What's new

U.S. seeks to defuse spat with India

The chest thumping is for the domestic media and not to undermine the DOJ. Once the spotlight is off, some deal will be made.

As for deciding immunity, I'm not sure the judge has any say. The decision lies with the State dept.


Quite the opposite in reality.The judge in question takes the final call.

The US state department, however, has asserted that Khobragade’s transfer to India’s UN mission will not protect her from the criminal charges that led to her arrest last week. What’s more, the charges will not be dropped.
But it’s not up to the state department now. If the judge dealing with the case is convinced of Khobragade’s changed immunity status, the case will be dismissed.

India has other options to get diplomat out - Hindustan Times
 
.
Quite the opposite in reality.The judge in question takes the final call.

That's because of the current uncertainty and dispute over immunity.

If the State department issues formal retroactive immunity, I don't know what options the judge would have. Maybe you are right and the judge could reject the State department's formal immunity.
 
. . .
.
It would be damn shame if Khobragade succeeds in manipulating public opinion to evade justice.

It is not just about manipulating public opinion, many in the government believe she has done nothing wrong and that is an opinion shared by many of her colleagues. Any attempt to pursue this matter will almost certainly result in retaliation against U.S. diplomats and a deep chill setting in U.S.-India relations. Would be very illogiocal to continue down this path.
 
.
That's because of the current uncertainty and dispute over immunity.

If the State department issues formal retroactive immunity, I don't know what options the judge would have. Maybe you are right and the judge could reject the State department's formal immunity.

If the case reaches to that particular point, India would have already lost the "diplomatic war" by then. More interestingly, Why did the US State Department decide to go on the offensive when John Kerry had already expressed regret with an intention of burying the hatchet? This is probably because India chose to see this issue as a political squabble and not a diplomatic snafu:

For one, India underestimated the independence and resolve of Preet Bharara's office. There was a deliberate attempt to bypass and shame him while Preet, an American of Indian descent, could've been our best bet to resolve the case amicably.

India chose to pull a fast one over the United States by moving Devyani to the UN permanent mission. Not only must it have been perceived by the US as a hostile move, it probably was interpreted as flipping them and their judicial processes off. What's more, it still had to have American backing to go through. One wonders why India did so when Devyani had already posted bail and was in no immediate danger?

Diplomacy happens behind closed doors, yet nobody from the Indian side seemed to bother about the press releases they gave. The end result? Now India has to make good the threat of arresting US diplomats and secure a formal apology for Devayani or eat humble pie.
 
Last edited:
.
Do you know how many people protest in front of government buildings around the world?

How many of them get mentioned in the news, let alone achieve their goals?

Once the media loses interest, it's a lost cause.

Fresh reports surfacing that the Department of Justice has been caught in tug of war with the Department of State.

India has won the initial stage by applying 'dive and rule policy' to the US state arms. If India can really divide the public opinion in the US, victory will be of India's own.

The world should take note and learn from India how to deal with the US.
 
.
John Kerry had already expressed regret with an intention of burying the hatchet?

AFAIK, all John Kerry did was to express regret at the manner of arrest, not the arrest or the case itself.

Preet, an American of Indian descent, could've been our best bet to resolve the case amicably.

It could work the other way, too. He could become extra strict to dispel any perception of ethnic favoritism.

India chose to pull a fast one over the United States by moving Devyani to the UN permanent mission. Not only must it have been perceived by the US as a hostile move, it probably was interpreted as flipping them and their judicial process off. What's more, the move still had to have American backing to go through. One wonders why India did so when Devyani had already posted bail and was in no immediate danger?

There is no question that it was a finger to the DOJ and NY prosecutors. India probably feels that the DOS will grant immunity sooner or later, despite current press statements.

Diplomacy happens behind closed doors and nobody from the Indian side seemed to bother about the press releases they gave.

Election fever.
 
.
If the case reaches to that particular point, India would have already lost this "diplomatic war" by then. More interestingly, Why did the US State Department decide to go on the offensive when John Kerry had already expressed regret with an intention of burying the hatchet? This is probably because India chose to see this issue as a political one and not a diplomatic one:

For one, India underestimated the independence and resolve of Preet Bharara's office. There was a delibrate attempt to bypass and shame him while Preet, an American of Indian descent, could've been our best bet to resolve the case amicably.

