India-US Strategic News and Discussion

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 10 Feb 2014 14:40

>>I think this is where PB and others associated with this badly miscalculated.

Could be, but I think what triggered the response was the viciousness and utter callousness involved. Observe the following:

1. There is, as yet, no claim or evidence of any physical or emotional maltreatment of Sangeeta Richard. It appears to be specifically a dispute about wages and related "working" hours. The latter is a red herring because the complainant was living on the premises, and by her own admission (if the letter and sibling testimonials are true) appears to have been quite pleased with her physical and emotional circumstances. If these are not true, the worst we can say is that there is no information on that; which is in itself exculpatory to some extent.

2. The issue of "trafficking" appears to have been submerged under the "visa fraud" charge. Of course, in that case, one wonders why SR is still in the US - if she was, after all, in the country on a fraudulent visa. It would also be right to wonder, if that were so, why her family was flown out while the matter was sub-judice in India, under surreptitious circumstances. SR is a GoI employee. This harkens back to the "trafficking" issue. In short, confusion all around and any half-capable defence lawyer's comfortable playground - as Arshack is demonstrating.

3. The treatment of Khobragade, completely out of line with the presumed offence (wage dispute), in terms of the procedures - strip and cavity search, lock-up with petty criminals, arrest in front of general public - in terms of the bail ($250K), and in terms of the personal involvement of the Public Prosecutor in what would ordinarily be a run of the mill case.

It is the last part which got GoI's (and here I mean the state - represented by MEA and the associated bureaucracy) hackles up, and rightly so. The lady represents the country. What is done to her is done to the state, in effect - just as it might be if a local cop in Delhi stuck his digits up Alicia May's orifices while searching for Chinese pearls. And there, admittedly, there is valid cause given her own proud admission of the same. In Devyani's case, it is unlikely that she inserted Sangeeta's unpaid salary into her rectum for safekeeping.

The matter is simple. The Department of State has to get it's act together, monitor the activities of its employees more closely in terms of their personal commercial interests and partisan political agendas, set standards for private interaction on social media (or enforce them vigorously), train its personnel on how to hide their true feelings for the countries they work in. Indians and the GoI know pretty well what people of the calibre and breeding of the Mays think of Indians, their civilisation, and their country. Truly, we don't mind. We understand that such perspectives are common among those with more in the way of everything material. It's alright. We also know that this is not a general thing about all American diplomats. There are many many elegant minded, socially sophisticated and genuinely good-hearted individuals among them.

That, and the fact that we are going to have to do a lot of stuff together in the years ahead, is why we will work this through. But they need to know that this is a mess created by their people, and it caught bureaucracies on both sides somewhat by surprise. They need to clean it up, and we'll just get right back on track without missing a stride.

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 10 Feb 2014 17:43

chetak wrote:JNU to diplomatic rescue--- Sighs of relief as Devyani’s husband lands India job

Washington, Feb. 9: The diplomatic equivalent of a ticking time bomb has been defused in the Devyani Khobragade case with Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) stepping in to reunite her divided family by offering the diplomat’s husband, Aakash Singh Rathore, a job in New Delhi.

So finally, after running from pillar to post in various gora nations, ~~the wannabe professor~~finally gets to be a professor in India. Unless this is another temporary "soft money" job....

And how exactly are you qualified to comment on this 'wannabe' aspect? Has it not been stated clearly enough that speculation on this aspect will not be tolerated? Next instance gets you a warning. Please be mindful of the same - rohitvats

For the ministry of external affairs, the offer from JNU is a godsend. South Block has been squirming since Khobragade’s controversial departure from New York in early January because it has condoned protecting three American citizens for almost a month.

The saga of mismanagement continues.

Inexplicably, some say undiplomatically, Khobragade chose US nationality for her two children, which was possible because of Rathore. Clearly, the couple did not want their children to grow up as Indians although their mother represented India on the international stage.

I find this still disturbing. Clearly the MEA was looking the other way all this time.

But with the offer from JNU, Rathore has told friends and acquaintances that he and the children will leave for India in a fortnight. Their decision has brought relief to South Block as well as mission officials in New York.

With Khobragade reuniting with her children and husband, an emotive aspect of the episode which cast a long shadow over Indo-US relations since December will be removed and help efforts to restore normality in bilateral ties.

Now having been guests of the Indian government all this time, the least that the "three Americans" can do is to display some loyalty and start the process of becoming Indians.

