close to home, especially with the victory of the Aam Aadmi party and others like it.
In addition, the practice of law in the US is different than in India so that is probably another reason for the misperception. Basically, I see a badly handled affair being egged on by various parties for personal benefit.
It is hard to get at the truth with the poor reporting, too.
Madhu
12-19-2013, 01:49 PM
In a highly unusual move for a federal prosecutor, US Attorney Preet Bharara issued a lengthy statement on Wednesday explaining the arrest of Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade and saying she was accorded courtesies most other defendants wouldn't get.
Here's the full statement:
There has been much misinformation and factual inaccuracy in the reporting on the charges against Devyani Khobragade. It is important to correct these inaccuracies because they are misleading people and creating an inflammatory atmosphere on an unfounded basis. Although I am quite limited in my role as a prosecutor in what I can say, which in many ways constrains my ability here to explain the case to the extent I would like, I can nevertheless make sure the public record is clearer than it has been thus far.
First, Ms. Khobragade was charged based on conduct, as is alleged in the Complaint, that shows she clearly tried to evade U.S. law designed to protect from exploitation the domestic employees of diplomats and consular officers. Not only did she try to evade the law, but as further alleged, she caused the victim and her spouse to attest to false documents and be a part of her scheme to lie to U.S. government officials. So it is alleged not merely that she sought to evade the law, but that she affirmatively created false documents and went ahead with lying to the U.S. government about what she was doing. One wonders whether any government would not take action regarding false documents being submitted to it in order to bring immigrants into the country. One wonders even more pointedly whether any government would not take action regarding that alleged conduct where the purpose of the scheme was to unfairly treat a domestic worker in ways that violate the law. And one wonders why there is so much outrage about the alleged treatment of the Indian national accused of perpetrating these acts, but precious little outrage about the alleged treatment of the Indian victim and her spouse?
Second, as the alleged conduct of Ms. Khobragade makes clear, there can be no plausible claim that this case was somehow unexpected or an injustice. Indeed, the law is clearly set forth on the State Department website. Further, there have been other public cases in the United States involving other countries, and some involving India, where the mistreatment of domestic workers by diplomats or consular officers was charged criminally, and there have been civil suits as well. In fact, the Indian government itself has been aware of this legal issue, and that its diplomats and consular officers were at risk of violating the law. The question then may be asked: Is it for U.S. prosecutors to look the other way, ignore the law and the civil rights of victims (again, here an Indian national), or is it the responsibility of the diplomats and consular officers and their government to make sure the law is observed?
Third, Ms. Khobragade, the Deputy General Consul for Political, Economic, Commercial and Women's Affairs, is alleged to have treated this victim illegally in numerous ways by paying her far below minimum wage, despite her child care responsibilities and many household duties, such that it was not a legal wage. The victim is also alleged to have worked far more than the 40 hours per week she was contracted to work, and which exceeded the maximum hour limit set forth in the visa application. Ms. Khobragade, as the Complaint charges, created a second contract that was not to be revealed to the U.S. government, that changed the amount to be paid to far below minimum wage, deleted the required language protecting the victim from other forms of exploitation and abuse, and also deleted language that stated that Ms. Khobragade agreed to "abide by all Federal, state, and local laws in the U.S." As the Complaint states, these are only "in part" the facts, and there are other facts regarding the treatment of the victim - that were not consistent with the law or the representations made by Ms. Khobragade -- that caused this Office and the State Department, to take legal action.
No handcuffs according to one account. I would be very careful of stories from both sides....
http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/devyani-khobragade-case-full-statement-issued-by-us-attorney-preet-bharara-460476
Once again, if I can find the comments to the articles in the Indian papers, I will show you that "India" has varying opinions. Those that are the target of corrupt Indian officials may have a more nuance view of the situation than the upper classes which seem especially rattled by this case. I would encourage reading the comments to the Indian papers, you will find a mix of opinion where interpretation will vary depending on how you look at the comments.
Madhu
12-19-2013, 01:52 PM
What evidence supports this grand assertion? Portions of the electorate are inflamed, the media is inflamed, the political class is inflamed, some middle class commenters appear inflamed, but I have seen a lot of complaints too against the type of person the diplomat is supposed to represent.
The vast majority of people in India likely have never even heard of this case, I bet or it is of a peripheral concern.
But what evidence supports either claim, yours or mine? Hard evidence?
Madhu
12-19-2013, 01:54 PM
If American diplomats are not behaving according to local law, then the local law is responsible. But if the cases is only enforced when there is some largely political point to make, then it is not the rule of law.
A difference between some countries and legal systems.
Madhu
12-19-2013, 02:54 PM
I am sure the anger is real and even deserved but what is really going on in terms of the public way all of this is being handled? Or, like the Italian fisherman case or the Advancort case, is their a sense that a certain kind of sovereignty must be asserted?
Like most scandals that hit the public eye, the situation is often more complicated than initial narratives show.
None of which makes me happy about a certain kind of policing in the States, I am just wondering about grandstanding for political effect?
New Delhi, India (CNN) -- Led by an anti-corruption activist, a new political party that claims to champion ordinary Indian voters made a startling electoral debut in the capital New Delhi in regional Legislative Assembly polls, emerging as the second-most powerful grouping in results announced Sunday.
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which in Hindi means the Common Man's Party, won 28 of the 70 boroughs in the state of New Delhi in regional Legislative Assembly elections held on December 4, results posted on the website of the nation's poll watchdog showed.
Headed by a former tax official, Arvind Kejriwal, the AAP was formed on November 26, 2012, taking up its election symbol -- the broom -- only a few months ago.
Kejriwal -- who won a Ramon Magsaysay Award, regarded as Asia's Nobel Prize, in 2006 -- fought the elections himself, defeating New Delhi's three-time chief minister Sheila Dik#### by more than 22,000 votes in a poll that drew more than 11 million voters.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/09/world/asia/india-election-party/
Madhu
12-19-2013, 02:57 PM
India has taken a muscular stand in summoning US Ambassador Nancy Powell, stripping US diplomats of identification cards that give them diplomatic benefits, and removing security barriers outside the US embassy in New Delhi.
Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/world/devyani-khobragade-case-india-may-end-nanny-service-for-diplomats-1293349.html?utm_source=ref_article
Because removing security barriers and creating an unsafe situation for people that have nothing to do with the original case, thereby punishing the wrong party, is a good way to handle things. I am sure other nations are looking at this and thinking, "what an impressive muscular show."
The average Indian is probably, "so, when are you going to be this zealous about bad police treatment at home in India?"
None of which excuses any alleged bad behavior by the Americans.
Are there any adults left out there, any decent public officials on any side? Of course there are but what a depressing spectacle of incompetence by multiple parties.
If American diplomats are not behaving according to local law, then the local law is responsible.
This is a valid point.
The Indian Govt rolls over and plays dead all the time.
It sudden waking up does indicate that the ruling political party, which is down in the dumps and has lost four State election wants to project that it has suddenly developed courage to assert itself!
Where were they when China and Pakistan heaped the indignities?
The removing of special privilege to the US and its Embassy and Consulate staff or removing barriers should have been done long ago, so that there was a level playing field for all, since most countries are under the threat of terrorism.
There is hardly any positive movement from either side of 'strategic partnership' beyond the cosmetic.
Therefore, according special privileges not accorded to other nation is pointless.
This is a valid issue that requires attention
Article 47
EXEMPTION FROM WORK PERMITS
1. Members of the consular post shall, with respect to services rendered for the sending State, be exempt from any obligations in regard to work permits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State concerning the employment of foreign labour.
2. Members of the private staff of consular officers and of consular employees shall, if they do not carry on any other gainful occupation in the receiving State, be exempt from the obligations referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/data/Kutuphane/MultilateralConventions/ViennaConventiononConsularRelations.pdf
The maid was on an official passport.
Her demand was also to get her a normal passport.
jmm99
12-19-2013, 06:56 PM
both prosecutor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preet_Bharara)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e3/Bharara%2C_Preet_Headshot.jpg/343px-Bharara%2C_Preet_Headshot.jpg
and accused
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/thumb/msid-27538097,width-310,resizemode-4/diplomat-devyani-khobragade-case-vhp-demands-strict-and-quick-action-by-centre.jpg
were born in India.
This is a Federal case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devyani_Khobragade) - not a NY state case (not NYC cops and prosecutors). If you are familiar with current US Marshal Service (http://www.justice.gov/marshals/) procedures for arrest and detention (I'm not), you can tell whether guidelines were met or not. The following is from the Wiki, based on media accounts; only provides a framework and has to be confirmed by reference to the court documents:
Charges on Devyani Khobragade
Devyani Khobragade was charged on December 11, 2013, by a Special Agent with the United States Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service. The charge alleges that Khobragade committed Visa Fraud willfully and under penalty of perjury under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1746. It further alleges that Khobragade submitted an employment contract to the U.S. Department of State, in support of a visa application filed by Khobragade for another individual, which she knew to contain materially false and fraudulent statements[16].
Under the verbal agreement in India, it is alleged, Khobragade agreed to pay a starting salary of 25,000 rupees per month, plus an additional 5,000 rupees for overtime. Based on exchange rate at that time 30,000 rupees is equivalent to $573.07 U.S. dollars[16] which at 40 hours per week equates to a rate of $3.31 per hour.
In the visa application form submitted on October 15, 2012, however, Khobragade made a statement that she would be paying Sangeeta around $4,500 per month, the complaint says.[16]
Also Khobragade executed a contract with Sangeeta Richard which stipulated her hourly salary in the U.S. would be $9.75 and that the normal working hours per week shall be 40. This contract was submitted to the U.S. government as part of the visa application. Khobragade also instructed her not to say anything to the embassy interviewer about being paid 30,000 rupees per month.[16]
It is alleged that shortly before departing to the airport in India, Khobragade asked Richard to sign another employment contract, which was not to be revealed to the U.S. government.[17] As per this contract she was to be paid an expected salary of Rs. 30,000 per month.[16]
Arrest
Based on the charges filed by by a Special Agent with the United States Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service, the United States Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman issued an arrest warrant against Khobragade. Khobragade was arrested in New York on December 12, 2013 by United States Marshals after she dropped her daughter at school[18].
She was later handcuffed; strip searched, which allegedly included a cavity search[19] and confined with other prisoners after her detention. Khobragade was detained for six hours and released on a $250,000 bond after pleading not guilty and surrendering her passport.[2][3][5][6]
Reactions
United States
On December 18, 2013, John Kerry expressed regret over the arrest and strip-search of the Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade and empathised as a father of two daughters at similar age as Khobragade. [20]
Manhattan federal prosecutor Preet Bharara whose office had filed the charges,[21][22] defended the handling of the arrest and custody, though his office was not involved. He claimed that Khobragade was accorded courtesies well beyond what other defendants, most of whom are American citizens, are accorded. [17]
(footnotes in original).
The official DoJ (Southern District of New York) statement (http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/December13/KhobragadeStatement.php) deals with the prosecution, and not directly with the whys and wherefores of the original complainant, the reviewing magistrate and the arresting officers.
The complaint is here (http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/December13/KhobragadeArrestPR/Khobragade,%20Devyani%20Complaint.pdf) - two counts.
18 USC § 1546 - Fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1546).
18 USC § 1001 - Statements or entries generally (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001).
18 USC § 1002 - Possession of false papers to defraud United States (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1002).
These are 5-10 year felonies.
BTW: I tend to agree with Ray about the almost terminal stupidity of the US DoS when it comes to India - an opinion developed over the years (which takes us far from this case - or the 1971 war, for that matter).
And, John Kerry, again tries to own both sides of an issue, Devyani Khobragade Row: Secretary Of State John Kerry Expresses ‘Regret,’ While US Prosecutor Defends The Arrest (http://www.ibtimes.com/devyani-khobragade-row-secretary-state-john-kerry-expresses-regret-while-us-prosecutor-defends) (by Amrutha Gayathri, December 19 2013). Does Mr Kerry disown the complaint brought by his own department's Mark Smith (http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/December13/KhobragadeArrestPR/Khobragade,%20Devyani%20Complaint.pdf)? Not that I can see. So, we have something of a "non-regret, regret".
Regards
Mike
Sorry for the lecture but you know me :)
I don't mind and I don't think it is a lecture. It is just passing on some things you know that I don't. You, Ray and Omar are my go to girl and guys on the sub-continent.