India chose to pull a fast one over the United States by moving Devyani to the UN permanent mission. Not only must it have been perceived by the US as a hostile move, it probably was interpreted as flipping them and their judicial processes off. What's more, the move still had to have American backing to go through. One wonders why India did so when Devyani had already posted bail and was in no immediate danger?

Diplomacy happens behind closed doors, yet nobody from the Indian side seemed to bother about the press releases they gave. The end result? Now India has to make good the threat of arresting US diplomats and securing a formal apology for Devayani or eat humble pie.


Just on a very DIFFERENT perspective, when US Marines have raped native women in Japan / Korea / Philippines , they have almost never been arrested by their host countries. US Bases agreements dictate that US Military personnel be handed over to US Jurisdiction for any passing of sentences and imprisonment after a 'fair' trial.

One may say my raising of this point has no relevance but how many times have we seen (in East Asia), cases of local women being abused by US bases personnel and how swiftly do these soldiers get whisked away back to US soil - often leaving host country civilians seething in rage?
 
.
AFAIK, all John Kerry did was to express regret at the manner of arrest, not the arrest or the case itself.

The response from the American side since that call of regret has been unusually cold and reserved as opposed to their commitment to amicably resolve the incident stated earlier.


It could work the other way, too. He could become extra strict to dispel any perception of ethnic favoritism.

Well, I wasn't suggesting the desi "chai paani" route :P but we didn't have to undermine him and alienate his office. What did that get us? Nothing other than him digging his heels in for the long haul.

There is no question that it was a finger to the DOJ and NY prosecutors. India probably feels that the DOS will grant immunity sooner or later, despite current press statements.

Most forget about the emotional equations on the other side. All it takes is one pissed off official and fight comes right back to us.

Election fever.

Comes with consequences if you can't back that swagger up. BJP will no doubt taunt, "Apology ka kya hua, Kurshid saheb?"

no relevance but how many times have we seen (in East Asia), cases of local women being abused by US b
Just on a very DIFFERENT perspective, when US Marines have raped native women in Japan / Korea / Philippines , they have almost never been arrested by their host countries. US Bases agreements dictate that US Military personnel be handed over to US Jurisdiction for any passing of sentences and imprisonment after a 'fair' trial.

One may say my raising of this point has no relevance but how many times have we seen (in East Asia), cases of local women being abused by US bases personnel and how swiftly do these soldiers get whisked away back to US soil - often leaving host country civilians seething in rage?


How should that bother us, yaar? I was watching NDTV yesterday and some ex-diplomat they had called on the show brought up the issue of Raymond Davis. How can we equate our ties with the US along the ties they have with other nations? India's objective shouldn't be to prove who is right but to get our diplomat out ASAP.

That said, I hope you note how firangs fight to release their ordinary soldiers and Marines regardless of what they did. I wish India adopted the same stance they did for Devyani towards all Indians and not just netas and babus.
 
Last edited:
.
Do you want this case to have a closure? India need to back away a little and find a suitable solution for both US and India to work this out.
Our stand is quite clear there is no backing away,it is you who did the blunder and it s usa which needs to go on damage control mode,you tried the same stunt with russian diplomats who had lesser ranks than our diplomat but they were quoted having diplomatic immunity by your state dept. one rule for them and another for us i not acceptable.we are ready to cut ties,i guess USA finds it strange about our stand, but it is what it is, just like you support your laws, we support our diplomat.
The more this drags on the opinion about USA will only go down the drain in public mind, we are not a dictatorship that country can be influenced by one man or a leader does as they wish, public opinion changes, politicians have to deal accordingly.This diplomat baiting and insulting them by frisking when they have diplomatic immunity has gone too long,above that your NSA spying allegations.We should do what brazil did i'm just saying.
 
.
It is not just about manipulating public opinion, many in the government believe she has done nothing wrong and that is an opinion shared by many of her colleagues. Any attempt to pursue this matter will almost certainly result in retaliation against U.S. diplomats and a deep chill setting in U.S.-India relations. Would be very illogiocal to continue down this path.

I really want this to go to trial and I welcome Indian retaliation against US diplomats.
 
. .
I really want this to go to trial and I welcome Indian retaliation against US diplomats.

Surprised by your reaction. Don't think there is much chance of anything happening though. The state department is not about to set a precedent that will come back to bite it badly.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom