Indian deputy consul general arrested in US on visa fraud charges
- Thread starter manlion
- Start date
Iggy
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2009
- Messages
- 8,300
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
neehar
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2012
- Messages
- 2,725
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
nobody would have objected if this was done to a normal citizen.indian expats are doing the mistake of comparing her with themselves.shes did not go there to earn a living she represents govt of india.she is an IFS officer a group A civil servant and GOI gives her certain previlages according to her protocol similar to which it gives to all the other indian diplomats around the world.they include a residence a vehicle,a driver,a nanny/maid fuel,medical expenses and several other benifits either directly or monitorily.so the salary of the maid is given by the GOI. the diplomat herself gets less than the minimum wage so should the u.s register a case against pm of india??there are certain limitations for everything.u.s should not decide what protocols must be provided to our diplomats or what wages they must be given or what nail paint they must wear.the similar way we donot dictate which gender they date..as i said the socio economic conditions of the guest country must be considered.im sure u.s donot give $4500 pm to many people in its consulates across the world.
Sashan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2012
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 1
Aeronaut - I am seeing all the PR spin given including by her father including painting these illiterate maids as something of conniving witches implicating these angels who are representing the country. The sad fact is even many here is they do not understand that these maids are being exploited due to lack of proper English skills and living in an alien land can be intimidating with no one to talk to except the diplomat's family.
Bang Galore
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 10,685
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
The state department is not about to be held up on charges of obstruction of justice, that's simply silly. Immunity attaches to a person no matter when he gets it, that is the position of both the U.S. state department (in their guide) and has been upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.(Abdulaziz vs Metropolitan Dade County).
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19842069741F2d1328_11840
takeiteasy
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2010
- Messages
- 3,000
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
it is a kind of feeling..that gives immense pleasure. it's like sitting on the top of a mountain and looking down.
dray
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 10,853
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Consulates are like foreign territories where labor laws of host country won't apply. Our consulate employees including the accused diplomat get less than US minimum wages, though higher than what they get in India as they have to sustain there, Chinese diplomats get even less, as confirmed by one Chinese member here. US found fault in this case as the nanny was not a consulate employee, going forward India will hire maids/nannys for consulate employees through consulate only as contractual workers, hence US labor laws won't apply, when we don't pay our diplomats that much, how would we pay the US minimum wages to their maids? We will just change the process of hiring so that US laws doesn't apply.
Further, though this Indian lady was picked up, this is an existing common practice among all developing & under developed countries. This I came to know from a news channel debate where three ex-diplomats were participants. One of our ex-Indian diplomat at US G. Parthasarathy clearly said that this is a common and widely accepted practice among ALL developing and under-developed countries. Developed country's diplomats hire locals in other countries as the salaries are less and highly affordable for them, while diplomats of ALL developing and under-developed countries when posted in developed countries hire people from their native country at lesser salaries as local hires are not affordable for them, actually their own salaries are lower than the minimum wages of developed countries. Note that what the nanny was getting (all expenses paid+insurance+travel fare+Indian Rs.30,000) is actually unbelievably good for any nanny or maid in India, that's in rupee terms is similar to the salaries of a mid-level officer!! And that's why we Indians won't call the nanny "A victim". G. Parthasarathy asked one of the panelist, an ex-US diplomat; "Will you do what you did in this case to all such cases from all developing and under-developed countries"? The US diplomat was silent.
Going forward all maid/nannys/other personal staffs will be hired by the consulate itself on contractual basis and their salaries will be deducted from the hiring staff's salary, US minimum wages law doesn't apply to consulate staffs. The decorum of maintaining diplomatic relations were breached here, and we will reciprocate in kind if this is not settled amicably. US could have asked her to leave the country, but strip search? Was she a dreaded criminal suspected of carrying weapons, drugs, and contraband?
You know US consulates hire Indian employees with a fraction of salary that US employees of the consulates get, US laws apply in US consulates, so technically Indian employees working in US consulates should get salaries as per the US minimum wages, otherwise this can be termed as violation of "Equal opportunities" and "Discrimination at workplace". India is already inquiring about the US consulate's salary details, even US have to answer a lot if they decide to throw rule book at us.