Ray:
All those things you bring up will be adjudicated.
From what I understand Preet Bharara is a very sharp guy and a very hardnosed guy. On CNBC they always remark that he is one guy you don't want to be going after you.
One interesting thing he brought up in the statement Madhu linked to is there is vocal exception taken to the treatment of Ms. Khobragade but not such vocal exception taken to the treatment of Ms. Richard.
I have another question. Is Ms. Khobragade politically connected somehow? Is she related to somebody big? If she was a diplomat from Africa or Chicago I would say darn right she is. But I don't know about India so much.
As I have no knowledge about the case itself I won't comment on the legal aspects but it is certainly difficult to imagine such a thing happening consciously to a foreign person of such status in Italy. Not that every foreigner is handled (http://www.corriere.it/cronache/13_dicembre_17/lampedusa-fila-nudi-freddo-disinfestazione-choc-migranti-fddc59a8-6718-11e3-b0a6-61a50f6cb301.shtml) with kid gloves.
Procedures may be procedures and everybody might get treated according to the same rigid rules but I'm pretty sure quite a few guys in Washington are less then happy about the actions. In general a more relaxed approach to persons with some diplomatic status is more diplomatic and benefits the host nation more. If the Indian side was informed by the potential issue over diplomatic channels I'm still somewhat surprised that the US side of those channels did not make it, in their own interest, 'clear' to the prosecutor stating that the specific dipomatic status 'did' protect her.
The world of diplomats quite a few players will take note of the US way to interpret the specific status and on the actions of it's police force. Who knows what the future brings.
omarali50
12-19-2013, 11:00 PM
+1
Firn:
One of the characteristics of the American persona is that 'I am just as good a man as you are'. From that you get everybody gets treated the same, especially when dealing with the cops. Not that is an ideal, not always in play, but the ideal.
If somebody from DC was to interfere with a criminal prosecution because 'She's special', that wouldn't go over too big with the Americans. No, that wouldn't go over at all. Not to mention that if the US Attorney could be so easily influenced with a discreet word, you don't really have the rule of law do you?
Actually, for a lot of us flyover people, we don't give a hoot if the guys in Washington are less than happy. Defenestrate 'em.
jmm99
12-20-2013, 12:19 AM
from arraignment before the Federal magistrate (pursuant to the DoS complaint which we have) about 4pm, she was in custody of the US Marshals Service from about noon. This was the most verbatim statement I could find, as reported by PTI, US Marshals (http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/devyani-not-subjected-to-cavity-search-claims-us-marshals-113121901207_1.html) (Press Trust of India, Washington, December 19, 2013):
Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade, arrested last week in New York on charges of visa fraud, was not subject to cavity search, as being alleged, the US Marshals Services claimed today.
"In reference to your question about the cavity search, the answer is no," Nikki Credic-Barrett, spokesperson of the US Marshals Service, told PTI in response to a question on the allegations by the family of the senior Indian diplomat that she was subject to cavity search.
"Devyani Khobragade was transferred to the US Marshals at approximately noon, December 12, pending her initial appearance before a United States federal magistrate judge," the spokesperson said.
"After her appearance, she was released at approximately 4 p.M. The same day. Khobragade was subject to the same search procedures as other arrestees held within the general prisoner population in the Southern District of New York, which in this case was a strip-search," Credic-Barrett said.
"In reference to the DNA swab, the responsibility for collection of a DNA sample was that of the arresting agency, US Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security," she said when asked about the allegations of DNA swab.
The applicable USMS Directive is here (http://www.usmarshals.gov/foia/Directives-Policy/prisoner_ops/body_searches.pdf); and the point of controversy will be this:
3. Strip Search: A complete search of a prisoner's attire and a visual inspection of the prisoner's naked body, including body cavities. The following procedures are applicable to a strip search:
a. Strip searches on prisoners in custody are authorized when there is reasonable suspicion that the prisoner may be (a) carrying contraband and/or weapons, or (b) considered to be a security, escape, and/or suicide risk. Reasonable suspicion may be based upon, but is not limited to, one or more of the following criteria:
1) Serious nature of the offense(s) charged, i.e., whether crime of violence or drugs;
2) Prisoner's appearance or demeanor;
3) Circumstances surrounding the prisoner's arrest or detention; i.e., whether the prisoner has been convicted or is a pretrial detainee;
4) Prisoner's criminal history;
5) Type and security level of institution in which the prisoner is detained; or
6) History of discovery of contraband and/or weapons, either on the prisoner individually or in the institution in which prisoners are detained.
I expect the USMS will defend its officers' decision on the basis of 5 & 6.
Please note that this is a "false statement" case - a Martha Stewart redux; and technically the legality of the search does not bear on that charge.
And, a "whoa Silver" on those talking about generic "US police". This case was brought by the US Department of State - and the arrest and initial custody (until noon) was by DoS Diplomatic Security officers. I expect that we'll also find out that some diplomatic "back channeling" went on before the arrest.
Regards
Mike
India-US diplomat row: The Devyani Khobragade case looks all maid up
Why did the US grant visas to Sangeeta Richard's family and fly them out to the US two days before Devyani was arrested?
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-india-us-diplomat-row-the-devyani-khobragade-case-looks-all-maid-up-1937478
Why did the US grant visas to Sangeeta Richard's family and fly them out to the US two days before Devyani was arrested?
About that question, Preet Bharara had this to say:
"Fifth, as has been reported, the victim's family has been brought to the United States. As also has been reported, legal process was started in India against the victim, attempting to silence her, and attempts were made to compel her to return to India. Further, the Victim's family reportedly was confronted in numerous ways regarding this case. Speculation about why the family was brought here has been rampant and incorrect. Some focus should perhaps be put on why it was necessary to evacuate the family and what actions were taken in India vis-a-vis them. This Office and the Justice Department are compelled to make sure that victims, witnesses and their families are safe and secure while cases are pending."
It appears you don't want to mess with Mr. Bharara.
About that question, Preet Bharara had this to say:
"Fifth, as has been reported, the victim's family has been brought to the United States. As also has been reported, legal process was started in India against the victim, attempting to silence her, and attempts were made to compel her to return to India. Further, the Victim's family reportedly was confronted in numerous ways regarding this case. Speculation about why the family was brought here has been rampant and incorrect. Some focus should perhaps be put on why it was necessary to evacuate the family and what actions were taken in India vis-a-vis them. This Office and the Justice Department are compelled to make sure that victims, witnesses and their families are safe and secure while cases are pending."
It appears you don't want to mess with Mr. Bharara.
I think it is disingenuous of Bharara or anyone to feel that the US is the sole refuge for justice in the whole world, while every other country's systems and judiciary are flawed. It does appear a bit arrogant, if not supercilious, to those who are not Americans.
The necessity about 'evacuating' is really hilarious. Is India a totalitarian State? In fact, the manner in which the NYPD reacts like wild men on the loose to situations is legend. And then they also go scot free! Does not speak highly of US justice, does it?
What makes Bharrara feel that in India people are compelled to make sure that victims, witnesses and their families are safe and secure while cases are pending?
Let me also add that people of Indian origin have this tendency to out American Americans to prove they are more American than America. Bararra is no exception nor is a chap called Ravi Batra I saw on TV who instead of answering questions went into a hyperbolic ecstasy talking of the US constitution being the greatest in the world and such tripe. He was hilarious!
The summary of the case (take it for what it is worth) is here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devyani_Khobragade_incident
This case has got the majority of Indians indignant, not on the legal aspect, but the violation of diplomatic niceties and moralising with pious justification, more so, when US diplomats pay less than a one dollar to their paid help in third world countries as is reported by the US documents itself! I wonder how come the US Govt and the US courts do not find it a violation, when the Embassies and Consulates are taken to be US territories! Surely, the pontificating US State Dept can take suo moto congnisance. And what about the only court in the world that gives Justice (as is claimed) – the US Courts?
The worry that I have is that there is a real and genuine revulsion in India over the insensitive US' handling of the case.
The danger is that it may push India away from the US and into the opposite camp.
It might mean "Hi Yo, Silver away!'.
The case and its outcome does not worry me.
What worries me is the repercussion on the Indo US relationship.
Firn:
One of the characteristics of the American persona is that 'I am just as good a man as you are'. From that you get everybody gets treated the same, especially when dealing with the cops. Not that is an ideal, not always in play, but the ideal.
If somebody from DC was to interfere with a criminal prosecution because 'She's special', that wouldn't go over too big with the Americans. No, that wouldn't go over at all. Not to mention that if the US Attorney could be so easily influenced with a discreet word, you don't really have the rule of law do you?
Actually, for a lot of us flyover people, we don't give a hoot if the guys in Washington are less than happy. Defenestrate 'em.
I actually expected such a response which contains some arguments I do admire to a good degree.
I just want to add three line of thoughts:
1) Looking at some stats and taking into account a couple of papers I have read it is quite obvious that people in the US tend to get treated differently by the security forces and judicial system according to gender, race, age, wealth and location. It is difficult to argue that the US stands out in equal treatment compared to other Western democracies. Overall a strong push towards an equal approach is good as it pulls it against all too common bias into the right direction.
Interestingly sometimes a high status might cause you to get worse treatment because it can earn some agents points in the eyes of the public. You end up with things which are sometimes against the interest of the public but get it's approval and helps someones self-interest.
2) I think it is undeniable that the person in question is 'special'. Not special as a human but as a rappresentative of a foreign power, even more so an important one. There is a long list of reasons manifested in human history and practical politics why diplomats get treated differently, especially if you are not on friendly terms with the other side. It costs a modern state in general extremely little to create a environment which can help to promote it's interests. If you want to screw another powers diplomant you want to do it for a good political reason as a 'bad' treatment of a rappresentative gets easily seen as a bad treatment of the whole nation.
3) In my opinion it is not against the rule of law if the US foreign department interprets an international convention in a broad sense if it is in the interest of the nation and tells its internal organs so.
Ray already mentioned in addition what angried a good deal of well-connected people in India:
This case has got the majority of Indians indignant, not on the legal aspect, but the violation of diplomatic niceties and moralising with pious justification, more so, when US diplomats pay less than a one dollar to their paid help in third world countries as is reported by the US documents itself! I wonder how come the US Govt and the US courts do not find it a violation, when the Embassies and Consulates are taken to be US territories! Surely, the pontificating US State Dept can take suo moto congnisance. And what about the only court in the world that gives Justice (as is claimed) – the US Courts?
I have no doubt that the Italian/European reaction would be quite similar.
Ray:
I don't think Mr. Bharara is making any judgments about the US vs the world in the justice dept. I think he is making a specific judgment about how his victim will be treated in India. For better or worse, good info or bad, he wants to get her and her family out of there, so he did. It's his call. We don't know what threat he thought they faced but I would note that this case pits a person of high status whom I'll bet is politically connected against a domestic servant.
I don't know if Americans with Indian origins act like that. I've known a number of them and they seem pretty average to me. High achievers but average in their political views.
Madhu cautions about saying the bulk of Indians are upset about this. Maybe they are. But I figure the bulk of the Indians are closer to Ms. Richard in status than they are to the diplomat so maybe they ain't so upset. The chattering classes are upset is appears though.
The thing you have to remember is from the American point of view, this has nothing to do with the country of India or the dignity thereof. It has to do with an arrogant individual who was throwing her weight around and picking on somebody who was weaker. Not only that she was doing it in violation of American law in the US. This is a 'Who the hell do you think you are?' thing directed at an individual. If people in India are figuring it is directed at India, they are wrong. And if she is given special treatment for her individual actions because she is perceive as a reification of India, then she is gaming the system.
I actually expected such a response which contains some arguments I do admire to a good degree.
Yes sir. You put out the bait and I'll go for it.
Tell me exactly what you mean in your point number 1. There are of course inconsistencies in how the law is applied here. There are in all countries, but I am interested in what things precisely you are talking about.
In your point 2 I would contest the use of the word "screw". Ms. Khobragade was arrested on criminal charges. She wasn't picked up for nothing. If she violates the law, a serious violation, and gets picked up, that isn't getting screwed, that's getting arrested. If that is objected to, that is asking for special treatment beyond her status. That rubs us flyover people the wrong way.
