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

[Ray]

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...ef=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/...5b3_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/southa...816225387.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/114011...p#.UtYkhJ61aAo