And I am not going into Indian laws for homosexuals, no matter how much regressive it is, it is still a law of the land which can be applied. But I would prefer India doesn't play so cheap like US did, and simply start withdrawing our diplomats and ask US diplomats to leave if US persists with this any further. We have managed to survive in the past without US when we were much more vulnerable, we can do that now also, but we can't allow US to do intrusive cavity checks on us in the name of good relations and friendship, to hell with such relationship.
Sashan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2012
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 1
Now now - aren't we painting an altruistic picture here of the officials? These are sacrificing angels who represent the country. The A3 visa has well defined clause to hire a maid. Why do these angels need to violate the clause knowingly? The maid service is compensated by GOI. And the salary expected to be paid is something like $1500 per month(with weekends off else it is around $2000). These diplomats pay anything from $120 dollars(for the 17 year old in 2010 case) to $500 to the maids(as seen in various cases). Take that case of $120 per month maid - do you think a diplomat like Neena Malhotra is compensated only $120 per month for maid service?( Devyani looks better compared to her) - So are they trying to short change the maids while getting compensated by the GOI?
At present, diplomats hire their own domestic assistants for which the government reimburses them as per their pay scales.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/plan-to-hire-domestic-assistants-on-contract-for-diplomats-abroad/article5498415.ece
And these diplomats are compensated by the GOI for living abroad depending upon the country(not sure where you are getting that they are not paid the minimum). I am not even counting the perks like housing and cars.
And how do you know that U.S pays less than the minimum wage in different countries? The law is abide by the local laws and as long they fulfill it, then what is the issue?
And the choosing of either gender partner was legal till 2 months ago. Going forward, arrest them if the GOI can peep into their bedrooms. Last I know in India, two bros holding their hands or with their hands on each other's shoulders in public is not illegal.
And beyond that, India has already started removing all the extra perks.
Last edited:
harpoon
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,419
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Is it still less than the minimum wage for maids in USA?
Sashan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2012
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 1
Mate - I am doing a math of around $8 - the minimum wage for 8 hours in a day for 22 days.
neehar
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2012
- Messages
- 2,725
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
you are saying that she violated the u.s law.i am saying that u.s should not keep conditions on certain things.GOI need not peep in to their bed rooms.if a person applies a visa as a companion of some other of same gender we all know what it means and it is illegal even now.she claims that she worked 40 hrs a week.did she provided any proof that she worked so long??just because the maid is staying in her house doesnt mean that she working there..nothing was proved and all those are mere allegations which why she was granted a bail until further investigation takes place.so she must be treated atleast with some respect.she was not going to run away any where.they could have treated her with some respect called her to station and arrested her there if theres any problem.
further the maid agreed too recieve that salary in india and the indian courts are witness to the agreement.and when in u.s she grew overzealous and claimed extra salary.a case is registered against the maid in india .she and her family was happily deported to u.s despite the pending case in india.its the utter disregard the u.s has towards the indian judiciary.when u expect others to respect your law.u must do the same.
this is the diplomat's salary.so u.s is gonna arrest our pm now??
Envoy gets $4,120 per month, US says pay nanny $4,500 - India - DNA
dray
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 10,853
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Probably yes, in fact in US our consular staffs salaries are also less than the US minimum wages, but consulates are Indian territories, so US minimum wages law doesn't apply.
Again, if they want to screw you then they can screw you, when the maid is living in your house, how do you prove the maid was working for only maximum 40 hours a week? That maid claimed to be working for 19 hours a day! Probably by deducting 4 hours for sleep and 1 hour for eating, bathing, cleaning, and other personal work, highly unreal.
Last edited:
harpoon
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,419
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
I don't know whether its posted before, but here is a video from American Fox News discussing the Devayani Issue:
The American legal expert says that as human beings we should use our judgement than follow every letter and every word of the law...and this is from a Channel accused of being conservative and over the top patriotic while on the other hands the liberals both in India and outside somehow wants the Ms. Devayani to suffer as she is from a elitist background who subjected 'poor', 'innocent' Sangeeta Richards to modern day slavery for Rs 30,000/- per month.
