India-US relations: cooling and warming up (merged thread)

[Madhu]

Breath in Deep: http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.asp...&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]

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/de...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]

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]

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]

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/...lection-party/

[Madhu]

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/devya...ce=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.

[Ray]

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.

[Ray]

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...rRelations.pdf


The maid was on an official passport.

Her demand was also to get her a normal passport.

[jmm99]

both prosecutor



and accused



were born in India.

This is a Federal case - not a NY state case (not NYC cops and prosecutors). If you are familiar with current US Marshal Service 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 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 - two counts.

18 USC § 1546 - Fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents.

18 USC § 1001 - Statements or entries generally.

18 USC § 1002 - Possession of false papers to defraud United States.

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 (by Amrutha Gayathri, December 19 2013). Does Mr Kerry disown the complaint brought by his own department's Mark Smith? Not that I can see. So, we have something of a "non-regret, regret".

Regards

Mike