Indian deputy consul general arrested in US on visa fraud charges

[Irfan Baloch]

@Irfan Baloch

Reportedly the lady's hubby is Pakistani.

thats a surprise, Indian girls love our men I can understand that. she is not the first or the last one

 

[dray]

Even today, the US does not pay its own minimum wages to migrant labour in the south. But we want to believe that Devyani Khobragade is somehow morally inferior to those US marshals who strip-searched her for paying her maid less than the US minimum wage. Legally, she may be in trouble with US law, but it is a law that is being applied in the breach to us for unstated political reasons.

Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/world/devy...an-the-us-1304473.html?utm_source=ref_article

thats a surprise, Indian girls love our men I can understand that. she is not the first or the last one

In fact she is not the one, her husband is not a Pakistani. And certainly we won't send a diplomat to US consulate posting who's husband is a Pakistani.

 

[Star Wars]

thats a surprise, Indian girls love our men I can understand that. she is not the first or the last one

HE is an Indian American.......

 

[Sashan]

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

By saying that U.S should treat the diplomats differently, you are looking for that 'extra' privilege to be handed over. The same was done here in India to U.S officials and was being revoked on a reciprocal basis now. My position is simple - do not grant anyone US or Indian officials anything beyond what the standard procedures are.

And again the Indian embassy was informed in Sept about the case against Devyani. What did the embassy and MEA do? Sleep on it. Again arrest procedurewise you are expecting a privilege not extended to the common man for her.

Maid is involved in visa fraud as well and that is where I find it amazing on the approach of NY DA though they can have one of the accused as witness in the case as per U.S laws. And moving the family to US was stupidity at best which does not bode well.

Again you are claiming that the diplomat's salary is minimum. How are you arriving at the conclusion? Also note that her salary is tax-exempted and involves other perks as well like housing and car.Though the A category visa clearly states that the other perks should be only a small percentage of the total salary(again the defense put in by many Indians about the maid's salary that she is being provided house and food).

U.S is not going to pull out some no of $4500 from the thin air. I think it is the no quoted in the DS-160 form under the employee salary - the same defense her father started with - i.e that the maid filled the form and today's news - the attorney claims that the U.S authorities made a mistake in misreading the form which is nothing of that sorts which only someone who had filled up the DS-160 form would know. Who knows why Devyani quoted the no - Maybe thinking what difference it is going to make whether I show in the visa paper the minimum wage of $1560 or $4500 except showing $4500 would improve the visa chances for the nanny while on the side I am going to pay $500. And the maid salary is claimed as a separate allowance by her beyond the salary as per the perks. So what difference is it going to make what her salary is?

 

[Sashan]

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.

The US consular staffs are paid beyond the minimum salary i.e $1500 and change defined under U.S labor laws for 40 hour work. For example, Devyani's attorney is claiming she is being paid $4150 which is actually tax free for A visa workers. Besides, they have additional benefits like housing(in Devyani's case, in a nice location in Manhattan) and car besides the maid salary allowance.

True they can screw you if they can screw you - it can happen anywhere. Not just in this case. But think rationally - an illiterate maid(take the case of Shanthi Gurung - she is 17 and does not speak English) - would she dare to venture out and talk to authorities? I have seen educated H1Bs abused while they are hesitant to go to authorities.

As for the 19 hours a day maybe it is overstretched but isn't it normal that in India the maid puts to sleep the kids at 10 pm in the night and then wakes up early morning to take care of morning work and though she might have the rest during day time technically her work day starts from early in the morning to night? And how many maids in India take the weekends off? So it is all about interpretations and in comparison to British nannies who have strict working hours while they stay at home these nannies are overworked technically. I believe this technicality is what is being exploited by the NGOs and attorneys to strengthen the case of the maids.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

In fact she is not the one, her husband is not a Pakistani. And certainly we won't send a diplomat to US consulate posting who's husband is a Pakistani.

oh come on... dont be a spoil sport.. let the harmless gossip flow.

on the serious note
lets agree that Devyani tried to bypass the system. but her treatment was uncalled for and excessive

HE is an Indian American.......

lair lair pants on fire.. boo hoo to you..

 

[dray]

on the serious note
lets agree that Devyani tried to bypass the system. but her treatment was uncalled for and excessive

Yes, if one strictly goes by the book. And our main objection is preciously about the treatment that was applied to our consulate employee, nobody would have reacted if it was about just an individual Indian. Also, the way they 'evacuated' the maid's family to 'save' them from our legal system when a case was registered against them in an Indian court; this one has become a matter of national prestige.

Please also read this article for a different perspective of the case: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2528046/Fear-loathing-New-York-Former-diplomat-Prabhu-Dayal-reveals-Indian-envoys-US-fall-victim-maids-pursuing-American-dreams.html

 

[PakPrinciples]

That is a problem here of course but why would they strip search her?

I guess after having stripped her poor maid of her dignity and freedom they thought the diplomat deserved the same treatment.

I think America really wanted to humiliate India and violate her honor.

The diplomat isn't the victim the maid is.

The poor defenseless domestic worker she bashed around and paid almost nothing to was probably trying to make some money to feed her own family back home. The icing on the cake is this woman ensured that her maid was unable to find work elsewhere in the US by confiscating her passport and paying her so little that she had no savings to fall back on.

This isn't new, in Canada there was an Indian origin politician named Ruby Dhalia who was charged with having abused her two maids as well.

So my question is where is the support for the maid from the Indian community?

Why no compassion for a poor woman who also happens to be Indian or the disgust over how this is referred to as a "minor infraction"? Does she happen to be a dalit unworthy of compassion?

Slavery may be acceptable in India but it's not tolerated in the US and Canada.

 

[PakPrinciples]

It is not a crime by Indian Law, and she has diplomatic immunity from US laws. What part of that do you not understand ?

Well no surprise considering India's long history of human rights abuses whether it be in occupied Kashmir, Punjab, etc...

Furthermore, Khobragade is only covered under "consular immunity" meaning she is only immune from prosecution when it directly relates to her job as a consular official otherwise she is subject to prosecution under US laws. This is why India is asking the US to agree to allow her to move onto India's permanent mission in the UN so she can enjoy full diplomatic immunity.

The Indian government knows full well that she messed up bad but is simply making a public spectacle solely because of upcoming elections.

 

[dray]

I guess after having stripped her poor maid of her dignity and freedom they thought the diplomat deserved the same treatment.

And 'their thought' should not be the deciding factor about how a diplomat should be treated.

Devyani Khobragade case: 'don't feel like domestic help', Sangeeta Richard reportedly wrote in diary | NDTV.com
Sangeeta Richard: The housekeeper of Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade | Mail Online

The diplomat isn't the victim the maid is.

Always listen to the other side before reaching to any conclusion:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2528046/Fear-loathing-New-York-Former-diplomat-Prabhu-Dayal-reveals-Indian-envoys-US-fall-victim-maids-pursuing-American-dreams.html

The poor defenseless domestic worker she bashed around and paid almost nothing to was probably trying to make some money to feed her own family back home. The icing on the cake is this woman ensured that her maid was unable to find work elsewhere in the US by confiscating her passport and paying her so little that she had no savings to fall back on.

What the nanny was getting (all expenses paid+insurance+travel fare+Indian Rs.30,000) is actually unbelievably good for any Indian nanny or maid, that's in rupee terms is similar to the salaries of a mid-level officer!! I don't how much a Pakistani maid/nanny earns.

Also read this:
Breaching the Vienna Conventions - The Hindu

This isn't new, in Canada there was an Indian origin politician named Ruby Dhalia who was charged with having abused her two maids as well.

So my question is where is the support for the maid from the Indian community?

Why no compassion for a poor woman who also happens to be Indian or the disgust over how this is referred to as a "minor infraction"? Does she happen to be a dalit unworthy of compassion?

Slavery may be acceptable in India but it's not tolerated in the US and Canada.

In fact the Indian diplomat is a Dalit.

Hope this helps.