[/QUOTE]
To be honest I'm not in the business of laying out baits, as I gain nothing from having you on my hook. :wry:
I think in short I wanted to say that in any country, including the US people are getting treated in different ways for a couple of reasons despite the enshrined 'equal' treament. Nobody is much holier then the other in this regard and trying to get more equal is a good thing. There are however some obvious and distinct exceptions to the general rule and among those people are diplomats and their staff to a good degree.
There are certainly no 'better' humans then you or me but their are special due to the special powers bestowed upon them by their country and international conventions. It is just pragmatic for pretty much every country to treat them with care and courtesy, no *** required and in doubt the State department should stick to a fitting interpretation of their status.
All in all I have said my bit and with that I will step out of the discussion.
Merry Christmas and holidays for those who get them.
Yes sir. You put out the bait and I'll go for it.
Tell me exactly what you mean in your point number 1. There are of course inconsistencies in how the law is applied here. There are in all countries, but I am interested in what things precisely you are talking about.
In your point 2 I would contest the use of the word "screw". Ms. Khobragade was arrested on criminal charges. She wasn't picked up for nothing. If she violates the law, a serious violation, and gets picked up, that isn't getting screwed, that's getting arrested. If that is objected to, that is asking for special treatment beyond her status. That rubs us flyover people the wrong way.
Actually, as per the Vienna Convention for Consular Staff Article 47 on Exemption from Work Permits,
1. Members of the consular post shall, with respect to services rendered for the sending State, be exempt from any obligations in regard to work permits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State concerning the employment of foreign labor.
2. Members of the private staff of consular officers and of consular employees shall, if they do not carry on any other gainful occupation in the receiving State, be exempt from the obligations referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.
It must also be remembered that the US is a signatory to the Vienna Convention for Consular Staff.
In view of the above, one should not forget:
1. Ms Richard, the maid, was on a consular staff visa and not an ordinary visa.
2. Ms Richards' employment was thus exempt from any obligations in regard to work permits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State
3. Ms Richard wanted Ms Khobargade to change her passport to an ordinary one so that she could get employment in the US, contrary to the provision of the Vienna Convention for Consular staff which forbids 'do not carry on any other gainful occupation in the receiving State'.
Ms Khobargade, reported the issue to the US Govt and NYPD 5 times and no action was taken.
The maid vanished and her husband and children were whisked away from India under T Visa, which is trafficking visa, when they were facing criminal charges in an Indian Court.
Therefore, MS Khobargade violated no law of the US and instead was perfectly correct as per the international Convention ie the Vienna Convention.
The visa to the maid was given by the US Embassy after interviewing her individually and the maid herself signed the necessary documents including declarations.
Therefore, where has she (ms Khobargade) gone wrong?
Further, is a wage dispute a serious crime? or a 'grave crime' in the US?
Dayuhan
12-21-2013, 08:53 AM
While I'm not a lawyer, I'd guess that the points of contention might be...
with respect to services rendered for the sending State
Whether or not personal services are considered "services rendered for the sending state" might be open to some interpretation.
exempt from any obligations in regard to work permits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State concerning the employment of foreign labor.
That would only cover obligations in regard to work permits, not obligations involving wages, working hours or conditions, etc.
While I'm not a lawyer, I'd guess that the points of contention might be...
Whether or not personal services are considered "services rendered for the sending state" might be open to some interpretation.
That would only cover obligations in regard to work permits, not obligations involving wages, working hours or conditions, etc.
One would surely be enlightened to know what service a maid does 'in services for the sending states'.
Are 'Members of the private staff of consular officers' to work for the State?
The little that I understand of the English Language, it appears clear for comprehension, but then I could be wrong!
Ray:
All those legal points will be adjudicated. As I said, Mr. Bharara is reputed to be a very sharp guy so I doubt he will bring a weak case.
As for all the other things, when dealing with American public opinion that doesn't make a big difference. If a foreign diplomat is seen as using the letter of the law to abuse a domestic servant or evade American law, people are going to get very, very upset. Causing the people of the host country to get very upset is not a diplomatic thing to do. I think we look at it along the lines of 'You ain't gonna get away with that here.'
Also I don't know so many details of the case but as far as public opinion goes, a powerful person like Ms. Khobragade isn't going to get much sympathy here if she is whining (and it will be perceived as whining) about her maid.
jmm99
12-21-2013, 04:20 PM
this is not a work visa case or a wages & hours case. It is a false statement case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements).
Let us assume beyond argument that Ms. Khobragade had no obligation re: a work visa and no obligation to pay a given wage. Just as Martha Stewart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Stock_trading_case_and_conviction) had no obligation to make any statements to the Federal investigators.
But, Ms. Khobragade did make statements (so the State Department alleges in its complaint - and in writing). Which is why I've always advised my clients not to make statements to the government, state or Federal - unless really necessary; and then be careful.
Solomon L. Wisenberg suggests simply asking for the agent's business card and saying, "[M]y attorney will be in contact with you." How to Avoid Going to Jail under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 for Lying to Government Agents. (http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/how-to-avoid-going-to-jail-under-18-u-s-c-section-1001-for-lying.html)
Good Advice.
Regards
Mike
New Delhi, Dec. 27: The brightest minds of the foreign policy establishment in India and the US can be trusted to find a way out of the nanny mess and ensure that Devyani Khobragade’s “full diplomatic immunity” that preceded her arrest is not undermined.
But countless Indians are still trying to figure out one question: did the super-smart Americans misread the figure of $4,500 in the visa form of the housekeeper, Sangeeta Richard, as her salary while it was that of the Indian diplomat?
The issue goes to the heart of a key section of the US visa application that tens of thousands of Indians travelling to America for work fill each year.
The Telegraph tries to find out what happened, given incessant form-filling is a national sport that few Indians can avoid playing if they want to be part of the system.
What is this $4,500 all about?
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1131228/jsp/frontpage/story_17728436.jsp#.Ur5SyfQW3Kc
India's ###-for-tat forces US ambassador Nancy Powell to call off Nepal vacation?
NEW DELHI: US ambassador Nancy Powell had a first-hand experience of India's ire as officials here politely declined to accord her special airport privileges for her Christmas vacation to Nepal.
The government had on December 19 - a week after the arrest of diplomat Devyani Khobragade — withdrawn all special airport passes to the US diplomats that allowed them access to several places at the airport not just while travelling but also for receiving and seeing off guests. It said this was a reciprocal measure as Indian diplomats were not given the same passes in the US. .....
After receiving a communication from the US Embassy about Powell's plan to travel to Nepal, the government declined to accord her any special privileges as her airport pass stood withdrawn. The ambassador's special pass came with a photo identity card unlike the "floating passes" reserved for junior diplomats. The withdrawal of the pass means that Powell will have to travel like an ordinary passenger. She will be forced to stand in a queue and also lend herself to routine frisking by security personnel.
Sources said Powell will not get any privilege in India that her Indian counterpart in the US doesn't get. The government justified this saying that Indian ambassador to the US too travels like an ordinary person. Officials cited the example of the then Indian ambassador to the US Meera Shankar, who was subjected to a public pat-down by security officials at Jackson-Evers International Airport in Mississippi in 2010. She was subjected to a secondary screening by security officials despite Shankar having presented her diplomatic credentials. India's envoy to the UN Hardeep Puri was also detained at Houston airport in Texas after he refused to take his turban off......
The US continues to seek more time for submitting details sought by India, including salaries paid to all Indian staff employed at the US consulates, citing Christmas and New Year vacations. They have also not filed the details of salaries paid to Indian staff and others in their schools in Delhi and Chennai.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indias-###-for-tat-forces-US-ambassador-Nancy-Powell-to-call-off-Nepal-vacation/articleshow/28023263.cms
An Indian government official said on Friday that New Delhi had asked the US embassy to provide details about people working in American schools and other US government facilities to determine if they had permission to do so and if they were paying taxes that are mandatory under Indian law.
Diplomats' spouses who take up work in schools or other embassy facilities are supposed to inform the host country.
Violations of this kind had often been ignored, but now India would not turn a blind eye, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/devyani-khobragade-case-india-seeks-possible-us-tax-violations-as-stand-hardens/articleshow/28014028.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
The whole issue is souring relations especially when it was getting better all the time.
Ray:
If the Indians cut down the imperial trappings of American diplomats in India, I for one am all for it.
I have a story about that. Years ago the Chinese Ambassador came to the city I was police officering in and I was appointed the state's security detail to him. Little old me, a force of 1 to guard him and his entourage, which consisted of his wife and one other guy. And I went home when he went to bed. I showed up the next morning to find he was out taking a morning stroll by himself. He arrived in the state via commercial airline and was driven around in a rental car. All in all I thought that was all pretty cool and he and his entourage were very gracious to me. That was cool too. So anyway if the ambassador from a country of a billion people can do things plain I don't see why our people in India can't do things plain too, even if they have to be nudged a little.
(One of the Chinese guys, some kind of press attache, who met the Ambassador at the airport but was not part of his entourage turned out to be a real honest to goodness Red Chinese spy. He later got caught crashing through a fence at a national lab in a car. Maybe he wasn't such a good spy.)
Whatever.
This spat has really upset the Indians and they are livid.
Not a good thing to happen just when things were warming up.
Ray:
Long term this will have no effect on US-Indian relations. Our interests are just too closely aligned. Red China, freedom of navigation and the possibility of Pak army nukes going walkabout easily trump this.
That said things will be roiled for awhile. It is my opinion that over here, to the extent this is viewed at all it is viewed as some rich b---h throwing her weight around and picking on a poor person. There will be very little sympathy for that.
Ray:
Long term this will have no effect on US-Indian relations. Our interests are just too closely aligned. Red China, freedom of navigation and the possibility of Pak army nukes going walkabout easily trump this.
That said things will be roiled for awhile. It is my opinion that over here, to the extent this is viewed at all it is viewed as some rich b---h throwing her weight around and picking on a poor person. There will be very little sympathy for that.
In the long term it will affect the US India relationship.
India is livid.
Red China is an issue with India, but then one never knows if the US action that it has taken violating international conventions will create some sort of an understanding with China and Russia.
It is not a rich b throwing her weight against a poor person. The poor person is another street smart scum who is aware how to make the US do gooders jump to her side, so as to manipulate a US citizenship - the Holy Grail that all the lower income group of India years to achieve.
Read this please:
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/right-and-wrong/entry/our-pride-and-the-nri-prejudice
TO be frank, the bon homie and the growing fondness of the US in India seems to have evaporated with this case.
We, in India, are aware of how people try all sorts of tricks, including getting married to US/ UK citisnes to divorce later, just to get into US/ UK and get a citizenship.
All aid and done, opportunities to eke an existence are greater and easier in western countries than in India.
One should see the huge number of 'care givers' who go to Canada and elsewhere. They hang around and they get the citizenship.
Western countries, for reasons best known to them, go out of their way in the game of 'political correctness', turning a blind eye to the reality of the ground situation.
Also read this:
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-12-28/news/45653235_1_visa-policy-diplomatic-visa-narendra-modi
It indicates that the US has scant regards for foreign court adjudicating on their own citizens.
All I can say is that the US has not read the tea leaves right and it is indeed sad situation for those who rooted for the US in India.
The fear is the reversal to the old days that may happen if this spat is not sorted out quickly.
Devyani case: Strong Indian response shocks US officials
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/devyani-case-strong-indian-response-shocks-us-officials/442250-3.html
A special group in India’s foreign ministry meets tomorrow to scrutinise the wages. US missions and envoys’ homes are treated as American territory. The missions have missed a December 23 deadline to furnish the wage details, sought in the wake of diplomat Devyani Khobragade’s arrest on wage-linked charges related to a nanny.
Information with the ministry suggests Indian cooks and drivers at US missions were paid Rs 12,000-15,000 per month, the sources said. That is around $200-$250, below the figure of $1,160 based on the New York minimum wage of $7.25 per hour that Khobragade is accused of not paying.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1131230/jsp/nation/story_17733535.jsp#.UsGlDPQW3Kc
India's unusual tough stand on the arrest of its diplomat Devyani Khobragade has forced the US to initiate an "inter-agency review" to look into the lapses that happened in the high-profile case that triggered an uproar in India and strained bilateral ties.....
"An inter-agency review is going on right now to look into the lapses that happened in the case," sources told PTI.
