India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 26 Dec 2013 04:50

I agree with former Consul Prabhu Dayal's suggestion that all Indian Consulates in the US should be shut down, and only the embassy in Washington DC and the Permanent Mission to the UN in New York should remain, to handle the workload with augmented staff under watertight diplomatic immunity. In these 'diplomatically immune' facilities, provide maids/ sahayaks, to those whose job responsibilities (hours) necessitate it, out of a GOI employed pool hired by the MES.

Passport/ Visa/ OCI services are nowadays handled mostly online or by mail. How does it matter to me if I have to mail a packet to Houston or to Washington? Let Washington embassy handle it with the help of outsourced vendors of such services as they are doing.

As far as business promotion is concerned, Indian and American business people are doing a good job by themselves. They need the right kind of GOI and GOTUS policies. They don't need the help of any consular staff.

Scientific and academic exchanges are being handled by the scientific and academic communities in both countries.

As for promoting Indian culture etc, the Indian community in the US is doing a good job of it. No consular help is needed.

So why have all these consulates spread across the US, staffed by foreign service personnel with no diplomatic immunity?

save the money and avoid the unnecessary risk.

And in return, withdraw permanently all unnecessary priviledges granted to US consular staff in India. No more islands of priviledge for them.

JM2c

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Dec 2013 04:57

An apology is not enough,India and Devyani should demand a massive amount in compensation for her illegal treatment based upon erroneous US assessment of the case. But what also stinks is the mentality of the "Ugly American",exemplified by the sh*tworms of the State Dept. Here is the TOI on the issue:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home ... 924468.cms

Some diplomats are less equal
Ramesh Thakur | Dec 26, 2013,

Khobragade affair is characterised by America's Orwellian doublespeak

Consider two cases of consular officials two years apart. One shoots and kills two locals, the other pays her nanny below local minimum but above home wages. Had host-country law prevailed, the first — Raymond Davis, a CIA contractor in Lahore — could have faced the death sentence. Instead he was brought home a free man. US media managed to contain its outrage on his victims.

The second — a female career diplomat, not an intelligence agent — is strip-and-cavity searched. The same US president insists on diplomatic immunity for the first but stays studiously silent on the second. No apology from secretary of state John Kerry.

US media are oh so touched by the plight of the poor maid and sanctity of the law of the land. Guess which country they accuse of hypocrisy? Yes indeed, the second, India. And praise which for standing up for the rule of law that must treat everyone equally? Yep, good ole 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 abroad by Indian diplomats. What constitutes fair wage; can monetary value be put on perks like free housing, board, 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 of India, there are suspicions about US motives.

Second, there are Vienna conventions dealing with diplomatic and consular relations. 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 the state 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 among them. The Vienna Convention must be upheld for US diplomats abroad but shelved for foreign diplomats in the US.

Third, which country's laws and judicial process have primacy? There was a prior case in Indian courts against Sangeeta Richards which the self-righteous promoters of rule of law have conveniently ignored. The US district attorney — a rogue prosecutor with a chip on his shoulder? — has publicly 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. He might have left himself open to contempt citations.

Matching the Bush practice of kidnapping people from anywhere in the world and renditioning them for torture in secret locations, Preet Bharara proclaimed an extraterritorial right to evacu-ate Indian citizens from Indian territory, bypassing the Indian government.

CIA agents convicted in absentia for kidnapping by Italian courts will not be sent there for imprisonment. Requests are routinely rebuffed for US soldiers accused of rape and other heinous crimes against Japanese citizens to be tried in Japanese courts. Strict adherence to the rule of law for everyone is a bedrock American value — yeah, right.

All three issues are complicated and open to contrary interpretations. India might be wrong on one, two or all. 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 a diplomat caught in the crossfire, stripping her, and subjecting her to bodily searches over a labour dispute.

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. Smack!

Second simple truth: diploma-tic relations are governed as much by tacit understandings as formal rules. Do all US consular families conform to every Indian law?

Third, 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 will validate many negative perceptions of the US. The entire Indian Foreign Service — 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?

Delhi has demanded a formal US apology and unconditional release of Khobragade. It should also demand punishment of those who authorised and carried out the assault. Given the limpness of this government and neg-lect of public diplomacy, India may well back down eventually.

Even so, a soured India will withdraw extra courtesies to US officials beyond legal requirements, to the detriment of their professional functions. Cancellation of full diplomatic privileges to US consular officials should be the start, not the end, of a sobered India's hardened policy.

The writer is professor of public policy at Australian National University.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 26 Dec 2013 05:12

Dipanker wrote:
LokeshC wrote:I wonder why people are so ready to believe that the maid was abused. There is no evidence of verbal, sexual or physical abuse. That much is clear. It is also clear that its a flimsy case where the prosecutor misread the Visa application of the maid, which is a big eff up. I believe DS-160 form for a sponsored visa (unlike H1B) has a section for the sponsor's financial details.