 

[dray]

Decoding the Khobragade controversy: How a row over a maid's visa sparked a full-scale diplomatic incident
By Saurabh Shukla

PUBLISHED: 23:34 GMT, 18 December 2013 | UPDATED: 23:42 GMT, 18 December 2013
The Devyani Khobragade controversy is not just about the provocative arrest of a senior Indian diplomat. Highly-placed sources have told Mail Today that Sangeeta Richard, the maid at the centre of the controversy, was previously employed by a senior US diplomat.

Another intriguing part of the unfolding story is that a visa was issued to the Richard family - Sangeeta's husband Philip and their two children - and they left the country by an Air India flight on December 10, even as New Delhi was engaging with Washington on the issue.

A Mail Today investigation has revealed how the saga unfolded, with the Indian Deputy Consul General finding it difficult even to lodge a missing person's report for Sangeeta Richard with the New York Police Department (NYPD), and how the US ignored India's plea for action against Richard and instead piled pressure on India.


Mail Today has accessed official documents to weave the story together. This is how it all went down:

NOVEMBER 2012: Sangeeta Richard enters the United States with Deputy Consul General Devyani Khobragade.

JUNE 23, 2013: Richard goes missing. In Delhi, her husband says he has no idea where she is. Richard had some days earlier sought Khobragade's permission to take up another part-time job in New York; it was denied.

JUNE 24, 2013: Office of Foreign Missions (OFM) in New York informed, and its help requested in tracing Richard. An intriguing part of the story is how difficult it became for Khobragade to file a Missing Persons Report with the NYPD. It was on the advice of the OFM, Khobragade went to file a missing person report at the police precinct concerned, but was told that she could not since Richard was an adult, and that such a report could only be lodged by a member of her family.

When Mr Richard, Sangeeta's husband, was contacted, he refused to file a Missing Person Report, indicating his awareness of something being amiss.

Indian Deputy Consul General Devyani Khobragade found it difficult even to lodge a missing person's report for her maid Sangeeta Richard

JUNE 25, 2013: Unable to file a report, Devyani sends a letter to the police precinct concerned, requesting them to file a missing person report and trace Richard. Sustained efforts resulted in the NYPD seeking inspection of Khobragade's residence.

As diplomatic premises are out of bounds for local law enforcement agencies, Khobragade was interviewed in front of the Permanent Mission of India, her residence, and a missing person report filed by the NYPD.

JULY 1, 2013: A woman claiming to be the Richard's lawyer calls Khobragade to tell her that Sangeeta would not go to court only if, one, the Indian diplomat signs a 566 form authorising the maid to terminate her employment, and, two, change her visa status from government visa to normal visa, and, three, be compensated for 19 hours of work per day.

Khobragade refuses to negotiate on the phone, insisting that the caller first identify herself. She claims the caller hung up.

JULY 2, 2013: Khobragade informs the OFM about these developments in writing, seeking NYPD support in ascertaining the identity of the caller and her links with Richard, and claiming the conversations clearly indicate that the runaway maid has no intention of returning to India and seems keen to extort money by making false accusations. No action is taken.

Khobragade files a written complaint with the Delhi Police against Sangeeta Richard and her husband Philip Richard, accusing them of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and asking the police to begin proceedings against them and recover the maid's official passport.

JULY 5, 2013: Khobragade files complaint of "aggravated harassment" with respect to the phone call received on July 1 for extortion and blackmail. No action taken by NYPD. Michael Phillips, Director (Human Resources) at the US embassy in New Delhi, is called by senior MEA official and briefed about missing maid, reports filed with the US State Department and NYPD, and the FIR filed in India against Sangeeta Richard.

The assistance of the State Department and US Embassy is sought in locating the maid and sending her back to India to pre-empt this being used as an immigration channel. The US Embassy conveys its understanding and promises to follow-up with the State Department and local authorities. No feedback is received India's requests, however.

Similar requests were made by the Indian Embassy in Washington D.C. to the State Department in Washington D.C.

Lack of cooperation by Philip Richard prompts Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to advise Khobragade on filing a First Information Report in Delhi against the Richard family for wilful deceit and attempt to cheat to illegally immigrate to the US by wrongful means.

Based on the MEA's advice, Khobragade also files for an anticipatory anti-suit injunction in the Delhi High Court so as to prevent filing of any case in the US by Richard to avoid ensuing litigation in the US.