In a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that there was a "judgemental error" in handling this case, sources said the inter-agency team led by the State Department is "working 24X7" to get it resolved as quickly as possible.
Now that the matter has landed up in the judiciary, a lot depends on the judges too - for which the Department of Justice and the Southern District of New York is being actively engaged.
It is believed that the Department of Defense has expressed its displeasure over the manner in which the entire issue was handled.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-12-29/news/45674901_1_state-department-justice-department-india-us-relationship
In the long term it will affect the US India relationship.
Maybe, but I doubt it.
We, in India, are aware of how people try all sorts of tricks, including getting married to US/ UK citisnes to divorce later, just to get into US/ UK and get a citizenship.
So are we.
...so as to manipulate a US citizenship - the Holy Grail that all the lower income group of India years to achieve.
All aid and done, opportunities to eke an existence are greater and easier in western countries than in India.
Perhaps India should ask itself why that is.
One should see the huge number of 'care givers' who go to Canada and elsewhere. They hang around and they get the citizenship.
Western countries, for reasons best known to them, go out of their way in the game of 'political correctness', turning a blind eye to the reality of the ground situation.
No, I don't think so. We are nations of immigrants and most of those immigrants were losers, scum so to speak, in their old countries. We have a soft spot for people trying to get here because they are in effect, sort of our ancestors.
Perhaps India should ask itself why that is.
All are aware.
It is economics.
The same reasons why Nepalis come to work and settle in India and the same reason why there are illegal Bangladeshis pouring into India/
Ms. Khobragade is going home.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2014/0110/Indian-diplomat-heads-home-but-India-s-anger-is-likely-to-linger?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Daily&utm_campaign=20140110_Newsletter%3ADaily_Sailthru&cmpid=ema%3Anws%3ADaily%2520Newsletter%2520%2801-10-2014%29
And a fine thing that is too.
Bill Moore
01-12-2014, 05:03 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2537898/DISEQUILIBRIUM-No-backing-Uncle-Sam.html
DISEQUILIBRIUM: No backing down from Uncle Sam
India's anger, justified was progressively worse for the US than it has ever been for Pakistan where mind games are the norm. India has always had an uneasy relationship with the US, never trusting them implicitly, leaning towards socialist Soviet Union which have proved to be a friend in times of crises.
An undercurrent of anti-Americanism is embedded in the psyches of Indians.
Despite this as the underlying credo, India normally behaves like this with its immediate neighbour Pakistan.
I thought the Indians loved us, how disappointing. :wry:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2537898/DISEQUILIBRIUM-No-backing-Uncle-Sam.html
DISEQUILIBRIUM: No backing down from Uncle Sam
I thought the Indians loved us, how disappointing. :wry:
Indians are comfortable with the English speaking Nations.
One has to trace the history of Indo US relationship.
India had emerged from the colonial past of the British, and it was not pleased with the Moghul subjugation either, now that the claimed scions of the Mughal has found a the country of their choice - Pakistan!
So, India was rejoicing to be its real self.
In came John Foster Dulles - either you are with US or Against Us.
it was natural that just independent India would like to revel in its real self after so many centuries of subjugation of foreign rulers (Mughals were foreign, lest one forgers)!
So naturally, it was not accepted.
India adopted non alignment.
It was fine till Pakistan went into the arms of the US, joined CENTO and SEATO, and was boosted by the US both economically and militarily. Pakistan economy became better than India's under Ayub.
Emboldened Pakistan launched and attack on Kutch in 1965. Moralistic India accepted arbitration of British under Wilson and he favoured Pakistan and India accepted the decision.
Emboldened Pakistan launched Op Gibraltar to 'free'Kashmir. Their game was given away by Kashmiri shepherds who reported it to the Indian Army and the war began.
US supplied their latest tanks the Pattons to combat Indian Sherman, but Pakistan came a cropper even with those state of art tanks against the ancient WW II British tanks that had already seen the best of their days!
India captured more territory that Pakistan but the West intervened to save Pakistan.
India to survive veered to the Soviet camp, since claiming Indian neutrality.
In the interim China mauled India in 1962. US half heartedly came to India's assistance after the damage was done. Nehru being suspicious of the US, did not follow up the hand of friendship worried that India would become a surrogate like Pakistan.
The US even so did help with non defence oriented scheme, while the USSR helped in building India's industrial infrastructure.
The US played a major role in India's Green Revolution, but messed it up with PL 480 wheat that was possibly a part of the biological warfare wherein the wheat from the US brought invasive (“Congress grass”) weeds to this country.
Therefore, US efforts became suspect.
Cut to 1971.
Nixon and Kissinger were not too fond of India. It is documented. Their Nelson Eye to the atrocities in East Pakistan is legend as is their steaming in the 7th Fleet. There is no doubt that the influx of refugee was a heavy burden on India and there is no doubt that Indira Gandhi capitalised on the situation to rid one thorn off India's flesh. And she was successful to outwit both Pakistan and the formidable US.
Cut to the current.
India is not ethnically, culturally or socially akin to the Slavic or Han people. Because of MacCaulay, the British colonialist and racist if you will, he converted Indians to be British in thought and Indian in colour. These MacCaulkay's children as they are called own and run India.
Therefore, they are comfortable with the English values and the English speaking world. US is thus a 'natural' ally.
However, everyone has self respect and none wants to be a vassal or a surrogate.
Khborgade, the consular staff is not the issue. The issue is US unilaterally rejecting international treaties like the ARTICLE 41 OR 47 of the Vienna Convention for Consular Staff and that US laws overrule all the treaties they have signed!
That mean no treaty is sacrosanct over US Law!
Logically that is ridiculous, if not downright stupid.
How can Nations interact without an accepted norm that the nations have have signed as binding?
Can the US allow the Mafai to have their own laws to dictate terms to the US citizens?
US is still liked in India,but one is disappointed since notwithstanding a nations power, we still have to exist under some law and regulations and not be unilateral pushed around claiming local laws are supreme.
What would be the US reaction if we jailed the homosexual couple in the US Embassy since it violated the Indian laws?
what about the Raymond Davis case where he murdered the Pakistanis?
The US went hammer and tongs!
If that horrendous crime and saving the chap was kosher, what is Bharara ((a MATA = More American than Americans) problem to embarrass the US Govt of being unequal in treatment?
Bill Moore
01-15-2014, 02:21 AM
Ray,
You provided a lot of history in that last post, some of it unknown to me. Definitely provides a different perspective on the issue. To be fair I only have very superficial knowledge of this case, but you pecked my interest now. My previous comment was based on a survey of Indian attitudes toward the US, and according to the survey the Indians loved the US. I got it, it is a huge country with a very diverse populations so what does the survey mean in the end? None the less I was surprised by the level of hostility over this incident.
Ray,
You provided a lot of history in that last post, some of it unknown to me. Definitely provides a different perspective on the issue. To be fair I only have very superficial knowledge of this case, but you pecked my interest now. My previous comment was based on a survey of Indian attitudes toward the US, and according to the survey the Indians loved the US. I got it, it is a huge country with a very diverse populations so what does the survey mean in the end? None the less I was surprised by the level of hostility over this incident.
Notwithstanding that India is a very large country with a varied population with varied identities and political views, India still considers US as a natural friend, though a very unpredictable and unaccommodating friend – a friend that ignores the sensitivity of others, ascribing its own morality and way of life as the sole and righteous standard.
Ever since the warming up of Indo US Relations from the Clinton days and becoming a warmest and hearty one under Bush (Mr Bush India love you, as was said by PM Manmohan Singh), the Indians have always had a more than accommodating stance towards the US. That is why the US enjoys more privileges in India than other nations.
L'affairé Khobragade is not so much about this person. To be fair, she is a low level diplomat and that is about all. Why it has become a cause célèbre is because of two issues:
1. The US does not show any reciprocity for privileges they demand for themselves in India. Some privileges going beyond the law and general civilities, and worse, privileges they ascribe to themselves in an imperious manner, so to say, as if subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. (I will explain this below).
2. Barharra’s act was in direct contravention of Articles 41 and 47 of the Veienna Convention for Consular Staff.
Article 41.
Definitions
1. For the purposes of the present Convention, the following expressions shall have the meanings hereunder assigned to them:
a. "consular post" means any consulate-general, consulate, vice-consulate or consular agency;
Personal Inviolability of Consular Officers
1. Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority.
Article 47
Exemption From Work Permits
1. Members of the consular post shall, with respect to services rendered for the sending State, be exempt from any obligations in regard to work permits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State concerning the employment of foreign labour.
2. Members of the private staff of consular officers and of consular employees shall, if they do not carry on any other gainful occupation in the receiving State, be exempt from the obligations referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.
A fair analysis will indicate that the US is wholly wrong in so far as ignoring Article 41 and subjecting a diplomatic to indignities, and her arrest was illegal since a wage dispute is by no stretch of imagination, a ‘grave’ crime. Even if was taken to that ridiculous limit, the diplomat still had to be given her due dignities as is given to diplomats.
There is also the feeling in India that the US not recognising Article 47 is based on the fact that the US does not recognise domestic help as rendering services to the sending state. The US A-3 visa, for example, is reserved for “personal employees” of diplomats. This discrepancy between Indian practice and US law is something usually more honoured in the breach than the observed but nonetheless remains a wrinkle.
On the other hand, there is NO Reciprocity of the privileges demanded and extended to the US Diplomats that are extended by the US to Indian diplomats. There lies the nub of the issue and the rub.
There has been much brouhaha about the barricades that were there for US Embassies and Consulates. As also of pay to personal employees to being at par.
They were not mere barricades. Whole public thoroughfares, causing total inconvenience to locals, had been blocked off to satisfy the fear of the US of terrorists’ attacks. India too is a target for terrorists, but no such security arrangements were extended. Therefore, the outrage in the US is misplaced.
On wages, the Indian staffs in the US facilities are pittance when compared to the US rates. US Embassy is US soil. Therefore, should US laws on wage not prevail there too for Indians employed there?
In fact
A new State Department report says some local employees hired by U.S. embassies and other posts around the world are so poorly paid they have to cut back to one meal a day or send their children to peddle on the streets……..
Some U.S. missions are in impoverished parts of the world where low salaries are common, and there is a wide range in pay depending on what jobs are performed and where. But the report sets out a stark picture of the richest country in the world paying some of the lowest salaries.
"Twenty-seven missions presented compelling arguments that their lower-grade employees fall short of minimal living standards," the report said.
"These arguments included accounts of LE [locally employed] staff: removing children from school, cutting back to one meal a day, sending children to sell water or little cakes or toiletries on the streets ... employees depending on salary advances and defaulting on loans in order to cover basic expenses ... [pay]grades 1 to 3 earning less than $1.00 per day."
But the report provides no specific numbers of how many local employees might be making less than $1 a day.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/13/state.employees.pay/index.html?iref=werecommend
That is why in India, one finds the moralist grandstanding of the US to be a tad hypocritical.
In this connection, when caught with the pants down, Americans grandstand on morality with silly articles in the Forbes titled In Furore Over Diplomat, India Avoids Legacy of Suffering and gets gleefully vicarious over Dalits. The one who wrote the article is such an ignoramus that he does realise that both the Diplomat and the maid are Dalit.
Therefore, would it not be that India is fighting for the right of a Dalit and so should be applauded?
Now what are the Diplomatic Privileges removed (which are not anyway to be extended de jure)?
1. Diplomats being told to obey local traffic law. This one diplomat complained would cause great discomfort since parking space is very difficult to get in the diplomat popular Khan Market in Delhi.
2. Restriction on the popular U.S. Embassy club that violates diplomatic law because it is open to outsiders. That is defrauding the Indian exchequer by running a commercial establishment and profiteering circumventing Indian laws because outsiders, who are not US diplomats cannot take advantage of a tax free binge. This has affected the US expatriates.
3. Closing down commercial establishments like the Beauty Parlour, cinema, restaurants et all that caters not only for the diplomats but also outsiders to include US expatriates, who by using such facilities are violating Indian laws and defrauding the Indian exchequer.
May see
India targets expatriates’ privileges at U.S. club amid dispute over diplomat’s arrest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/india-moves-to-end-expat-privileges-at-us-club-sign-of-anger-at-diplomats-arrest-in-ny/2014/01/08/761554d6-7850-11e3-a647-a19deaf575b3_story.html
India expelled one Diplomat called May, who was in charge of security.
I wonder if he the brightest spark of the US Diplomatic Corps given his antics.
The Indian Govt asked the United States to withdraw May because he was involved in problematic U.S. actions last month, including the evacuation of Richard’s family.
The tickets for Sangeeta’s (the maid) husband Phillip and children Jennifer and Jatin were granted the 4.50 per cent tax exemption that is the norm for diplomatic missions in the country. The evidence of US embassy’s further collusion in the family’s travel to the US emerged on a day when diplomat Devyani Khobragade was granted exemption from personal appearances in a New York court as it took up charges of alleged visa fraud against her.
Further, how much of a diplomat can be seen from this:
Expelled US diplomat criticised for comments
US State Department distances itself from online remarks made by diplomat expelled amid row over Indian envoy's arrest.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/southasia/2014/01/expelled-us-diplomat-criticised-comments-201411552816225387.html
There are signs that this will blow over, but hopefully India can be in a position to demand reciprocity and maintain it.
Though the article below overdoes it, but you may read it to realise how the unilateral actions by the US affects not only India, but others too
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1140115/jsp/opinion/story_17806805.jsp#.UtYkhJ61aAo
Madhu
01-15-2014, 04:19 PM
The US should never have let things get this far and the initial error lies with the US. But this episode highlights how poorly the diplomatic services of both countries perform, at times.
Opinion is not a monolith within either the Indian or American community, and, as yet, I have see no comprehensive surveys of opinion outside of journalists or elite circles.
This diplomat was involved in a scandal involving flats in Mumbai that were intended for Kargil war widows and the like. It became a scandal in India when the flats went instead to connected high level ex-military and Indian government officials.
There is plenty of commentary in the Indian papers about how this official finally got caught out for behavior.
The three main opinions (based on comments to articles in Indian papers) include:
1. She got what she deserved and good for the Americans. Why does India appoint such unqualified people to diplomatic posts? No wonder the Indians get the run around.
2. The Americans are arrogant jerks and they have a habit of treating Indian officials badly, while feting others, including Pakistani officials with dubious histories.
3. She should be tried in India, not the U.S. She is a problem, but our problem.
Bill, what you are seeing is various fault lines within the Indian society and Indians abroad being displayed. India is a complicated place. There are many families with an Indian-American connection (whether in India or the US) that have a buried skeleton in the closet of being scammed for money or marriage matters. The worst stuff is said behind closed doors both in India and the US, and then, once in a while, it gets out to the public. Everyone here has a point because it's a complicated situation.
This "all of India is angry" really refers to the subset of people bothering to pay attention. That this includes officials is an issue but it's a hiccup.
It's good that this happened in one way; we both can have more realistic ideas about one another.
No one looks particular good in this matter.
The anger against the corrupt "babu" Indian class is real and at least some of the election year drama against this stuff is fear of what the Indian public might do to the comfortable life of its more connected officials.
Which doesn't make the US behavior correct. For diplomacy's sake, this should have been handled a different way.
By the way, Preet Bahara is an ambitious guy who has prosecuted lots of high profile cases. This is a better lens than the Brahama Chelleny or MK Bhadrakumar line of "more American than American" that Ray has brought up.
That is dated. The Indian community in the US is pretty comfortable in its skin. It doesn't need to prove anything to anyone, in general. (Naturally a generalization but none of the commentary is based on hard evidence, really, in terms of what general opinion is.
Khobragade is married to a well-to-do Indian American, a wine expert and academic with a good job. The maid apparently has parents that work for someone in the US Embassy in Dehli, I've read (but not sure).
The comments about the diplomat in the Indian papers by commenters is scathing.
You can search for blogs about so-called Indian babus to see this side of the commentary.
All sides are valid here because it is not straightforward on first blush and so many have behaved badly.
Madhu
01-15-2014, 04:40 PM
Lots of articles in this vein. It doesn't mean the US is correct but it bears on the opinion about this case in various constituencies.
Most of the Western commentary has been about high flyers and the upper middle class. The larger opinion is hard to gauge, so many reporters are in a bubble that includes other reporters and the officials they cover. Myra McDonald at War on the Rocks seems to be a bit in this category, which is surprising. Generally a good commenter on these issues. At any rate, an article about Adarsh:
That's not all when it comes to Devyani's real estate holdings in Mumbai. When she got the Adarsh flat, she already owned a flat in another government housing society in Oshiwara, which too was allotted under the state government's 10 per cent quota where recipients get flats at extremely cheap rates as compared to Mumbai's stratospheric market prices, and which is another fount of corruption in Mumbai, with most flats cornered by politicians and their relatives, and of course bureaucrats and their relatives, and those connected to their powers that be, making a mockery of the 10 percent quota supposedly for helping citizens who need it most. As the Economic Times reports, a massive 42 percent of such flats allocated in the past 10 years were resold by allottees at much higher prices, making a killing in the bargain at the expense of the taxpayer and the common Indian. Things have become so bad with the 10 percent quota that the Bombay High Court recently warned the Maharashtra government of contempt if it continued to stonewall requests to name double and multiple allottees of such flats.
OTOH, Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said that the Indians so much as told us that they were going to go nuclear, so to speak, in the late 90's, and we just didn't listen. The case of the Indian fisherman and the Italians pretty much told us how the Indian elite class would react to this case.
And the Indians should have posted someone else after getting certain signals.
I doubt long term relations are seriously soured but both embassies seem to be a bit of a disaster.
Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/india/how-about-some-outrage-over-devyanis-larger-adarsh-controversy-1296429.html?utm_source=ref_article
As I said this case was not about Khobargde.
Her family are well known wheeler dealer and there is no symoathy for them.
It is a matter of principles and nothing else.
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. [Matthew 7:12]
Madhu
01-15-2014, 05:49 PM
Of course it's a matter of principle. It's also being used to comment on the state of the India American relationship.
More than one principle is at stake. The US shouldn't have let this get out of hand and someone needs to look at the State Department and the administration and how it got to this point.
But the Indians failed on a point of principle too; better quality people capable of following laws, especially where they have been warned, should be appointed. Diplomacy is a two way street. Vienna conventions and learning the ways of your host country and its behavior.
If now both Indian and American diplomats are more careful, good. It's a high flying life for some and they cause so much trouble for the nations they are supposed to represent.
I know of relatives that have been asked to fiddle papers for Indians assigned to the UN and the relative refused.
I'm sure the same goes on in India with American officials that try and skirt rules.
Maybe we should all focus on being competent for a change.
What goes around comes around. The US and India are both getting this message. At least, the more competent should understand. Letting it all get to this point is a clown show. The Chinese must be rolling around in laughter at both.
And both the Indian and American commentary is stuck in the 1970's. It's 2014.
Everyone has a point, everyone is correct on the one point they are discussing. But, overall, it's a complicated and multifactorial issue.
The punditry has been appallingly shallow in the papers.
So she's connected. Color me surprised.
Notwithstanding that India is a very large country with a varied population with varied identities and political views, India still considers US as a natural friend, though a very unpredictable and unaccommodating friend – a friend that ignores the sensitivity of others, ascribing its own morality and way of life as the sole and righteous standard.
Many elements of truth in there.
Thinking over all that has been said about this affair here, it occurs to me that this is really an encouraging thing. My take on the tone is that it is sort of like a disagreement between sibs (I just learned that word) rather than a spark between potential enemies. It seems we aren't really mad at each others countries so much as disappointed that a buddy would act like this. What antipathy there is also seems to me to be mostly directed at individuals as individuals, not as nationals.
Very good for the future.
Thinking over all that has been said about this affair here, it occurs to me that this is really an encouraging thing. My take on the tone is that it is sort of like a disagreement between sibs (I just learned that word) rather than a spark between potential enemies. It seems we aren't really mad at each others countries so much as disappointed that a buddy would act like this. What antipathy there is also seems to me to be mostly directed at individuals as individuals, not as nationals.
Very good for the future.
Spot on.
Not in agreement on this one Carl.
What we see is another example of US arrogance together with a display of immature petulance from India.
The only good thing about this is that the US will have learned that their power is on the ebb and they can no longer ride rough shod over (what were once) 3rd world countries without causing an embarrassing tantrum.
India's test will come when they show the world they have the balls to stand up to China on some issue. Don't hold your breath.
Thinking over all that has been said about this affair here, it occurs to me that this is really an encouraging thing. My take on the tone is that it is sort of like a disagreement between sibs (I just learned that word) rather than a spark between potential enemies. It seems we aren't really mad at each others countries so much as disappointed that a buddy would act like this. What antipathy there is also seems to me to be mostly directed at individuals as individuals, not as nationals.
Very good for the future.
India's test will come when they show the world they have the balls to stand up to China on some issue. Don't hold your breath.
Breathe free.
The wimp on his way out!
JMA:
I don't think you are right and I hope you aren't, but I can't marshal a thunderingly persuasive argument to the contrary.
As far as India goes, perhaps India the country is much more stand up than the Indian leadership class. I got to thinking that when I read Ray's "breathe free" comment (if I got his inference right). One of the reasons I got to thinking it is the Americans are way more stand up than the American leadership class. Maybe India is a little the same.
JMA:
I don't think you are right and I hope you aren't, but I can't marshal a thunderingly persuasive argument to the contrary.
As far as India goes, perhaps India the country is much more stand up than the Indian leadership class. I got to thinking that when I read Ray's "breathe free" comment (if I got his inference right). One of the reasons I got to thinking it is the Americans are way more stand up than the American leadership class. Maybe India is a little the same.
That is right.
The political dispensation is changing, the catalyst being that Indians are tired of the lack of governance, being pushed around by all our neighbours and accepting the same like wimps, and adding insult to injury, the disgraceful and brazen corruption by the current Govt without an iota of shame, galloping inflation and food prices, and the PM and his Ministers' downright arrogance to blame their horrid governance and thieving & all the ills that has visited the Nation, on the international political and economic scenario.
So she's connected. Color me surprised.
I don’t subscribe to Madhu’s – But the Indians failed on a point of principle too; better quality people capable of following laws, especially where they have been warned, should be appointed. Diplomacy is a two way street. Vienna conventions and learning the ways of your host country and its behavior..
Vienna Convention is clear about it as per Article 47 and there is noting wrong in what this woman has done.
However, the US does not recognise (though that is unique) and instead has A3 visa for diplomat’s personal helps.
Khobargade, I am sure was aware of it, and so to that extent, she is totally at fault.
Madhu is right that she should have been aware of it. In fact, if she was not aware of it, she had not done her homework and the External Affair Ministry of India failed in its duty in not briefing her. Height of incompetence I would say and people taking Indian Foreign Service merely as a vehicle to accumulate dollars as pay!
Qualified diplomats and she is not?
Can't blame India. India has 'reservations' i.e. quotas for Dalits and anything can pass through that sieve!
If honesty in selection is applied, then the West and the US will be the first ones to howl that Human Rights are being violated and there is discrimination!
Is she connected?
Yes, she is connected.
Her father claims to be a friend of the Home Minister and her credentials are even better. She is what is a Dalit and so she is a ‘special class’ to be handled with kid gloves and a necessity which the West makes a song and dance over of them being ‘deprived’ and India treating them as untermenschen.
Have you not seen that when India is to be bashed, bring in the caste angle and berate without logic! I have appended that stupid article from Forbes which is so absurd diluting reality into case - the favourite whipping boy of the West, and something which they do not understand.
No one complains about the class privileges and distinctions showered in the British society or which the Americans adulate and cherish and gleefully honour. Prince Harry and his nude show being one which was so wonderfully honest! ;)
Now, why is the US treating this poor Dalit woman like an untermenschen? Why not give her some leeway as per the US liberalism and love for the assumed underprivileged?
Where is the US’ bleeding heart concern now?
The answer is simple.
The shoe pinches the one who wears the shoe.
I am not being obtuse, I am merely trying to present the Indian point of view so that Americans understand us. We want to be with the US, but on an equal relationship. We don't want stupid contentions thrown at us to justify the unjustifiable.
We have been subjugated by imperial powers, Moghuls and British for too long.
We want to experience what it is to be independent Indians for a change.
jmm99
01-18-2014, 01:50 PM
and I'll think about renting a string quartet to accompany your heart rending "plea to the crown".