Have you read this?

The Other Side Of The Story

I have. But it does not gel well with the rest of the evidence. Which points to a very clear plan in mind to get a GC and get family 'evacuated'. In such a case a plea like that would be normal. Moreover, the word 'slavery' makes it extremely suspect. It is a word that is not used much in India and it is the exact wordings of several laws in the USofA.

Also please note that her father started acting 'against' the maid after she went missing, while they were keeping their end of the promise of 30k Rs. a month in her account.

The moment the maid went missing he knew exactly what was going to happen and had every reason to believe his daughter was in danger (which she was). But again, all that is irrelevant.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 26 Dec 2013 05:42

Rudradev wrote:I'm curious. The words "conspiracy theory" seem to be thrown around in reckless abundance of late, especially by posters who tend to take a certain US centric view of the Khobragade matter. What exactly, in the view of these esteemed posters, qualifies an idea, a statement, or a collection of statements to fit the description of a "conspiracy theory"? Is there any benchmark, any given set of conditions that we on BRF have generally accepted as defining this category?

Exactly. Conspiracy theory usually is a resolution of cognitive dissonance, which may take a simple (sometimes inconsequential) piece of evidence and take it as far as it can go and build wild but plausible theories from it to support whatever deeply held beliefs they have.

This same set of deeply held beliefs can cause another piskological case, called denial (or confirmation bias). Seen from a denial point of view, a sane theory may appear to be conspiracy theory even when when it takes into account reasonable amounts of evidence to reach a conclusion that contradicts one's deeply held belief. I suspect that is what is going on here.

The deeply held belief that USofA is just, perfect, great, developed, exceptional etc is grossly violated in this example. There is ample evidence pointing to that. One might construct several theories (with the evidence on the ground) on why the US would go to this extent to piss off India. Almost all of it would destroy the deeply held beliefs about the US and hence they will be called conspiracy theories whereas they are anything but.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Dec 2013 05:46

T Visa statistics (issued to Indians and issued worldwide, 1997-2012)
Data I compiled from the US Dept. of State web-site.
(main source: http://travel.state.gov/visa/statistics ... _4582.html )

http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2013/1 ... stics.html

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Dec 2013 05:52

More colonial discourse, this from Fox News, part of Rupert Murdoch's empire, July 2013:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/ ... -in-india/

India is the epicenter of human trafficking—including 100 million people, with 1.2 million child prostitutes.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 26 Dec 2013 06:00

LokeshC wrote:
The Other Side Of The Story

I have. But it does not gel well with the rest of the evidence. Which points to a very clear plan in mind to get a GC and get family 'evacuated'. In such a case a plea like that would be normal. Moreover, the word 'slavery' makes it extremely suspect. It is a word that is not used much in India and it is the exact wordings of several laws in the USofA.

Also please note that her father started acting 'against' the maid after she went missing, while they were keeping their end of the promise of 30k Rs. a month in her account.

The moment the maid went missing he knew exactly what was going to happen and had every reason to believe his daughter was in danger (which she was). But again, all that is irrelevant.

Her father is a slimy character, I doubt that he has any credibility. He is a big reason she is in trouble both back in India ( Adarsh scam, lying on property return document punishment for which is summary dismissal from job) as well as her present predicament.

Truth will be known if this case goes through trial.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 26 Dec 2013 06:03

^^^ Like I said, irrelevant to the case at hand. But you guys keep trumpeting it as if its the biggest find on planet earth.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 26 Dec 2013 06:03

a_gupta,

it does look strange that there are 0 T1 visas issued for indians. the literature says that T1 visa holder must already be in US. one would think that the victim is in the US in some other visa and then gets T1 visa. and then brings family by t2, t3 etc.

why is then the t1 count is 0 but t2/t3 is running into 100 plus in the two years?

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 26 Dec 2013 06:08

International media coverage is on expected line. This will go on for a while. India's perception abroad will take a hit because of this.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Dec 2013 06:10

Regarding T Visa statistics: I wonder how many T visas were issued in this case:
https://www.aclu.org/human-rights-immig ... -trafficki

In 2008, the ACLU wrote:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/human-rights- ... not-slaves

To make matters worse, the federal government has consistently failed to stand up for the rights of guestworkers, who should be protected by the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (PDF), which defends the human rights of victims of contemporary slavery and trafficking.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Dec 2013 06:11

Gus wrote:a_gupta,

it does look strange that there are 0 T1 visas issued for indians. the literature says that T1 visa holder must already be in US. one would think that the victim is in the US in some other visa and then gets T1 visa. and then brings family by t2, t3 etc.

why is then the t1 count is 0 but t2/t3 is running into 100 plus in the two years?

The dept. of state spreadsheet has 0 T1 visas issued for **anyone**.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 26 Dec 2013 06:12

The latest western narrative is of "slavery" and its probably a big joke. But then the white man needs some burden to be able to bear it. If there is none, he will create it.

100 million people trafficked. I mean seriously.. thats like 10% of the population. It almost sounds like the 80000000000000 soldiers in Kashmir claim by the Bakis. No wonder that the west has 2 of the 3.5 four fathers of bakistan.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 26 Dec 2013 06:17

I read somewhere in the last page that the Vienna Convention was murky in the case of DK because it applied to full diplomats and DK was just a consul. Nothing can be farther from truth. There are two sets of Vienna Conventions, the 1961 Convention applies to Diplomats and the 1963 Convention applies to Consuls. Link to the UN site: Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 26 Dec 2013 06:20

LokeshC wrote:The latest western narrative is of "slavery" and its probably a big joke. But then the white man needs some burden to be able to bear it. If there is none, he will create it.

100 million people trafficked. I mean seriously.. thats like 10% of the population. It almost sounds like the 80000000000000 soldiers in Kashmir claim by the Bakis. No wonder that the west has 2 of the 3.5 four fathers of bakistan.

There is some truth to it. Bonded labor still exists in India and a large proportion of millions of sex workers across India are trafficked from impoverished part of the country to the cities by the traffickers.

We can't deny that this happens.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Dec 2013 06:29

Dipanker wrote:
LokeshC wrote:I wonder why people are so ready to believe that the maid was abused. There is no evidence of verbal, sexual or physical abuse. That much is clear. It is also clear that its a flimsy case where the prosecutor misread the Visa application of the maid, which is a big eff up. I believe DS-160 form for a sponsored visa (unlike H1B) has a section for the sponsor's financial details.

Have you read this?

The Other Side Of The Story

The lawyer for Richard is quoted in the story as saying that the Delhi High Court dismissed Richard's petition against DK (July 19) saying that it did not have jurisdiction for something that happened overseas. That is almost certainly wrong - I provided information about this , including the Delhi High Court ruling on the Richard's petition some pages ago on this thread. The Delhi High Court, as per its web-site, noted the withdrawal of the petition, and said it would take up the matter again if a petition was refiled.

I discount the "he said, she said" stuff anyway, and if the lawyer gets a basic fact about what the court did wrong, I discount the story even more.

In anticipation of argument, this is my method in other cases as well. E.g., how are you going to prove or disprove that two years ago you were made to sleep on the floor? In general, until evidence is presented in court, it is a "he said, she said" allegation. And how many witnesses are you likely to find? But when Gurung had a affidavit to the court about being starved, so that her weight fell from 147 lb to 84 lb, that impressed me; making a false statement about that to the court would be risky in the extreme, a single photograph could disprove it. Also, this is not a statement to reporters, but a statement to the court.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Dec 2013 06:31

Dipanker wrote:
LokeshC wrote:The latest western narrative is of "slavery" and its probably a big joke. But then the white man needs some burden to be able to bear it. If there is none, he will create it.

100 million people trafficked. I mean seriously.. thats like 10% of the population. It almost sounds like the 80000000000000 soldiers in Kashmir claim by the Bakis. No wonder that the west has 2 of the 3.5 four fathers of bakistan.

There is some truth to it. Bonded labor still exists in India and a large proportion of millions of sex workers across India are trafficked from impoverished part of the country to the cities by the traffickers.

We can't deny that this happens.

I for one am not denying that it happens. But (1) read the whole story that I linked to and (2) ask does India really have 100 million people living in slavery?

PS: furthermore,

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/pubs/repor ... traff.html (US Dept of Justice) quotes
the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, UNODC Global Report on Trafficking in Persons 2012, that at any given time 20 million people face slavery.

Human trafficking, recognized as modern-day slavery, dehumanizes and traumatizes victims and shocks communities when it is discovered. Yet it is a fact of life for an estimated 20 million people around the world at any given time

Of course, 100 million of these 20 million world-wide live in India onlee, making for a Musharaff-ian 500%.

PPS: Moderator, I think this thread should be archived. The predilections of various posters needs to be preserved for future reference.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Dec 2013 06:44

I'm probably over-posting here. But please note:

1. What DK is charged with is visa fraud - making a false statement about how much she will pay SR.

2. The substance of the case against her is that DK paid SR the equivalent of some $3.31 per hour (say, around Rs. 150 per hour) instead of US minimum wage.

3. What the T visas for the Richard family suggest is that the prosecutor believes that DK is guilty of human trafficking (treating SR like a slave). However that is not what DK is charged with (human trafficking). Why is the prosecutor going for the lesser case only? He either does not expect to have sufficient evidence, or else, that is the next charge he is/was planning to hit DK with.

4. What a lot of the media circus is about, is also about facts not in the prosecutor's case or in front of any court - namely, DK treated SR like a slave.

5. If DK treated SR like a slave, and SR can muster enough evidence, then expect a civil suit by SR against DK to follow.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 26 Dec 2013 06:57

A_Gupta wrote: The lawyer for Richard is quoted in the story as saying that the Delhi High Court dismissed Richard's petition against DK (July 19) saying that it did not have jurisdiction for something that happened overseas. That is almost certainly wrong - I provided information about this , including the Delhi High Court ruling on the Richard's petition some pages ago on this thread. The Delhi High Court, as per its web-site, noted the withdrawal of the petition, and said it would take up the matter again if a petition was refiled.

I discount the "he said, she said" stuff anyway, and if the lawyer gets a basic fact about what the court did wrong, I discount the story even more.

In anticipation of argument, this is my method in other cases as well. E.g., how are you going to prove or disprove that two years ago you were made to sleep on the floor? In general, until evidence is presented in court, it is a "he said, she said" allegation. And how many witnesses are you likely to find? But when Gurung had a affidavit to the court about being starved, so that her weight fell from 147 lb to 84 lb, that impressed me; making a false statement about that to the court would be risky in the extreme, a single photograph could disprove it. Also, this is not a statement to reporters, but a statement to the court.

Actually I agree with you that in absence of any documented evidence it ultimately it boils down to "he said, she said", or in this case "she said, she said". So the abuse part will be really hard to prove.

IMO Delhi Court also took the right decision by turning down the petition claiming no jurisdiction over the matter. That is why the arrest warrant issued by the Delhi metropolitan magistrate against SR who is in New York and her husband ( what did he do?) is dubious, probably procured by DK through influence peddling. A New York court had already turned down her petition regarding this issue of blackmail.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Dec 2013 07:00

Dipanker wrote: IMO Delhi Court also took the right decision by turning down the petition claiming no jurisdiction over the matter.

But that is not what the Court did.

Furthermore, the Court has not disclaimed jurisdiction on other Indian-diplomat-overseas vs. domestic employee cases.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 26 Dec 2013 07:03

A_Gupta wrote: I for one am not denying that it happens. But (1) read the whole story that I linked to and (2) ask does India really have 100 million people living in slavery?

Yes the 100 million figure is absurd, the actual number I am guessing shouldn't more than 5 - 10 millions.

member_26011 · Post by **member_26011** » 26 Dec 2013 07:14

I would have simply expected the US to tell India that it is going to kick out DK based on any conclusion of harm that DKs alleged behavior is to have caused. And let India do what it had to. They did not do that and whether it is Uncle Tom gone wild, a CIA recruitment gone sour or another employee bailing to the US is besides the point. The previliges that India extends to US diplomatic staff was simply not reciprocated; as has been said, times have changed. The previliges must be sharply curtailed, their behavior closely watched and their employment activities thoroughly vetted. All this is being rightly done. The next time I meet one of these diplomats, I wouldn't mind asking them about Davis or Nairobi or asking them to get the f*@k back in line.

Screw cultural difference, the bs == going on between the value of VC and American law or refocus to supposed social ills in India. Or the strategic partnership trolling. Any long term synergy can emerge as a consequence of keeping it real and not the other way round. They broke India's trust and if we have our ear to the ground as most on here do, this should be no surprise at all.

Get DK out of the hot seat, priority 1, turn the screws on tight, priority 2; however we can. JMT

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 26 Dec 2013 07:23

A_Gupta wrote:
Dipanker wrote: IMO Delhi Court also took the right decision by turning down the petition claiming no jurisdiction over the matter.
But that is not what the Court did.

Furthermore, the Court has not disclaimed jurisdiction on other Indian-diplomat-overseas vs. domestic employee cases.

I just re-read your post, you are right again!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Dec 2013 07:24

Dipankar
I suggest you post DK's India related issues in OT thread. Anymore after being told by an admin is trolling and will result in warnings.
Thanks
Ramana

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Dec 2013 07:24

A_Gupta wrote:
Dipanker wrote: IMO Delhi Court also took the right decision by turning down the petition claiming no jurisdiction over the matter.
But that is not what the Court did.

Furthermore, the Court has not disclaimed jurisdiction on other Indian-diplomat-overseas vs. domestic employee cases.

Specifically, if you go to
http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/case.asp
and search for Petitioner/Respondent = Richard
or Advocate = Adeeb

you find,
W.P.(CRL) 1132/2013
PHILLIP RICHARD Vs. UOI & ORS. {Union of India & Others?}
Advocate : TARIUQ ADEEB
Court No. : 29
DISPOSED OFF on 19/07/2013
{Correct surname of petitioner, correct surname of advocate, correct date that petition was disposed of, as per news media}

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

O R D E R

19.07.2013

1. Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present
petition while reserving the right of the petitioner to file another writ
petition for directions to the Delhi Police to grant him protection.

2. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The petition is dismissed as
withdrawn.

3. As and when the petitioner files a fresh petition for grant of
protection, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with
law.

HIMA KOHLI, J

JULY 19, 2013

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 26 Dec 2013 07:28

A_Gupta wrote:I'm probably over-posting here. But please note:

1. What DK is charged with is visa fraud - making a false statement about how much she will pay SR.

2. The substance of the case against her is that DK paid SR the equivalent of some $3.31 per hour (say, around Rs. 150 per hour) instead of US minimum wage.

3. What the T visas for the Richard family suggest is that the prosecutor believes that DK is guilty of human trafficking (treating SR like a slave). However that is not what DK is charged with (human trafficking). Why is the prosecutor going for the lesser case only? He either does not expect to have sufficient evidence, or else, that is the next charge he is/was planning to hit DK with.

4. What a lot of the media circus is about, is also about facts not in the prosecutor's case or in front of any court - namely, DK treated SR like a slave.

5. If DK treated SR like a slave, and SR can muster enough evidence, then expect a civil suit by SR against DK to follow.

Here is Preet Bharara complete statement, see if it answers your questions:

Devyani Khobragade case: Full statement issued by US attorney Preet Bharara

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Dec 2013 07:29

A Gupta what prevents our press from doing the research you did?

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 26 Dec 2013 07:30

A_Gupta wrote:I'm probably over-posting here. But please note:
1. What DK is charged with is visa fraud - making a false statement about how much she will pay SR.
2. The substance of the case against her is that DK paid SR the equivalent of some $3.31 per hour (say, around Rs. 150 per hour) instead of US minimum wage.

This is a contentious matter. It has not been proven that she can even be charged with visa fraud because Article 47 of the VCCR does not obligate either her or SR to follow domestic hiring law. They may have to fill in a number in the application, but the law behind it would be unenforceable because it contradicts US obligations to the VCCR. Further, her arrest arguably contravenes Article 41 that provides consular personnel protection from arrest except in the case of a 'grave crime' where a 'final judgement' judgement has been made.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 26 Dec 2013 07:31

ramana wrote:Dipankar
I suggest you post DK's India related issues in OT thread. Anymore after being told by an admin is trolling and will result in warnings.
Thanks
Ramana

Ok, got it.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 26 Dec 2013 07:37

One of the 'what if you knew beforehand' scenarios I'd love to test on Wendy Sherman (USec for DoS) is: "Imagine that you could see the future consequences of your present actions. You are confronted by the case of an Indian diplomat with a nanny problem projected by some of your underlings as a showpiece 'trafficking problem'. You see where this is going to go. It all works fine in a Law and Order script (TADAM!) but there are going to be some consequences. Because you are prescient, you know exactly what the consequences are going to be, In fact, you can read the future news headlines."

Question: If you knew everything that was going to happen (because you are prescient), would you interevene to change the narrative or would you let your underlings proceed with their self appointed mission, damn the torpedoes and consequences.?

If your answer is "Yes", I know and accept the fallout, you've placed the value of a 'strategic partnership' in context. I mean, it's not like the first time an UnSec has had to make difficult decisions. Support for 58 dictators whose names cover a-z during the cold war. The convenient deflection of African oppression in South Africa and Southern Rhodesia. Alright, so it's all realpolitik, we look at the larger picture, the greater good, the end justifies the means etc. Having said that, does it mean the vaunted strategic partnership with India is worth less than the issue of whether a maid was paid 1/3 (by your accounting) of what she was stated to be paid, then the fog lifts.

On the other hand, if you saw the same consequences unfolding (as a result of your prescience) and thought the two don't compare, the maid issue loses, why did you not stop it right there and seek a private accommodation?

I think Wendy Sherman is going to hard pressed to respond. She is after all, a protege of Madeleine Albright. Incompetence on one side buttressed by denial on the other.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 26 Dec 2013 07:39

The question of slavery or bonded-labour in India has got nothing to do with the DK case in NY. What does it prove that 5 million or 100 million Indians are subjects of bonded labour in India when a clear contract exists between the employer (DK) and the employee (SR) in this case ? Isn't it some sort of an attempt to create a prejudice in the minds of the law officer and the jury that Indians are prone to mistreating their employers and hence DK would have also done the same, if at all this case goes to trial ? So are the attempts to draw linkages between Adarsh scam etc and DK. Let us not discuss these matters here.

bhavani · Post by **bhavani** » 26 Dec 2013 08:19

The whole primary issue is being mixed up with a lot of issues from human trafficking in India, caste system, post colonial behavior and what not. Only things that are left is Kashmir issue and The Naxalite issue and Indian Nukes.

I wonder how so many coconuts just come tumbling out of all kinds of closets defending dear Massa.

If an American diplomat was thrown in Indian jail for some offense. The US Rakshaks would be jumping up and down, regarding the Indian police system and how our jails don't have 5 star amenities and blah blah blah.

If Americans had any issues with DK, they could have asked her to leave similar to any other Diplomat of any country.

I wonder why so many Indians like US so much, actually more than India. They have such a great high view of US akin to a literal heaven with pearly gates and Honey/milk everywhere. This thread gives such a great insight of a deeper psyche of Some Indians. Everything US does is great, worthy and has a valid proper reason. We Indians don't follow rules, Americans implement rules. we have castes and they dont have castes/classes and treat everyone equally and Fair.

I have worked with Desi Managers in Massa, who will gloat over the prowess of Gora developers, but needed the desi coders (in US) to work during the weekends and provide support at Nights. They go overboard to please these guys and mix with them. i literally felt like puking when a 50 year old desi manager decorated his cube with US flags and ribbons celebrating his US citizenship. The person had been in US for 10 years, but talked as if he had been in US forever.

The way they talked to an American was similar to 15 year girl with Justin bieber, The devotion in their heart and twinkle in their eyes priceless.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 26 Dec 2013 08:22

bhavani wrote:
The way they talked to an American was similar to 15 year girl with Justin bieber, The devotion in their heart and twinkle in their eyes priceless.

This needs to be made aware to all the Indians in India

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 26 Dec 2013 08:30

Devyani Case: Unequal strategic partnership with the US

BY RSN SINGH

All was well between Devyani and her domestic help Sangeeta Richards. Once settled in New York with her employee and family, she in a letter wrote in very eulogizing terms about Devyani, her husband and their children. She says that the diplomat is very jovial, and her husband a very fine person, who partakes in her work, as a result she has considerable free time. Sangeeta also says that she is treated like a family member and the children allude her ‘tai’ (aunt). Some people living in the same Indian Mission building have confirmed to this author that Sangeeta looked like a family member than a domestic help and appeared to be extremely comfortable and congenial till she disappeared.

A copy of the letter is displayed below:

Sangeeta Richard LetterThe sudden disappearance of Sangeeta and enigmatic bonhomie with an Attorney, Preet Bharara is befuddling. He is known for his ruthlessness in pursuit of his political ambitions by endearing himself to the US authorities by using depraved means. His method essentially involves laying judicial trap for fellow Indians, which begins with judicial blackmail or extortion. The desperation and viciousness in his judicial hunt for Devyani smacked of an US government agenda. Even, as an afterthought, if one were to disregard the fact that she was in the business of siphoning secret documents, the very sequence of events makes the espionage angle compelling. The actions that the Attorney took and statements he made, was beyond the realm of profession of law. When Sangeeta’s husband and family were hijacked from India the Attorney termed it as ‘evacuation’. Does an Attorney use such language bordering on ‘war-mongering’. Does Preet Bharara want to wage a war against his motherland? Should India evacuate David Headley?

Now it appears that the entire case was fabricated by Bharara. Devyani’s lawyer Daniel Arshack said that it was the US authorities, who could not read the Visa Form (DS-160) in respect of Sangeeta Richard correctly. They deliberately or inadvertently read $4500 a month salary on the form as Sangeeta’s expected salary, when ‘in fact it was reporting the base salary of the diplomat’ as required. The ‘employment contract’ submitted along with the Form DS-160 clearly mentions that $1560 would be paid to Sangeeta. The figure is based as per the wage laws of New York, i.e. $9.75 an hour, 40 hour a week. One can otherwise forgive the Americans for this oversight as substantial numbers of them are uneducated, but this is a deliberate fraud committed for criminal reasons.

It is obvious that the Attorney is in truck with the US State Department or the American dispensation as such. He allowed himself to become a willing tool of the US government in perpetrating physical and mental crime on a woman diplomat. Sans the espionage angle, the matter would have been purely political and diplomatic in import.

From June to September 2013, the matter just simmered beneath a diplomatic lid, as is normally the practice in espionage cases. No diplomatic mission publically admits of being victims of espionage. In September 2013, the Indian Embassy wrote to the State Department that Sangeeta, who was an absconder, should be arrested and restored to the Indian Embassy as she had violated both the Indian and the American laws, and had stolen cash, cell-phone and ‘documents’. The documents that Sangeeta stole are believed to be very vital to India’s national interest. Also, it needs to be highlighted that the entire Indian officialdom based in New York, including country’s representative at the UN are housed in the same building. For Sangeeta, the building was a mine of information.

While the US authorities were engaged in protecting their ‘asset’ by fabricating various legal spins, matters exacerbated due to another development in India. On October 12, 2013 an American vessel MV Seaman Guard Ohio, belonging to the US firm AdvanFort, was apprehended by the Indian Coast Guard for unauthorized presence in India’s territorial waters. The vessel was being replenished with 1600 liters of high speed diesel by an Indian fishing trawler. The vessel with 35 members (10 crew and 25 security guards) in contravention of law, carried 35 assault rifles and 5680 rounds of ammunition. The crew and the guards were of various nationalities, i.e. Estonians, British, Ukrainian and Indian. All the 35 members were arrested for illegally carrying arms in India’s water and lodged at Palayamkottai Central Jail in Tamil Nadu. Even though there was no US citizen on the vessel, three officials from the US Consulate General at Chennai visited them the very next day. The US authorities maintained that the vessel was engaged in anti-piracy operations for protection of American merchant vessels, and were well beyond the Indian maritime territorial limit of 12 nm.

The crew members and the guards of the vessel, the US authorities emphasized, were specialists in anti-piracy operations and had honourable antecedents, having served in the armed forces and security establishments of their respective countries. The Indian authorities have been steadfast on their stand that they would be tried as per the ‘law of the land’. The bitterness between the US and India over the issue only ratcheted in the subsequent days and reached the ‘snapping point’ in the first week of December 2013. Addressing a press conference on the Navy Day 3rd December the Indian Naval Chief Admiral DK Joshi warned: “Unregulated floating armouries carrying combatants of certain countries are a matter of concern and can have serious security implications for the including infiltration of terrorists that can lead to 26/11 type attacks.”

The Admiral also made an impassioned plea for ‘reversal’ of high risk areas for merchant ships plying in the piracy prone zones. Two years back the longitude marking off high risk areas for piracy was moved from 65 degrees to 78 degrees in the Arabian Sea by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia (CGPCS) constituted in 2009 following a UN resolution. The new longitude, although away from India’s territorial waters limit of 12 nautical miles, is dangerously close to the Indian coast. Ships in order to be safe from piracy tend to hug the Indian coast from Mangalore to Kanyakumari. The Enrica Lexie incident (February 2012) in which two Indian fisherman aboard a fishing trawler were killed by Italian marines some 22 miles off the coast was primarily because of the eastward advancement of the high risk longitude.

The change in the longitude has made fishing activities by Indian fishermen extremely contentious and dangerous because of intense international shipping activity close to the Indian coast. Indian maritime authorities like the Coast Guard have been complaining that the shift in the longitude was unwarranted and based on exaggerated threat. From the perspective of overall maritime security of India, with the shift in ‘high risk area’ by the West dominated IMO, the threat is pernicious, causing endemic hostile incidents, including two major ones as mentioned. The lament of the Indian Naval Chief is therefore more than apposite. No country with self-respect will tolerate such an international arrangement which impinges on its everyday legitimate maritime activity and is pregnant with misuse by terrorists and maritime hostilities.

It is under these circumstances that the US vessel MV Sea Guard Ohio was apprehended by the Indian Coast Guard. Notwithstanding the US pressure, Indian authorities would be amiss if they did not treat and investigate the vessel and its crew and guards as floating armouries.

It is this very application of the ‘law of the land’ that disconcerted the Italians and now the Americans. It was also the reason for incarceration of Captain James in Togo, an erstwhile French colony.

Having exhausted the leverages at the highest levels, solely attributable to public pressure, the US in a cynical ‘law of the land’ riposte on India converted a simmering espionage issue into a diplomatic bargaining chip. But not before spiriting away Sangeeta Richard’s husband and family to America. It is now established that the US embassy in India facilitated their travel monetarily and otherwise. The US Embassy officials, who effected the escape of Sangeeta’s family committed ‘Contempt of Court’, as the Richard family was facing a court case when they left India.

Apart from espionage, which is an ongoing activity, the Devyani issue has larger strategic and maritime reasons and facets.

Sangeeta’s espionage network is just one of them. American leverages comprises NRIs, influential intellectuals and media establishments, who were issued diktat to divert public attention and vilify the diplomat by associating her name with Adarsh scam and by frantically excavating things having no bearing with the case. This author was on a TV channel and was told that it had been issued an advisory that the agenda for the day was demonizing Devyani and consequently eulogizing the US. India’s strategic engagement with the US is unequal, because some greedy and subverted Indians have lent their weight to the latter. It is for this reason that that the US authorities treated both Devyani and Sangeeta as slaves, one as a bargaining commodity and the other as a captive spy.

(RSN Singh is a former military intelligence officer who later served in the Research & Analysis Wing. The author of two books: Asian Strategic and Military Perspective and Military Factor in Pakistan, he is also a Guest Blogger with Canary Trap)

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 26 Dec 2013 08:33

Acharya,

The photo you posted earlier of DK is not necessary. US defense attorneys will instruct women defendants to look "presentable" or easy on the eyes for a judge. I've seen this a few times before, but not in federal court. The idea is to convey is that this is a nice lady like one of us and didn't do anything wrong. DK may have not had much choice on dress but to follow her attorney's instructions.

Do we know which judge is hearing the arraignment in US District Court - Southern District of New York?
Personally, I'd like this case to go to trial and then have it tossed out by the judge to prove Preet Bahara is discriminating against people of Indian Origin.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 26 Dec 2013 08:34

SSji,

Many have said so, and there is another op-ed piece in today's ToILet, but bringing in all this slave labor, "we care for Daleeet" EJ BS from Fox news etc is precisely the intent of US. Let me once again remind you, as if it is needed, that the only immutable facet of US policy is US interests. Which can take many shapes and forms.

A few years ago, when US business sponsored rubbish in US newspapers about India emerging as a super power and all that crap was rampant, culminating in that famous quote by Rice that US will make India a superpower (which DDM and many Indians lapped up gleefully), such an incident would have between quietly and maturely dealt with at the diplomatic level. Because US business interests demanded so. Thats how strategic allies deal with each other, and this is precisely India's angst. After all, what DK did was not a crime, not even close to it, and there was no need to so publicly rape her in custody and send India a message.

But the situation is different. US no longer sees India as a rising power. It is even peeved that India won't play its AfPak and TSP sponsored ball, its economy is in the doldrums, and so US interests as it stands to day visa vi India is purely on the social level: keeping its rabid Evangelical Jihadis happy by giving them a free hand in India to do God's work. Hence you see all this human rights BS and plight of Dalits and the Christian saints in them coming to their aid. Such feel good PR and promotion of Christianity using India's social ills is the only US interests at the moment. So expect many more such "we care for Brahmin oppressed Dalits" BS in due course, and of course joining the chorus will be our own MUTUs and RNIs and other assorted Hindu hating opportunists to get into the good books of US.

member_23692 · Post by **member_23692** » 26 Dec 2013 08:59

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 26 Dec 2013 10:12

The TOI of today reports that it was the Sangeeta Richard - the maid - which asked DK to sign the secondary contract.

So, I hope we can rest the arguments about the maid being wronged (with respect to her salary) to rest. She knew fully well what she was getting into. Her act of demanding wages as per US laws is plain opportunism. Nothing else.

Further, this contract has also been presented as a evidence of Visa fraud (dual salary structure) - which makes me believe that the whole thing was planned from the word go. Why was the maid carrying the contract document (most probably the original one) to US with her?

Also, let us look at the working hour (from 6am to 11pm) argument - DK is full time career woman and her children go to school - so, how was maid made to work when the kids were at school and the mother was in office?

Things simply don't add up.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Dec 2013 10:48

SSridhar wrote:The question of slavery or bonded-labour in India has got nothing to do with the DK case in NY. What does it prove that 5 million or 100 million Indians are subjects of bonded labour in India when a clear contract exists between the employer (DK) and the employee (SR) in this case ? Isn't it some sort of an attempt to create a prejudice in the minds of the law officer and the jury that Indians are prone to mistreating their employers and hence DK would have also done the same, if at all this case goes to trial ? So are the attempts to draw linkages between Adarsh scam etc and DK. Let us not discuss these matters here.

The attempt was to look at several things:
1. Examine other use of T visas
2. Examine how diligent US authorities are on other, larger scale human trafficking problems (given that DK's alleged visa fraud is supposedly a cause of SR's alleged involuntary servitude.)
3. Examine the American media/public opinion environment (the American "conventional wisdom" about India, especially with regard to their beliefs about modern slavery and human trafficking in India, and their perceptions of official and middle class complicity in it.).
4. If there is a mutual problem, are there cooperative efforts to solve it?
5. When there is a case with absolutely no doubt that a corporation has abused imported Indian labor, has the US been so solicitous of the workers' rights?

But these do open the door to distractions, digressions and diversions.

How to proceed?

vic · Post by **vic** » 26 Dec 2013 11:12

Deyani has three allegations against her:-

Human trafficing- Used to get visa for maid and family but not being pursued in Court

Visa fraud-Used for arrest but is seemingly false

Non payment of wages- It is civil dispute for which no case has been filed yet.