JULY 8, 2013: Khobragade is called to 'Access Immigration', an immigration lawyer's office, to discuss terms of settlement with Richard. Accompanied by the consulate officers, Khobragade meets Richard who seeks payment of $10,000 and the granting of an ordinary Indian passport, along with whatever immigration relief is required to stay on in the US on that ordinary passport.

Consulate officials tell Richard that she cannot remain in the US under any circumstances without legal authorisation, and that she should return to India as per her contract with Khobragade. Richard is told that any argument over salary or working hours could be settled in the consulate before her return to India. Richard refuses, saying that she wants to remain in the US.

Khobragade complains to the NYPD about the demands, but there is no response. Richard's passport is revoked and notice for termination of her personal identity also given to OFM with effect from June 22, 2013. Richard is now staying illegally in the US. A felony / theft complaint is filed with the NYPD against Richard by Khobragade's husband, reporting theft of cash, Blackberry phone, two SIM cards, a metro card (valued at $113) and documents such as contracts, signed receipt book-cum-working hour log. No action is taken.

Watchful: The US Embassy in New Delhi has been under scrutiny since the evolving row took hold

JULY 15 & 19, 2013: Philip Richard filed a writ petition against Khobragade and the Union of India, alleging that his wife Sangeeta Richard was in police custody in New York since July 8, 2013, charging the Indian diplomat with "slave labour" and illegally making Sangeeta sign a 'second contract' with far less pay and perks. The Union of India is accused of not paying according to the requirements of the local law. Richard withdraws his writ petition four days later.

JULY 30, 2013: A copy of Philip Richard's writ petition is forwarded to OFM, which states that Sangeeta is in police custody in New York, for producing the maid at the Consulate so she can be repatriated to India as requested by her husband in his writ petition. Consul General is also informed that Richard was last seen at the office of Access Immigration on July 8, 2013. No action taken by the US.

The Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations, in New York

SEPTEMBER 4, 2013: The US State Department issues a one-sided letter to the Indian Ambassador, projecting the allegations of the maid which are of "considerable concern", and asking for the allegations to be probed. It also seeks a voluntary meeting between Khobragade and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security in the State Department as well as proof of payment of minimum wages from the embassy.

SEPTEMBER 10, 2013: In Delhi, MEA calls US officials and strongly protests against the tone and content of the letter.

SEPTEMBER 20, 2013: Delhi High Court issues an ex-parte ad interim injunction against Philip and Sangeeta Richard, restraining them from initiating any legal action or proceedings against Khobragade in any Court / Tribunal / Forum outside India with regard to her employment. The final hearing in the matter is scheduled December 13, 2013.

SEPTEMBER 21, 2013: A reply is sent to the State Department by the Indian Embassy in Washington, rebutting the allegations and bringing out the facts of the case while highlighting the fact that Sangeeta Richard is seeking monetary settlement and a US visa, thereby seeking to subvert both Indian and US laws. The letter also emphasises that the matter is an issue between the Government of India and one of its employees and is not subject to US regulation or adjudication. Assistance of the State Department is sought in locating and repatriating Sangeeta Richard to India.

NOVEMBER 19, 2013: Metropolitan Magistrate of South District, New Delhi, issues a non-bailable arrest warrant against Sangeeta Richard.

DECEMBER 6, 2013: The arrest warrant issued by the Delhi Metropolitan court is forwarded to the US State Department and the US Embassy in New Delhi, requesting them to instruct the relevant authorities in the US to arrest and repatriate Sangeeta Richard to India through the Consulate in New York, so that due process of law may be prosecuted in India. No action is taken by the US.

DECEMBER 12, 2013: Khobragade arrested on the basis of a Second District court warrant for visa fraud as she drops her daughter to school in New York. Immunity is denied under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) for this "felony charge" Bail posted at $250,000, Khobragade's passport is seized, and she is asked not to leave the country or seek another travel document though she can travel within the US after notifying authorities. She is been not to be in touch with Sangeeta Richard.

JANUARY 13, 2014: Next date of hearing is announced, but Khobragade's attorney claims he is not free that day and is negotiating another date, which will be known in due course. Pre-trial process commenced on December 16, 2013 where a urine sample was taken by US authorities for drugs testing.



US says Indian government knew about the case
By Indira Kannan in Toronto


The United States had informed the Indian Government about the allegations against Devyani Khobragade, the Deputy Consul General in New York, over three months prior to her arrest last week.

A State Department official told Mail Today: "To confirm, the State Department notified the Indian Embassy in writing on September 4. The Department of State advised the Embassy of the Republic of India of allegations of abuse made by an Indian national against the Deputy Consul General of India in New York."

This refers to the allegations by Khobragade's former housekeeper and babysitter, who the US Attorney's office in New York claims was brought in to the US on the basis of fraudulent information given by the Indian diplomat and then paid less than the amount specified in her contract, and less than minimum wages in America.

The State Department said the notification sent to the embassy was part of official procedure and the department's policy of advising foreign missions of allegations made involving a member of a mission or a family member. Officials at the Indian Embassy in Washington, DC could not be reached to comment on what, if any, action was taken by the Indian government upon receipt of the notification from the State Department.

The State Department has clarified that Khobragade has consular immunity, which applies only to functions performed in line with her official duties and not to alleged crimes such as visa fraud. She does not have diplomatic immunity which applies across the board.

With the Indian government now reportedly moving to obtain diplomatic immunity for Khobragade, the disclosure of the State Department's prior notification could raise the question as why Indian officials did not anticipate possible action against their diplomat and take action to provide her with diplomatic immunity earlier if they were convinced there was no wrongdoing on her part.

On December 5, 25 current and former Russian diplomats in New York and their spouses were charged with defrauding Medicaid, a state-run healthcare program, but none was arrested or prosecuted as the US said they enjoyed diplomatic immunity.

Decoding the Devyani Khobragade controversy: How a row over a maid's visa sparked a full-scale diplomatic incident | Mail Online

Now combine that story with this one below, and the story becomes interesting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2528046/Fear-loathing-New-York-Former-diplomat-Prabhu-Dayal-reveals-Indian-envoys-US-fall-victim-maids-pursuing-American-dreams.html

 

[Chronos]

HE is an Indian American.......

This. She met him in Germany.

He is an academic.

 

[neehar]

By saying that U.S should treat the diplomats differently, you are looking for that 'extra' privilege to be handed over. The same was done here in India to U.S officials and was being revoked on a reciprocal basis now. My position is simple - do not grant anyone US or Indian officials anything beyond what the standard procedures are.

And again the Indian embassy was informed in Sept about the case against Devyani. What did the embassy and MEA do? Sleep on it. Again arrest procedurewise you are expecting a privilege not extended to the common man for her.

Maid is involved in visa fraud as well and that is where I find it amazing on the approach of NY DA though they can have one of the accused as witness in the case as per U.S laws. And moving the family to US was stupidity at best which does not bode well.

Again you are claiming that the diplomat's salary is minimum. How are you arriving at the conclusion? Also note that her salary is tax-exempted and involves other perks as well like housing and car.Though the A category visa clearly states that the other perks should be only a small percentage of the total salary(again the defense put in by many Indians about the maid's salary that she is being provided house and food).

U.S is not going to pull out some no of $4500 from the thin air. I think it is the no quoted in the DS-160 form under the employee salary - the same defense her father started with - i.e that the maid filled the form and today's news - the attorney claims that the U.S authorities made a mistake in misreading the form which is nothing of that sorts which only someone who had filled up the DS-160 form would know. Who knows why Devyani quoted the no - Maybe thinking what difference it is going to make whether I show in the visa paper the minimum wage of $1560 or $4500 except showing $4500 would improve the visa chances for the nanny while on the side I am going to pay $500. And the maid salary is claimed as a separate allowance by her beyond the salary as per the perks. So what difference is it going to make what her salary is?

1.every diplomat deserves to be treated with respect.they are not some random citizens.they represent a country
2.MEA consulted with state department 3 times of which no response was given the first two times and they reciprocated with an arrest on the last one
3.why dont you consider the same things for maid aswell.she dont spend a single dollar there.all her salary was sent to home.she was given a seperate room in diplomat's house.food,travel expenses,telephone charges,medical bills,clothes and everything is provided by the diplomat.she goes to beauty parlour every week!! i dont know how many maids in india does that.
4.she is not the first diplomat to lie and she wont be the last.every u.s state department person know that.the maid declared her salary in her visa so why did they allow her first of all!!the diplomat also has a driver and i'm sure he wont be paid $4500 a month.why only the maid and why only this diplomat when every other one is left out??
5.the maid agreed to30000 rupees per month salary and what made her to play a victim card all of a sudden??
6.how did this become a human trafficking case??all her mistake is she lied nothing else.the maid is not a small kid to kidnap her and keep her as a slave!!gullible Americans always trust their govt.

the reason is simple..an ambitious prosecutor and a green card greedy maid colluded together for their personal gains to harass a diplomat of a country which once they belong to.

 

[Srinivas]

Devyani Khobragade row: US must apologise to India

Indians are upset about the strip searching of a diplomat.


George Orwell, where are you when your country of birth needs you?

Consider two cases of consular officials two years apart. One shoots and kills two locals, the other pays her nanny wages below local minimum but above home rates. The same US president insists on diplomatic immunity for the first but stays silent on the second.

Had host-country law prevailed, the first - Raymond Davis, a CIA contractor in Lahore, Pakistan - could have faced the death sentence. Instead he was brought home without trial. Then senator John Kerry went to Pakistan to appease its anger. The US media managed to contain its outrage on his victims.

The second - an Indian female career diplomat, not an intelligence agent - is strip-and-cavity searched. The US media are touched by the plight of the poor maid and the sanctity of the law. No apology from Kerry, now the Secretary of State.

Guess which country they accuse of hypocrisy? Yes indeed, India. And praise which for standing up for the rule of law that must treat everyone equally? Yep, good ol' USA. There are three complex issues but three simple points.

First, there is a history to the status, wages and work conditions of India-based domestic staff employed by Indian diplomats abroad. What constitutes fair wage; can monetary value be put on perks such as free housing, health benefits and annual return passage home; and is this matter to be decided by the home or host country, using whose benchmarks?

Some domestic staff are cruelly treated; some are seduced by job opportunities in rich countries. In the absence of physical mistreatment and given how the maid's family was spirited out beyond the reach of India's legal system, there are suspicions about the motives of a politically ambitious district attorney in search of populist publicity. Second, there are different Vienna conventions dealing with diplomatic and consular relations.

Their distinctions have become increasingly blurred in practice with growing cross-linkages of functions and personnel. The meaning and applicability of relevant clauses to any particular dispute may be interpreted differently. The sniffy US reaction to the explosion of Indian anger, that Devyani Khobragade was treated like anyone else, has a fatal flaw.

She is not just anyone, but the official representative of a sovereign country. Her arrest and treatment was a full-frontal assault on the authority and dignity of India. The whole point of both Vienna conventions, distilling centuries of experience among international political actors, is to prevent local authorities from fabricating false charges against accredited representatives of foreign governments.

But I forget. The US is uniquely virtuous, exceptional and wise. All others are venal and must be stopped from maliciously interfering with resident US officials, even killers. The Vienna Convention must be upheld for US diplomats abroad but may be ignored for foreign diplomats in the US. Washington's interpretations of all clauses are beyond question and it has the might to enforce it. If others don't like it, tough shitsky.

Third, which country's laws and judicial process have primacy? There was a prior case in the Indian courts against Sangeeta Richard that the self-righteous promoters of the rule of law have conveniently ignored. India kept Washington apprised of every legal step. Did the then chief executive of Union Carbide face his day in court for the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy - the world's worst industrial accident in which between 2259 and 16,000 Indians were killed? Strict adherence to the rule of law for everyone is a bedrock American value - yeah, right.

In a spirited public intervention on December 19 the US prosecuting attorney insisted it was his duty to protect the Richards' civil rights and enforce US law on anyone who breaks it; explained the reason for ''evacuating'' Mr Richard from India two days before Ms Khobragade's arrest was to neutralise efforts to silence the Richards and compel Ms Richard to return to India; and impugned the integrity of India's judicial system. Yet it has a better track record of robust independence from the executive than the US judiciary.

Matching the Bush administration's practice of kidnapping people from anywhere in the world and renditioning them for torture in secret locations, attorney Preet Bharara proclaimed an extraterritorial right to evacuate an Indian citizen from Indian territory, against the directives of the Indian government and in defiance of court orders. He might have left himself open to contempt citations.

All three issues are complicated and open to contrary interpretations. India might be in the wrong (or right) on all three. It certainly has much to be ashamed of on persisting feudal practices. Regardless, as the first simple point, it is unacceptable for one party to resolve an intergovernmental dispute by criminalising the conduct of an individual diplomat caught up in the mess, stripping her, and subjecting her to bodily searches over a labour dispute. Ms Khobragade is not a suspected terrorist, an armed criminal, or a threat to public safety. (Revelations about questionable incidents involving her back in India are irrelevant to this narrative.) In an Orwellian euphemism, state-sanctioned rape (digital penetration without consent or under coercion) is called ''cavity search''. Sorry, I forget. Indian social practice bad, US police practice good. Silly me.

Second simple truth: diplomatic relations are governed as much by tacit understandings as formal rules. Few US consular families would not be in breach of some Indian law. If the strict letter of the law was applied worldwide, diplomatic intercourse would come to a shuddering halt.

Finally, Diplomacy 101. India is one of the very few countries where, against decades of instinctive hostility, public approval ratings of the US have stayed positive. The episode risks setting back bilateral relations by validating many negative perceptions of the US. The entire Indian foreign service bureaucracy - the permanent custodian of India's permanent interests - has been antagonised by a colleague's traumatic experience. As US relative power wanes, is it worth breaking trust with a growing number of friends and allies?

The Foreign Minister has said the world has changed and so has India. Delhi has demanded a formal US apology and unconditional release of Ms Khobragade. If Washington insists on saving face and not admitting its mistake, a soured India will likely withdraw all extra courtesies to US officials beyond legal requirements, to the detriment of their ability to function most effectively.

Read more: Devyani Khobragade row: US must apologise to India

@Sashan I think the article sheds the light on India's perspective of the entire episode.

 

[Srinivas]

Preet Bharara's activism in Devyani's maid case even riles US judge

NEW DELHI: The Devyani Khobragade case has put the spotlight on US attorney Preet Bharara in a way that his other famous case against Rajat Gupta failed to do. Last week, Bharara's long press release on the case against Khobragade set teeth on edge in staid South Block, to the extent that the foreign ministry went out of its way to issue a rebuttal.

For many, Bharara's activism is a manifestation of his Arvind Kejriwal-like politics in New York City. But just as it is grating in India, it turns out that federal judges too are not impressed by his tactics.

Wall Street Journal recently reported that Bharara's thundering press statements on ongoing cases came in for criticism from a federal judge in New York, who openly criticized their "tabloid tone".

The report quoted US district judge Richard J Sullivan as saying the attorney office's press releases had assumed a "tabloid" tone. The judge questioned whether Bharara was casting too much judgment on public officials who stood accused of corruption, but had not been convicted.

"Judge Sullivan singled out one Southern District press release for ridicule — an April announcement of criminal charges against two New York City lawmakers — that brimmed with statements from Mr Bharara about New York's 'show-me-the-money culture'," the report said.

"That sounds like the theme from Mighty Mouse," Judge Sullivan said, according to a Law360 report on the October 1 event, hosted by the Practising Law Institute. "This seems to be designed for tabloid consumption... there should be a question asked that is that appropriate at the pre-conviction stage."

The criticism, the report said, was seen to be particularly damning, coming as it did from a judge who is believed to be equally merciless towards corrupt politicians and people in high places.

According to the report, although Bharara's office kept its peace on the judge's criticism, a second attorney from his office defended Bharara's thundering press statements. "Richard Zabel, the deputy US attorney in Bharara's office and another panelist, defended how they talk about their cases. 'The purpose of a quote is to be quoted and draw attention to the case', he said," according to Law360. "Laypeople can't read a complaint."

Preet Bharara's activism in Devyani's maid case even riles US judge - The Times of India