The American legal expert says that as human beings we should use our judgement than follow every letter and every word of the law...and this is from a Channel accused of being conservative and over the top patriotic while on the other hands the liberals both in India and outside somehow wants the Ms. Devayani to suffer as she is from a elitist background who subjected 'poor', 'innocent' Sangeeta Richards to modern day slavery for Rs 30,000/- per month.
Breaching the Vienna Conventions
Every Indian diplomat in the U.S. has told the same lie, because none of them can afford to pay the local minimum wage when their own pay, even with the foreign allowance, is barely more than that
In the outrage over the arrest of Devyani Khobragade, we are perhaps not asking if the grounds the United States has given for this unusual step are morally or legally sustainable. The U.S. is right that Ms. Khobragade falsely stated when she applied for her domestic help’s visa that the woman would be paid over the minimum U.S. wage of $7.25 an hour. Every Indian diplomat in the U.S. has told the same lie, because none of them can afford to pay the local minimum wage when their own pay, even with the foreign allowance, is barely more than that. The U.S. government knows this, because the bank account of every Indian diplomat posted there, to which it has easy access, will make this plain. If it issues visas nevertheless, it is complicit in the lie.
The U.S. has a right to expect that no one brought there will be ill-treated. That forms the basis of its second charge, that because Ms. Khobragade did not pay her help the minimum U.S. wage, she treated the woman like a slave. Indians who agree, and believe the help is the real victim, perhaps do not know the facts.
Need and perception of need
The minimum wage in the U.S., as in India, is the government’s fanciful notion of what it costs to keep body and soul together, but civil society has long argued that it is woefully inadequate. Several U.S. non-governmental organisations make calculations for every city and county what the living wage should be, taking into account that the wage-earner must pay for food, housing, medical care, transportation and other essentials, including clothing. They hold that the minimum living wage in New York city for a single person is $12.75 an hour. For a single parent with two children, the dominant family pattern, it is $32.30, four times the official minimum wage.
This gap between actual need and the government’s perception of it translates into widespread poverty and hunger, particularly among the blacks and the Hispanics who form the bulk of the population that works at the minimum wage; they cannot live on it and therefore sink into debt. NGOs estimated that in 2012, 49 million Americans lived in food-insecure households. Households that had higher rates of food insecurity than the national average included households with children headed by single women (35.4 per cent), black households (24.6 per cent) and Hispanic households (23.3 per cent).
While the U.S. argues that anyone in New York paid less than the minimum U.S. wage is being ill-treated, what is in fact the case is that anyone who has to live only on that wage is — as the U.S. NGOs so vehemently argue — condemned to a life of poverty and hunger. Forbes pointed out in an article earlier this year that the unemployed who live on welfare get more in several States than those who work for minimum wages. In New York, Forbes calculated the annual take-home from welfare at $43,700 a year, or $21.01 an hour, almost three times the minimum wage.
It is important to remember this because a help employed by an Indian diplomat has none of the expenses that are assessed to compute either a minimum or a living wage. She stays in a room in the diplomat’s house, with her food, clothing, medical bills and transportation all paid for. Every dollar she earns is saved. If Sangeeta Richard was paid $500 a month, she was saving that a month. No one living on minimum wages in the U.S. has savings; most are up to their eyes in debt. Saving $500 a month for them is a pipe dream. The black and Hispanic women who work as domestic help and charwomen in the U.S., and form its underclass as the societal and lineal descendants of slave labour, would happily trade places with Sangeeta Richard.
Members of our civil society who argue that she was bonded labour, as defined in our Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, perhaps do not know the terms under which domestic help are employed by Indian diplomats. Neither that Act, nor any of the judgments of the Supreme Court which interpreted it, applies to them.
Convention and obligations
Those who claim that the Indian government has no interest in protecting domestic workers, and therefore is indifferent to Sangeeta Richard’s plight, ask why it has not ratified Convention 189 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) “Concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers,” which came into force in September 2013. This is unfair because the government of India voted for the draft, and has since prepared a draft “Policy for Domestic Workers,” incorporating many of the provisions of the Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act (UWSSA), 2008.
It is also not germane to this case because ILO Convention 189 would protect a domestic worker abroad only if the host government has ratified it. Like India, the U.S. government also voted for the Convention in 2011, but made a remarkably candid statement in explanation of vote: “In the case of the United States, a number of the provisions present complex issues with respect to our existing law in practice, including in regard to our federal system of government. Accordingly, we want to make clear that our vote to adopt this Convention entails no obligation by the United States to ratify it.”
Convention 189 offers all the protections that the U.S. claims Sangeeta Richard was denied. If these are already statutory requirements in the U.S., it is hard to understand why the convention presented it with “complex issues,” which had to be reconciled with its laws.
What is disturbing is that the U.S. “evacuated” the Richard family after issuing them “T-visas,” given to the next of kin of victims of human trafficking. This meant that, in its view, Sangeeta Richard was a victim of human trafficking as defined in the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children, which supplements the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC).
The protocol defines “trafficking in persons” in detail. None of the conditions precedent applies to Sangeeta Richard, and a person travelling on an official passport of a democracy run by the rule of law by definition is not someone who is being trafficked. Moreover, when the Indian Embassy had asked the U.S. government to help trace her when she absconded, the T-visas in response make it clear that the U.S. considered the Indian government complicit in human trafficking.
It follows that the U.S. does not have the slightest intention of abiding by Article 8 of the Protocol, which sets out the terms under which a victim of trafficking is sent back to her country. In turn, this violates the assurance the U.S. gave when it ratified the protocol, to which it entered a reservation, but clarified that “this reservation does not affect in any respect the ability of the United States to provide international cooperation to other Parties as contemplated in the Protocol.”
Iran case
Instead, the U.S. claims that its laws were broken, and since a consular officer does not have the full immunity of an accredited diplomat, Ms. Khobragade was not immune from either arrest or subsequent prosecution. This, though, is not what the U.S. argued as the applicable international law when its diplomatic and consular staff were taken hostage in Iran in 1979, and the government in Tehran threatened to prosecute them for acts that were, in its view, crimes in Iranian law. The U.S. moved the International Court of Justice and in its submission, claimed inter alia that: “Pursuant to Articles 28, 31, 33, 34, 36 and 40 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Government of lran is under an international legal obligation to the United States to ensure that … the consular personnel of the United States be treated with respect and protected from attack on their persons, freedom, and dignity; and that United States consular officers be free from arrest or detention. The Government of Iran has violated and is currently violating the foregoing obligations.”
The court ruled in favour of the U.S. on all points, by a large majority on most, but unanimously on the U.S. contention, examined at length in its judgment, that the Iranian threat to prosecute diplomatic and consular staff was a violation of the Vienna Conventions. The court held that: “no member of the United States diplomatic or consular staff may be kept in Iran to be subjected to any form of judicial proceedings or to participate in them as a witness.”
The U.S. therefore does not really have a case, on either moral or legal grounds. What is surprising is that it was prepared to offend a country that is now of some strategic and commercial interest to it, and so blatantly breach the Vienna Conventions that protect its diplomatic and consular agents as much as they do all others. Except, it seems, in Iran in 1979 and in the U.S. in 2013.
(Satyabrata Pal, a former High Commissioner to Pakistan, is a Member of the National Human Rights Commission.)
Breaching the Vienna Conventions - The Hindu
some one must read this.Saving of 500$ of domestic worker of Indian embassy in new york is not that bad
Every Indian diplomat in the U.S. has told the same lie, because none of them can afford to pay the local minimum wage when their own pay, even with the foreign allowance, is barely more than that
In the outrage over the arrest of Devyani Khobragade, we are perhaps not asking if the grounds the United States has given for this unusual step are morally or legally sustainable. The U.S. is right that Ms. Khobragade falsely stated when she applied for her domestic help’s visa that the woman would be paid over the minimum U.S. wage of $7.25 an hour. Every Indian diplomat in the U.S. has told the same lie, because none of them can afford to pay the local minimum wage when their own pay, even with the foreign allowance, is barely more than that. The U.S. government knows this, because the bank account of every Indian diplomat posted there, to which it has easy access, will make this plain. If it issues visas nevertheless, it is complicit in the lie.
The U.S. has a right to expect that no one brought there will be ill-treated. That forms the basis of its second charge, that because Ms. Khobragade did not pay her help the minimum U.S. wage, she treated the woman like a slave. Indians who agree, and believe the help is the real victim, perhaps do not know the facts.
Need and perception of need
The minimum wage in the U.S., as in India, is the government’s fanciful notion of what it costs to keep body and soul together, but civil society has long argued that it is woefully inadequate. Several U.S. non-governmental organisations make calculations for every city and county what the living wage should be, taking into account that the wage-earner must pay for food, housing, medical care, transportation and other essentials, including clothing. They hold that the minimum living wage in New York city for a single person is $12.75 an hour. For a single parent with two children, the dominant family pattern, it is $32.30, four times the official minimum wage.
This gap between actual need and the government’s perception of it translates into widespread poverty and hunger, particularly among the blacks and the Hispanics who form the bulk of the population that works at the minimum wage; they cannot live on it and therefore sink into debt. NGOs estimated that in 2012, 49 million Americans lived in food-insecure households. Households that had higher rates of food insecurity than the national average included households with children headed by single women (35.4 per cent), black households (24.6 per cent) and Hispanic households (23.3 per cent).
While the U.S. argues that anyone in New York paid less than the minimum U.S. wage is being ill-treated, what is in fact the case is that anyone who has to live only on that wage is — as the U.S. NGOs so vehemently argue — condemned to a life of poverty and hunger. Forbes pointed out in an article earlier this year that the unemployed who live on welfare get more in several States than those who work for minimum wages. In New York, Forbes calculated the annual take-home from welfare at $43,700 a year, or $21.01 an hour, almost three times the minimum wage.
It is important to remember this because a help employed by an Indian diplomat has none of the expenses that are assessed to compute either a minimum or a living wage. She stays in a room in the diplomat’s house, with her food, clothing, medical bills and transportation all paid for. Every dollar she earns is saved. If Sangeeta Richard was paid $500 a month, she was saving that a month. No one living on minimum wages in the U.S. has savings; most are up to their eyes in debt. Saving $500 a month for them is a pipe dream. The black and Hispanic women who work as domestic help and charwomen in the U.S., and form its underclass as the societal and lineal descendants of slave labour, would happily trade places with Sangeeta Richard.
Members of our civil society who argue that she was bonded labour, as defined in our Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, perhaps do not know the terms under which domestic help are employed by Indian diplomats. Neither that Act, nor any of the judgments of the Supreme Court which interpreted it, applies to them.
Convention and obligations
Those who claim that the Indian government has no interest in protecting domestic workers, and therefore is indifferent to Sangeeta Richard’s plight, ask why it has not ratified Convention 189 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) “Concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers,” which came into force in September 2013. This is unfair because the government of India voted for the draft, and has since prepared a draft “Policy for Domestic Workers,” incorporating many of the provisions of the Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act (UWSSA), 2008.
It is also not germane to this case because ILO Convention 189 would protect a domestic worker abroad only if the host government has ratified it. Like India, the U.S. government also voted for the Convention in 2011, but made a remarkably candid statement in explanation of vote: “In the case of the United States, a number of the provisions present complex issues with respect to our existing law in practice, including in regard to our federal system of government. Accordingly, we want to make clear that our vote to adopt this Convention entails no obligation by the United States to ratify it.”
Convention 189 offers all the protections that the U.S. claims Sangeeta Richard was denied. If these are already statutory requirements in the U.S., it is hard to understand why the convention presented it with “complex issues,” which had to be reconciled with its laws.