Two things should be clear to each and every person who has bothered to become familiar with the details of this case:
1. It is a false statement case (not a work permit case) and alleges that the consular officer lied in the documents that she filed with the US government (per complaint and affidavit by the DoS security officer); on the basis of which, a Federal magistrate issued an arrest warrant on felony charges (for lying, not for violating a work permit), carrying 5-10 year imprisonment penalties. This post (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=151157&postcount=22) and this post (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=151199&postcount=40) in this thread.
2. Although what the DoS did (in following the hardball prosecution route) met US legal requirements under Article 41 (the "grave crime" section) of the Vienna Consular Relations Convention (http://www.mfa.gov.tr/data/Kutuphane/MultilateralConventions/ViennaConventiononConsularRelations.pdf) (p.14 of pdf; from the MFA of Turkey, a sometimes prickly democracy), it was a total and complete cockup in terms of wisdom and rational judgment about short and long term effects.
In short, DoS (using the facts and law stated in the complaint and affidavit) should have declared her "persona non grata"; she would have left the country; and then India (being another prickly democracy, like the US) would have retaliated by declaring one of our New Delhi embassy personnel (the security officer involved at that end) "persona non grata" - end of story. So, I agree with Julian Ku (http://opiniojuris.org/2014/01/10/u-s-state-department-deserves-f-handling-indian-consul-flap/) that DoS deserves an "F" in how it handled its options in this case.
Both you and I know that DoS (to include its New Delhi embassy) handles Indian relations with all the grace of a club-footed pachyderm.
That being said, I'm not quite through with this topic (but almost). Dapo Akande (http://www.law.ox.ac.uk/profile/dapo.akande) has posted (on the European Journal of International Law blog) a three-part comment on the case, Immunity of Consular Officials – The Arrest by the US of an Indian Deputy Consul-General (http://www.ejiltalk.org/immunity-of-consular-officials-the-arrest-by-the-us-of-an-indian-deputy-consul-general/); and, yes, the applicable article is Article 41 of the Vienna Convention (the "grave crime" provision). "Grave crime" is not defined in the treaty; as Dapo says, the choice was to use the generic "grave crime" (leaving specific definition to the country receiving the diplomat), or explicitly include a 5-year threshold. The UK for example, in its Consular Relations Act 1968 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/18) has:
“grave crime” shall be construed as meaning any offence punishable (on a first conviction) with imprisonment for a term that may extend to five years or with a more severe sentence;
As proved in the prior posts cited above in my point 1, the charges against your consular officer for lying in official documents carry 5-10 year imprisonment penalties.
Nor, would I get too sanctimonious about the Vienna Convention if I were an Indian. While the Union of India has ratified that Convention on its Executive level, its Parliament has not passed enabling legislation. Thus, the Convention is not applicable as a matter of Indian domestic law !
I cite to Jamal Mirza v. State (S.P. Garg, J.), Indian Law Reports (Delhi) ILR (2012) II Delhi (http://www.delhihighcourt.nic.in/writereaddata/upload/Indivisual_Ilrds_Files/Ilrdsfilesingle_S7C3X9S4.PDF), p.150 of pdf; citing as black-letter law:
Important Issue Involved: There is no automatic acceptance of an international treaty, even post ratification, as domestic law in India — It only becomes binding as law once Parliament has indicated its acceptance of the ratified treaty though enabling legislation.
The US and UK have taken the necessary legislative step - India has not.
As the Delhi High Court stated in its longer discussion of the Vienna Convention (pp. 160-161 of pdf):
59. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Jolly George Verghese v. Bank of Cochin 1980 (2) SCC 360 is that treaties entered into by the Union of India do not become enforceable in the courts and neither do they become part of the domestic law of India. Yet, they can be assimilated as aids to interpretation of the Constitution of India, to the extent their provisions are not inconsistent with municipal law. Justice Krishna Iyer elucidated on this point thus:-
“India is now a signatory to this Covenant and Art. 51(c) of the Constitution obligates the States to “foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another.” Even so, until the municipal law is changed to accommodate the Government what binds the court is the former, not the latter.” [emphasis by Justice Iyer]
and, specifically as to the Vienna Convention:
61. It can therefore be seen that there is no automatic acceptance of an international treaty, even post ratification, as domestic law in India. It only becomes binding as law once Parliament has indicated its acceptance of the ratified treaty through enabling legislation. Since no such legislation exists, this treaty is not binding, and therefore, non–compliance with its provisions does not result in a violation of the procedure established by law. The only rider is that if the standard postulated in the covenant or international treaty is consistent with Indian law, the same can be considered as an aid to interpretation of the relevant provision of municipal law. [emphasis added by JMM]
This also is a warning to US consular officers - you may well not be entitled to the "privileges" you were taught in rookie diplomat school, if you happen to be arrested in India for a violation of its domestic laws.
Regards
Mike
Mike,
I am not a lawyer.
Interesting points.
Taken the liberty to ask on the issue on a forum that is discussing the issue.
jmm99
01-18-2014, 07:19 PM
I'd be interested in all reasonable comments from your other forum.
Briefly, I'll add a Lawfare comment by John Bellinger (http://www.arnoldporter.com/professionals.cfm?action=view&id=5300), who was legal adviser at the National Security Council and then at DoS during the Bush II administration. Unlike Julian Ku (and JMM), John tries to shift the greater blame to DoJ for the cockup. The "cockup" (to the IL people over here) was not in the USG acting illegally, but rather acting stupidly.
In any event, here are some snips from Bellinger's The Khobragade Kerfuffle: An Assessment (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/01/the-khobragade-kerfuffle-an-assessment/#.Utq8Fp0o6Rs) (with his hyperlinks kept intact; emphasis added by me in two places):
The last few days have seen a flurry of diplomatic and law enforcement activity in both the United States and India that may bring the month-long Khobragade controversy to an end. In this post, I try to unpack some of the applicable international law and U.S. policies involved. In a nutshell, although the U.S. Government acted consistent with its treaty obligations, the State and Justice Departments appear to have overreacted and mishandled their initial response to Ms. Khobragade’s transgressions, causing harm to the U.S.-Indian relationship and creating security and legal risks for U.S. diplomats both in India and around the world. Over at Opinio Juris, my friend Julian Ku says the “State Department Deserves an ‘F’ on their Handling of the Indian Consul Flap (http://opiniojuris.org/2014/01/10/u-s-state-department-deserves-f-handling-indian-consul-flap/).” Although I suspect that equal or greater responsibility for the flap should lie with the Department of Justice, I agree that the matter was initially bungled, as I explain in more detail below the break. Fortunately, the State and Justice Departments, and the Indian Government, now seem to have worked harder to resolve this diplomatic row.
To recap the recent developments: last Wednesday, the State Department accepted (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/01/219535.htm#INDIA) Ms. Khobragade’s transfer from the Indian Consulate in New York, where she had been Deputy Consul General, and re-accreditation to India’s Mission to the United Nations; on Thursday, she was indicted for visa fraud and false statements (http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January14/KhobragadeIndictment.php) by a grand jury in the Southern District of New York; the State Department then asked India to waive the immunity to which she was entitled under the U.S.-U.N. Headquarters Agreement (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad036.asp) and India refused; the State Department then declared her persona non grata and asked India to withdraw her from the United States; she left the United States on Thursday night; in response, on Friday, India (which had initially retaliated by reducing security around the US Embassy in New Delhi and curtailing privileges for U.S. diplomats) then asked the State Department (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/india-demands-ouster-of-us-diplomat-allegedly-involved-in-nanny-pay-dispute/2014/01/10/2652c510-79fd-11e3-a647-a19deaf575b3_story.html) to withdraw a U.S. diplomat assigned to the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi (a diplomatic security official who reportedly had helped to bring the family of Ms. Khobragade’s nanny from India to the United States); and on Saturday, India’s External Affairs Minister stated (http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-devyani-khobragade-row-india-says-us-could-have-avoided-mini-crisis-more-to-be-done-1949205) that India’s “immediate, immediate concerns have been addressed.” ...
More in John's post, which could use some additional fact checking, and less speculation, on the respective roles of DoS and DoJ in this case. He and I agree on this point:
The U.S. Government must enforce U.S. criminal laws and must not tolerate abuse of domestic workers by foreign diplomats, but it must also balance these important equities against the risks to U.S. diplomats around the world, and this sometimes means making compromises. Given its own global diplomatic presence, the United States may have more to lose than to gain by prosecuting foreign diplomats, except in the most serious cases. In this case, it might have been more prudent for the State Department to have quietly expelled Ms. Khobragade, or at least to have asked SDNY not to have arrested her.
except as to the last sentence where "persona non grata" expulsion was really the only game in town. DoS filed the Complaint and Affidavit asking for the arrest warrant; and once that was issued by the Federal magistrate, SDNY had no other choice than to perform the arrest.
Finally, anyone analyzing this case (from its policy and legal standpoints) should look at these filings in the SDNY:
U.S. v. Devyani Khobragade Indictment(PDF) (http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January14/KhobragadeIndictment/Khobragade,%20Devyani%20Indictment.pdf)
U.S. v. Devyani Khobragade Indictment Exhibits(PDF) (http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January14/KhobragadeIndictment/Khobragade,%20Devyani%20Indictment%20Exhibits.pdf)
U.S. v. Devyani Khobragade Govts 1.9.2014 Letter to Judge Scheindlin (http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January14/KhobragadeIndictment/Khobragade,%20Devyani%20Govts%201.9.2014%20Letter% 20to%20Judge%20Scheindlin.pdf)
I expect this charge (still pending) will be plea bargained out to a much reduced charge.
Regards
Mike
Mike,
I find your comments reasonable.
It is time to clear the air and I totally agree on that.
Why don't you and others come onto the forum and take it through?
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/americas/56922-indian-diplomat-arrested-handcuffed-us-visa-fraud.html
It will be a great service for the people of both countries to get out of the fog created by callous govt officials on both sides.
I, for one, do not accept being pushed around, but if there is legalities that have been conveniently forgotten, then I all for the reality to surface and not stand on illegitimate egos.
That is right.
The political dispensation is changing, the catalyst being that Indians are tired of the lack of governance, being pushed around by all our neighbours and accepting the same like wimps, and adding insult to injury, the disgraceful and brazen corruption by the current Govt without an iota of shame, galloping inflation and food prices, and the PM and his Ministers' downright arrogance to blame their horrid governance and thieving & all the ills that has visited the Nation, on the international political and economic scenario.
Yes, so playing this incident up is a good distraction from the reality on the ground.
Dayuhan
01-19-2014, 04:15 AM
DoS filed the Complaint and Affidavit asking for the arrest warrant; and once that was issued by the Federal magistrate, SDNY had no other choice than to perform the arrest.
Mike,
Do you think it's possible that domestic, even local political considerations were in play in the decision to arrest? I know that in NY there is a deep seated perception that foreign diplomats are inclined to throw their weight around and abuse their privileges, and there's also a perception that DoS does nothing at all to control them. Actions like this would not be popular in the diplomat's country of residence, but they would be very popular indeed on the streets in NY.
Not saying that was a factor; I' not in a position to know... wondering if you think it might have been.
Yes, so playing this incident up is a good distraction from the reality on the ground.
Yes, there is the real possibility of that and we don't discount that.
It is also because in India, because of the lacklustre approach to issues that relate to Indo US scenario & relationship by the Obama administration, it has knocked off the 'magic' that the Clinton and more so, the Bush Administration had fostered.
Hence from the "US can do no wrong" attitude that was there in India, the US is now being slotted in the Indian mind, that it is a friend, but an indifferent friend.
Therefore, the Indian reaction to the Khobragade case, which is perceived the way it has panned out.
I would not be surprised that the 'elite's' perception in India could have been structured as it has happened, by the fact the NYPD is not taken to be a very fair organisation and more prone to what we call dadagiri (a law unto itself)!
jmm99
01-19-2014, 07:48 AM
Do you think it's possible that domestic, even local political considerations were in play in the decision to arrest? I know that in NY there is a deep seated perception that foreign diplomats are inclined to throw their weight around and abuse their privileges, and there's also a perception that DoS does nothing at all to control them. Actions like this would not be popular in the diplomat's country of residence, but they would be very popular indeed on the streets in NY.
Anything is possible; and I've no doubt that the hardball process was indeed popular in NYC.
But, this was a DoS controlled matter right up to the issuance of the arrest warrant when the SDNY USM Office and the Federal Attorney's Office were brought into the picture.
This is fundamentally a "nanny-gate" case, where diplomatic and consular officials are simply high-profile examples of a common problem across the US - as exemplified by any number of political appointments shot down because of illegal immigration violations, tax evasions, etc. Besides most of those employees are women who are being exploited, abused, etc.
So, IMO, someone at State, in a powerful enough position to bring on the complaint and affidavit, decided to make an example of this particular consular official. I don't have the facts on that, but I expect they would come out at a trial; which is exactly why a trial will never take place. Just a gut feeling.
Regards
Mike
Mike,
Here are some of the replies
Please ask him for the following : -
from the VCCR
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publicat...38-English.pdf
what Article 2 (i) of the
i) " member of the private staff " means a person who is employed exclusively in the private service of a member of the consular post ;
Maid comes under this as she is employed for private service of DK.
article 47
Article 47
EXEMPTION FROM WORK PERMITS
1. Members of the consular post shall, with respect to services rendered for
the sending State, be exempt from any obligations in regard to work permits
imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State concerning the
employment of foreign labour.
2. Members of the private staff of consular officers and of consular employees
shall, if they do not carry on any other gainful occupation in the receiving State,
be exempt from the obligations referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.
Now what they want to say that she has lied for the Visa affidavit/verification clause, that is not even applicable here because of the aforesaid.
About the crap that Municipal law will prevail over International law in case of any dispute between the same. Same thing is followed in India.
Now be as it may, we too can prosecute then for 377 and other violation of Indian laws.
US has allowed DK to leave because they were informed in clear terms that we too will take action against their diplomats who have violated our laws and put them in jail with whole package of strip and cavity search. That is why she was made free to go.
Here is another:
It has been explained quite clearly in the thread. But I shall reiterate.
1. She didnt submit any details, Sangeeta did. Along with documents Sangeeta presented, there was a employment contract signed by Devayani. That is the only thing connecting Devyani to Visa, and the very funny they both used the same computer.
2. Not really, VCCR, there is Article 47. It is clear Sangeeta is Devyani Private Staff, therefore her official duty, therefore she is immune. American VISA is against the VCCR. That is the fact.
There is no way we should let them have the narrative, when the narrative itself is wrong, circumventing VCCR and trying to impose their domestic rules on us and the world community at large.
Anyways, I think this also has some serious connection to MINIMUM WAGE issues between the Corporates and Staffers who want $15.00 and the Government. This was a good high profile case, I think it is much more higher than the Mays, and the Mays were used by those people who wanted exploit such a high profile case, I believe it is Uzra Zeya and above.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/americas/56922-indian-diplomat-arrested-handcuffed-us-visa-fraud-201.html#post842633
jmm99
01-19-2014, 08:05 AM
Currently I'm working my way through the 203 pages of your thread - slogged through the first dozen pages and the last few pages (so I picked up on both the posts you cite); and I'm working through the 20-post thing so I can use links.
Hell, Ray, join the fun at New to DFI: JMM99 (http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/introductions-greetings/57670-new-dfi-jmm99.html) (where pmaitra has the situation well in hand); and toss in your two rupees.
Regards
Mike
PS: I'm now going to bed - it's 0210 here.
davidbfpo
01-19-2014, 01:04 PM
A retired Indian "insider" comments in his weekly column:http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/maid-gate-unnecessary-chapter-in-india-us-ties
He starts with:
There were sufficient indications that the Khobragade matter could have been settled before it reached this stage.
Neat reminder of how diplomatic relations have fallen foul in another spat.
jmm99
01-22-2014, 01:05 AM
Complaint (http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/December13/KhobragadeArrestPR/Khobragade,%20Devyani%20Complaint.pdf) (submitted to the Federal Magistrate by the DoS) - two counts, based on these statutes:
18 USC § 1546 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1546) - Fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents.
18 USC § 1001 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001) - Statements or entries generally.
18 USC § 1002 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1002) - Possession of false papers to defraud United States.
These are 5-10 year felonies.
DoS 150546 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/150546.pdf) - Diplomatic and Consular Immunity - US Department of State; Guidance for Law Enforcement and Judicial Authorities; e.g., see pp.6-8.
USMS Directive for Body Searches (http://www.usmarshals.gov/foia/Directives-Policy/prisoner_ops/body_searches.pdf); and its major point of controversy:
3. Strip Search: A complete search of a prisoner's attire and a visual inspection of the prisoner's naked body, including body cavities. The following procedures are applicable to a strip search:
a. Strip searches on prisoners in custody are authorized when there is reasonable suspicion that the prisoner may be (a) carrying contraband and/or weapons, or (b) considered to be a security, escape, and/or suicide risk. Reasonable suspicion may be based upon, but is not limited to, one or more of the following criteria:
1) Serious nature of the offense(s) charged, i.e., whether crime of violence or drugs;
2) Prisoner's appearance or demeanor;
3) Circumstances surrounding the prisoner's arrest or detention; i.e., whether the prisoner has been convicted or is a pretrial detainee;
4) Prisoner's criminal history;
5) Type and security level of institution in which the prisoner is detained; or
6) History of discovery of contraband and/or weapons, either on the prisoner individually or in the institution in which prisoners are detained.
U.S. v. Devyani Khobragade Dockets.
This case has two docket numbers. All pre-indictment filings have been incorporated into the post indictment docket.
1 Khobragade, Devyani (dft) nysdce 1:2013-mj-02870 12/11/2013 01/09/2014 Pre-indictment docket card attached
Nusbaum Order 8 Jan 2014 attached
2 Khobragade, Devyani (dft) nysdce 1:2014-cr-00008 01/09/2014 Post-indictment docket card attached
Indictment (http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January14/KhobragadeIndictment/Khobragade,%20Devyani%20Indictment.pdf)
Indictment Exhibits (http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January14/KhobragadeIndictment/Khobragade,%20Devyani%20Indictment%20Exhibits.pdf)
Govts 1.9.2014 Letter to Judge Scheindlin (http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January14/KhobragadeIndictment/Khobragade,%20Devyani%20Govts%201.9.2014%20Letter% 20to%20Judge%20Scheindlin.pdf)
Additional References on Diplomatic and/or Consular Immunities
Draft Articles on Consular Relations, with commentaries (http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_2_1961.pdf) - 1961
Draft Articles on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities with commentaries (http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_1_1958.pdf) - 1958
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations - procedural history (http://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/vccr/vccr_ph_e.pdf)
Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection with commentaries (http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_8_2006.pdf) - 2006
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/7F83006DA90AAE7FC1256F260034B806/$file/Vienna%20Convention%20(1961)%20-%20E.pdf) - 1961
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf) - 1963
Dapo Akande (a Nigerian) has posted (on the European Journal of International Law blog) a three-part comment on the case, Immunity of Consular Officials – The Arrest by the US of an Indian Deputy Consul-General - Part 1 (http://www.ejiltalk.org/immunity-of-consular-officials-the-arrest-by-the-us-of-an-indian-deputy-consul-general/), Part 2 (http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-immunity-of-representatives-to-the-un-a-new-twist-in-the-diplomatic-row-between-india-and-the-united-states/), Part 3 (http://www.ejiltalk.org/was-the-us-entitled-to-require-the-departure-of-the-former-indian-consul/).
Regards
Mike
jmm99
01-22-2014, 01:27 AM
Defendant's Motion and Memorandum of Law - in three parts because of SWC limits on file size; and Arshack Affirmation.
See four files attached
Arshack's Motion is interesting.
Regards
Mike
jmm99
01-22-2014, 01:31 AM
Notice of Motion; correspondence and hearing schedule - attached.
Regards
Mike
jmm99
01-22-2014, 10:15 PM
This is a case with quite different facts from "Maid Gate". In Biswas, the alleged acts of an East Asian student and an East Asian teacher turned the life of a South Asian student upside down.
See attachments.
Regards
Mike
jmm99
01-28-2014, 09:00 PM
The following was posted at Military Photos by SAM90 in this thread, USA - INDIA Diplomat Row Exposed (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?234978-USA-INDIA-Diplomat-Row-Exposed). This is a very common position held by many Indians regarding the Khobragade case (emphasis as in original):
USA - INDIA Diplomat Row Exposed
In their zeal to raise the minimum wage, political special interests appear to have used the State Department to conduct a high-profile antic that has now backfired very badly. In addition to damaging America’s reputation, it will also deny many poor people (relatively) lucrative employment and opportunities, for their level of education and achievement. The apparent absence of oversight and guidance at both the White House and the State Department should alarm every American and friend of America. The events unfolded so far reveal a sordid tale:
Maid who is Desperate for American Citizenship:
The conspiracy to spirit out Richard included the following senior US embassy officials who all employed Richard’s immediate family (mother-in-law and father-in-law) over a period of at least 10 years In New Delhi:
1. Current Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Uzra Zeya in Washington (former deputy ex secy to former Secy of States Condie Rice and Hillary Clinton, Counselor in Delhi from 2009-11 (Pakistani immigrant Parents Daughter She Played very important role converted case in to Human Trafficking which was dropped later due to contradictory proof Revelations , First Employed Maids-in-laws during New Delhi Posting )
2.Timothy Haley (Counsellor, Regional Security Office) and his wife Joyce Haley (Consular Section) worked in Delhi from 2011 onward
3. Wayne May (Chief of Diplomatic Bureau of Security) and Wife Alicia May (community liaison) in Delhi.He Evacuated family of Maid in india Maid's in-laws worked for them. (Added: Jan 21, 2014) (Expelled by Indian Government)
4. Geoffrey R. Pyatt, US Ambassador to Ukraine, when he was posted in Delhi from 2002-2007 as Minister Counselor.
Starting in 2012, the family of an Indian chauffeur in the US Embassy in New Delhi, appears to have been incited to participate in an elaborate scam.
The diplomat, Dr. Devyani Khobragade, is a living counter to many stereotypes. Born in a so-called “Scheduled Caste” family, she is the daughter of a man who started life as a manual laborer, and retired as one of India’s top officials in the competitive Indian Administrative Service. Before coming to the US she Studied Medicine Achieved Degree of medical doctor then She passed IAS exam with All India Rank 7th (One of the toughest exam in world/India), voluntarily asked post in Pakistan and Afghanistan, hardly a posting for anyone who shirks tough assignments!
The scam was apparently orchestrated through the US Embassy in New Delhi, to raise a high-profile ruckus about “Modern Slavery of Domestic Employees”, timed to resonate with the pompous White House release of the Domestic Worker initiative.
They got the maid to violate her employment contract, leading the Indian government to alert the US that she was heading to be an illegal alien.
An Indian court ruled against the maid, and India asked the US to help find her so that she could be repatriated to India as the law required.
The State Department then appears to have got the maid to file a complaint of mistreatment, based on blatantly misread/misused readings of visa forms filed by her and her employer.
The Embassy official, chief of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (BDS) and his wife violated their privileges in obtaining “T” (human trafficking) visas for the Indian family, and whisked them to America – in blatant violation of the due processes of Indian law.
His BDS associates in the US framed criminal charges, and got the New York Federal Marshals to conduct a completely needless, aggressive arrest of the diplomat in front of her children’s school, then proceeding to watching into her cavities in custody before she could be bailed out for whooping 250,000 $ Bail –and the fact widely publicized. (The super cop Jakie Neal, 40 years old, chased down a 19 year old girl, handcuffed her and raped her in the back of a police car , And he got arrested and was out on bail for a princely some of $20,000. The Deputy Counsul General of India - then Acting Counsul General - of India gets picked up on dubious visa fraud charges in front of her daughters school and is "processed" with cavity searches and then released on $250,000 bail.)
Immunity:
Geeky Indian officials Find out That She had Diplomatic Immunity as “Adviser to UN” so in short American Violated Vienna Convention , their Consular immunity idea was good but they didn’t work hard to look out for any other kind immunity she had.
American Diplomat violate Indian wage laws :
American Diplomat pay Peanuts to their Indian employees. India requested details on how the US Embassy pays and treats Indian employees. Not surprisingly, the Embassy is foot-dragging on that and discussing legal Advice from Washington and still after 2 month no submitted details .
Housewife Scam of American Diplomat : One Account Two Salaries
- We now see that the American Embassy School on the Embassy premises, has been deliberately and systematically violating both visa and tax laws for decades. Indian officials have cited this as “institutional fraud” and I cannot fault that description.
Administration of School Given Handouts to Couple Employees to Write "Housewife" instead of working and get one bank account for Salary of two People
-This is Multi-Million Dollar Scam of School which Charges 20000 $ per year Fees per year - Rival to Top Private School in Newyork and Washington According to Nytimes Report.
Making Money out of Duty free goods:
For Years American diplomat Misusing Facilities given by Indian Government , Government offered duty free imports from America for their use And American embassy started smuggling they hosted A full Market inside embassy for Whole World and Selling Duty free goods to other Embassies and non-diplomatic People .
Fraud case of Visa Fraud on Indian Diplomat :
The Visa Fraud charges filed by Preet Bharara are itself fraud , US attorney Charged with Indian Diplomat for Lying on Form of Maid , which was filled and Signed by maid by saying that form is filled by Diplomat From Same Computer IP (Ludicrous Charges). Rules say Only Person Responsible for form is only who filled and signed it .
Public Presentation Created that She lied on her Visa form but actually it was maid .
Settlement Offer:
After whole FUP and Controversy Mr. Preet Bharara offered her “ 1$ settlement “ but Indian Government Refused to Accept any Criminal charges on Indian diplomat not even if it’s 1 $ settlement then State department had no choice they offered her immunity and she left country .
Racist Facebook comments :
A Facebook search conducted by Indian or American kids then revealed the shockingly offensive racist, bigoted and gratuitous public postings by Wayne may and his wife and the BDS official Who did tax Fraud to Bought tickets of Maid's family . India quickly declared the BDS official persona non grata and allowed him to escape. A senior US Congressman has described the couple’s actions as “offensive and moronic”.
Finally :
US Embassy is involved in Visa fraud.
It is also involved in tax evasion.
It is also involved in FEMA violations.
It is running commercial establishments without seeking licenses under various local laws such as Shops and Establishment Act, Delhi Education Act, Fixation of fees and stipulations of Delhi Govt reg. admission of local students etc.
Labour Laws and Wages Act, EPF and ESIC regulations are violated.
Work Permit rules are violated.
Furnished false information on Visa documents.
No wonder they are caught in their own games with their pants down. Now they delay in giving information. What happened to law abiding nature of theirs and their declaration by Harf baby that they follow local laws.
Now India Thanking to American State Department for Exposing So many Scams.
Well, well, well just look how the cookie crumbled....I would love to see the expression on the face of Indian geniuses sitting in foggy bottom who would have been rubbing their hands in glee when Diplomat was arrested; and oh! the sermonizing...telling pagan Indians from third world country about equality before law and fairness and all that...and who can forget the transformation from Arrogant to condescending tone of the SD spokeswoman Bimbo Baby Marie Harf .
Sooner or Later you will Hear Case Dismissed.
What exactly Diplomat paid to maid here in Document !!!!!!!!!!!! -
Dailymail.co.uk Published this bellow document.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/27/article-0-1A4FA1BB00000578-972_964x1096.jpg
Consider this in light of the posts previously made here.
Regards
Mike
jmm99
02-01-2014, 07:43 AM
Regards
Mike
jmm99
02-01-2014, 09:03 AM
Regards
Mike
jmm99
02-01-2014, 09:15 AM
Regards
Mike
BIG BROTHERLY POSTURING
http://www.telegraphindia.com:8080/1140201/jsp/opinion/story_17884577.jsp#.Uu0wiPmSzKc
jmm99
02-06-2014, 08:50 PM
A spirited time is being had by all at Defence Forum India's thread, Indian diplomat arrested, handcuffed in US for visa fraud (http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/americas/56922-indian-diplomat-arrested-handcuffed-us-visa-fraud-211.html#post844254) (my visit there starts at page 211, with many pages over and under the bridge since then).
As "they" say (whoever the hell "they" are - see the Wild Bunch (Youtube) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qtw4y6A31i0), in the desert after the failed town invasion), the saga continues. This virtual "foreign assignment" has been an enlightening learning experience.
Regards
Mike
jmm99
02-08-2014, 05:27 AM
Regards
Mike
jmm99
02-08-2014, 05:32 AM
Regards
Mike
JMM99
Some more exciting time for you here:
US diplomat in Mumbai pays his Filipina maid less than $3 per hour
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/foreign-relations/58331-us-diplomat-mumbai-pays-his-filipina-maid-less-than-3-per-hour.html
jmm99
02-10-2014, 07:21 PM
Some more exciting time for you here:
US diplomat in Mumbai pays his Filipina maid less than $3 per hour
Besides, that story was linked and quoted by @aerokan in this DFI post (http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/americas/56922-indian-diplomat-arrested-handcuffed-us-visa-fraud-250.html#post854992); which I read - and didn't reply to; as I also haven't responded to numerous stories and comments which are not directly material to the SDNY Khobragade case itself. Not within my rules of engagement, old boy. ;)
Despite keeping a fairly disciplined limit on what areas I address and what areas I do not, I've read all of the comments (many emotive; which didn't surprise me at all) with interest. Take this one (http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/americas/56922-indian-diplomat-arrested-handcuffed-us-visa-fraud-251.html#post855074) from @Happy (an otherwise reasonable, moderately nationalistic person):
Now is the time to go for the kill. Demand full and unconditional apology while maintaining strict reciprocity. High time Indian SC takes cognisance of atrocities committed by US embassy and start issuing warrants suo moto.
Nothing that I wouldn't expect from a patriotic Indian national; but I'm not that, am I ?
Thank you again for extending the invitation.
Regards
Mike
NEW DELHI: Veteran US Diplomat and Pakistan expert Robin L Raphel, whose is currently being probed on espionage charges by American security agencies, encouraged creation of separatist Hurriyat Conference in Kashmir and often forced Delhi to hold dialogue with Islamabad even when bilateral ties were low, according to Indian officials who worked with her during the past two decades.
Raphel (67), remained Americas advisor on Pakistan, even after she left US State Department's South Asia Department's South Asia Department in June 1997 and also her retirement. However, it was during the turbulent nineties when insurgency was at it's height in Jammu and Kashmir that Raphel made headlines here as a India baiter.
Government officials, who dealt with Raphel in 1990s and also in past decade but did not wish to named, told ET that she was responsible for creation of Hurriyat Conference in Kashmir in 1993 whereby making them as a stakeholders even as India has always maintained that it was bilateral issue between Delhi and Islamabad.
Indian government officials no doubt are elated in private about the action against Raphel. "This is an interesting development. She has been extremely close to Pakistan. Her links in Kashmir runs deep," remarked a senior Indian official who did not wish to be named.
Another former Indian official who dealt with Raphel in 1990s and also during the decade of 2000, alleged that she was close to all separatist groups in Kashmir. "She went on to question the instrument of succession of J & kwith India and had stated that insurgency in the state was self sustaining. She was also close to Ghulam Mohammed Fai in US, an ISI conduit from Kashmir," the official recalled.
Raphel, former officials said, is known to maintain close links with Yasin Malik, leader of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front. Besides, she is close to Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, the most prominent face of Hurriyat Conference. A former official, who was testimony to one such incident told ET that in 2005 Raphel accompanied then US Deputy Chief of Mission in Delhi for a meeting with the Indian government and tried to cajole the government to talk to Mirwaiz. The role of that US Deputy Chief of Mission in this episode also finds a mention in Wikileaks. The Modi government made it clear that it does not consider Hurriyat Conference as a stakeholder after Pakistani High Commissioner met the leaders ahead of the Foreign Secretary level talks.
Earlier when relations between Delhi and Islamabad had touched a low following the attack on Parliament in 2001 and both sides had lowered level of diplomatic engagement, it was Raphel who tried to force India to talk to the Pervez Musharraf government, another official recalled. T "She would go that extra mile for Pakistan often sidestepping our concerns," the official said, adding Raphel remained State Department's Pakistan adviser even after she retired from the State Department.
Few also took notice that Raphel was in Delhi in 2012 at the invitation of then US envoy to Nancy Powell. The former US ambassador, who herself made an unceremonious exit from Delhi this year, introduced Raphel as a personal friend of hers to the some of the officials in Delhi. In fact Powell had fixed meetings of Raphel in Delhi, an official well versed with the developments informed ET.
It was her characterization of Kashmir as "disputed territory", a first in the annals of U.S. diplomacy, made her quick friends in Pakistan. She in fact contributed in internationalising Kashmir issue, much to India's discomfiture. Her stance on Kashmir made her the bane of the Indian establishment that did not favour any interference of outside powers in a domestic matter.Kashmir was raised on the agenda in Bhutto's first state visit to Washington in April 1995.
Kashmir would remain a key topic of regional and bilateral discussions with both India and Pakistan throughout President Bill Clinton's two terms in office. Raphel was also close to Bill Clinton who pulled her out from post of Counsellor she was holding in the US Embassy in Delhi to make her Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, a former diplomat recalled. She remained one of the most senior adverse of State Department on South Asia and Pakistan and was working with the State Department on renewable contracts. ..
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...campaign=cppst
After the collapse of USSR, India's relationship with the US, in quite a few fields, had blossomed and were being nurtured.
India clung to the Nehruvian socialism but it was the vision of Prime Minister Narashimha Rao that the shackles of socialism started being shown the door including the Nehruvian philosophy of Non Alignment.
While non Alignment was not discarded, Narashima Rao with great vision balanced the foreign equation by Looking East, befriending Israel openly and yet ensuring that the Arab nations were not displeased. He gave, a greater meaning to the US India relationship in a subdued way so as to not upset the apple cart in India drenched with Nehru's idea of the world.
Rao also loosened the stranglehold of socialism and the 'Licence Raj' by liberalisation and globalisation and that brought foreign capital into India, even if in a modest way.
Practical manifestation of US India Friendship and non hyphenation of India and Pakistan was set in motion by Clinton after the Kargil War. The Bush Administration gave it a real robust meaning to the Indo US strategic partnership with closer defence cooperation and getting the 'Nuclear deal' through the Congress, prompting a gushing PM of India to say - Mr Bush Indian love you!
Sadly, under Obama, the US India relationship has floundered and possibly has became a footnote in many ways.
The natural affinity and identification of Indian psyche with the US and democracy seems to have blurred thanks to the lacklustre attitude of the last Indian Govt under Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi and the esoteric dabbling of the Obama Administration mindset; almost as unproductive as Nehru's high faluting morality that had no strategic meaning excepting isolating India from the global realities.
Yet, the worm turned through the triumphant visit of the new PM Modi to the US that has raised hope that the US India relationship would once again be on even keel and be more stronger.
India and the US have common strategic concerns. To that extent, Modi's visit to Japan indicates a commitment to the US Asia Pivot plan, though it is still to fructify in concrete terms. And the Obama Administrations pussyfooting and vacillations bring no hope.
Worthy of note is that India on it own terms is facing China. It is no longer kowtowing to the Chinese demands. The latest being the brush off of China's protest to India for developing the infrastructure along the Line of Actual Control and going ahead in equipping and training the Vietnamese Armed Forces and exploiting in South China Sea that is of Vietnam, even if it is disingenuously claimed by China with its conjured nine dashes line.
There is no doubt that India or the neighbouring nations of China cannot solely contest China solely on its own even though India is capable of holding China and stopping it in its track. Such is the might and such is the resolve of new India under Modi.Yet, it is in interest of the US to assist those who can help the US to keep her own and their strategic interest going and healthy.
However, the moot point is that the US has to build confidence that it means business.
None can complain that the US has to balance her interests by engaging all countries that affect her national interests as she cannot complain about the same of others.
However, one cannot be double faced. It ruins the confidence of the actuality of intent.
No country will forgive any other extending the hand of friendship and working behind the back to encourage its chaos.
Raphael and Nancy Powell symbolises that duplicity as can be gleaned from the article.
US strategic interest should be of prime concern to the US, which still clings to the status as the leading power. In today's change geopolitical and geostrategic environment, it is amply clear that it cannot do it alone as before, as was evidently proved during the Iraq War II.
Therefore, US cannot afford to lose friends and well wishers.
If the US thwarts India, then Russia maybe willing to step into the void since it is already beleaguered and is desperately trying to find its place in the sun.
That would surely not be in the best interests of the US.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.