What is disturbing is that the U.S. “evacuated” the Richard family after issuing them “T-visas,” given to the next of kin of victims of human trafficking. This meant that, in its view, Sangeeta Richard was a victim of human trafficking as defined in the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children, which supplements the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC).
The protocol defines “trafficking in persons” in detail. None of the conditions precedent applies to Sangeeta Richard, and a person travelling on an official passport of a democracy run by the rule of law by definition is not someone who is being trafficked. Moreover, when the Indian Embassy had asked the U.S. government to help trace her when she absconded, the T-visas in response make it clear that the U.S. considered the Indian government complicit in human trafficking.
It follows that the U.S. does not have the slightest intention of abiding by Article 8 of the Protocol, which sets out the terms under which a victim of trafficking is sent back to her country. In turn, this violates the assurance the U.S. gave when it ratified the protocol, to which it entered a reservation, but clarified that “this reservation does not affect in any respect the ability of the United States to provide international cooperation to other Parties as contemplated in the Protocol.”
Iran case
Instead, the U.S. claims that its laws were broken, and since a consular officer does not have the full immunity of an accredited diplomat, Ms. Khobragade was not immune from either arrest or subsequent prosecution. This, though, is not what the U.S. argued as the applicable international law when its diplomatic and consular staff were taken hostage in Iran in 1979, and the government in Tehran threatened to prosecute them for acts that were, in its view, crimes in Iranian law. The U.S. moved the International Court of Justice and in its submission, claimed inter alia that: “Pursuant to Articles 28, 31, 33, 34, 36 and 40 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Government of lran is under an international legal obligation to the United States to ensure that … the consular personnel of the United States be treated with respect and protected from attack on their persons, freedom, and dignity; and that United States consular officers be free from arrest or detention. The Government of Iran has violated and is currently violating the foregoing obligations.”
The court ruled in favour of the U.S. on all points, by a large majority on most, but unanimously on the U.S. contention, examined at length in its judgment, that the Iranian threat to prosecute diplomatic and consular staff was a violation of the Vienna Conventions. The court held that: “no member of the United States diplomatic or consular staff may be kept in Iran to be subjected to any form of judicial proceedings or to participate in them as a witness.”
The U.S. therefore does not really have a case, on either moral or legal grounds. What is surprising is that it was prepared to offend a country that is now of some strategic and commercial interest to it, and so blatantly breach the Vienna Conventions that protect its diplomatic and consular agents as much as they do all others. Except, it seems, in Iran in 1979 and in the U.S. in 2013.
(Satyabrata Pal, a former High Commissioner to Pakistan, is a Member of the National Human Rights Commission.)
Breaching the Vienna Conventions - The Hindu
some one must read this.Saving of 500$ of domestic worker of Indian embassy in new york is not that bad
takeiteasy
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2010
- Messages
- 3,000
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Devyani Khobragade case: Indian media is less biased than the US
The responses of the US and Indian media to the Devyani Khobragade case – where her maid has received US asylum for alleged underpayment by Khobragade and visa fraud done at the latter’s instance - are interesting.
Contrary to US media allegations that India has been singularly focused on only one side of the story – that of Khobragade – it is clear that the US media has been completely one-sided in its reportage about the handcuffing and strip-search of Khobragade after her arrest. The US knows that this is not how diplomats from friendly countries are treated, but wants to cover up for its own lack of grace by throwing the letter of the law against Khobragade.
Devyani Khobragade case: Indian media is less biased than the US | Firstpost
The responses of the US and Indian media to the Devyani Khobragade case – where her maid has received US asylum for alleged underpayment by Khobragade and visa fraud done at the latter’s instance - are interesting.
Contrary to US media allegations that India has been singularly focused on only one side of the story – that of Khobragade – it is clear that the US media has been completely one-sided in its reportage about the handcuffing and strip-search of Khobragade after her arrest. The US knows that this is not how diplomats from friendly countries are treated, but wants to cover up for its own lack of grace by throwing the letter of the law against Khobragade.
Devyani Khobragade case: Indian media is less biased than the US | Firstpost
Similar threads