Rathore is an unusual academic and will stand out from most of his peers at JNU if he takes up his post in New Delhi as expected. He is an oenologist who formally qualified in the subject from France. Oenology is the study of wines.

It is not clear what his post is. If it is a tenure-track position, then I hope the Indian taxpayer money will not be spent in trivial pursuits.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 10 Feb 2014 18:16

VijayR wrote:http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-ne ... a-20140210

he US trade representative on Monday will announce a trade enforcement action tied to India, his office said, a move that could further rile relations after an incident last year involving the arrest and strip-search of an Indian consul.

US Trade Representative Michael Froman will discuss the action at a news conference at 2pm(1900 GMT), his office said on Sunday night. The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) said it could offer no additional details.

On Friday, the US Chamber of Commerce called on Washington to ratchet up pressure on India over intellectual property rights, a move that could help prevent Indian companies from producing cheap generic versions of medicines still under patent protection.

Also this week, the US International Trade Commission has a hearing scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday to look into Indian trade and investment practices.

Some might remember Clara A Hills as USTR during India's turmoil period.

rgosain · Post by **rgosain** » 10 Feb 2014 18:36

Chaanakya: I seem to recall this period in the 1990's came to an end with the events in 1998. Let's not forget that India was under a sustained barrage of sanctions and embargoes by the Clinton administration thorougout the 90's, ranging from trade and to the NPT. Clinton was willing to sanction India whilst indulging the PRC a few years after Tiananman Sq.
It's not deja vu to say the present condition match those in the 90's, and this is in no small measure due to the UPA, and the USA which has conveniently ignored the very real threat from China Inc.

Are the US pharma companies willing to pay the compensation for Bhopal that Dow Chemicals, the successor companies of Union Carbide are refusing to do ?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 10 Feb 2014 19:25

sivab wrote:
matrimc wrote:The timing of accrediting the UN transfer to whit 5:47 PM, is a dead giveawayof the shadow boxing going on between DoS and DoJ.

Amber G. wrote:
5:47 PM on January 8, 2014 to approximately 8:30 PM on January 9, 2014
The 5:47pm on Jan 8 was neither related to shadow boxing nor a lucky break. It was widely reported by MSM at that time JK will discuss the issue with BO on Jan 8 evening. Here is one report about JK and BO mtg on Jan 8.

http://www.americanbazaaronline.com/201 ... ite-house/

...

The mtg cleared DK immunity which was given the same day.

Good point. Thanks.

My point about "lucky break" was that a) PB's grand jury indictment was after this time, b) the time was mention in the SD document, c) PB's argument that DK did not have (additional UN) immunity/or left the country, and his confusion as he did not know these details made him look foolish etc..

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 10 Feb 2014 19:30

Sivan thanks for that news item. That still does not eliminate the possibility - please note it is a possibility only - of shadow boxing.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 10 Feb 2014 19:37

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... our-pills/
How India's Drug Biz Can Compromise Your Pills‬‬‬‬

( UKranians are trying to get into this Biz to take market share from Indians)

n the cutthroat business of generic drug manufacturing it’s the little things that can bolster a company’s bottom line—like fabricating data about quality instead of fully testing products. Some major drug plants in India that exported medications to the U.S., it seems, did just that.
Such shoddy practices can lead to medicine that does not perform as it should or, worse, causes harmful side effects. In recent years these kinds of incidents have prompted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to place bans on several prominent drug suppliers in India. To follow up, FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg is going to India this week to meet with its health minister and industry officials. India’s drug and food programs will be at the top of the agenda, according to the FDA. India is currently the second-biggest drug provider, after Canada, and the eighth-largest exporter of food products to the U.S.
The meeting comes shortly after the U.S. curbed imports at yet another plant belonging to Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd., India’s largest drug manufacturer and one of the largest U.S. suppliers. Last month the FDA banned a Ranbaxy plant from producing or distributing drug ingredients for the U.S. market; the firm was caught retesting materials to produce acceptable findings after they had failed the first time around. The company had neither investigated nor reported why the products failed initially, the FDA says. Since 2008 the FDA has issued four bans against Ranbaxy plants. At present, no Ranbaxy human drug products are being imported into the U.S. The company has already pleaded guilty to federal drug safety violations as part of a $500-million settlement with the FDA, after a whistleblower from inside Ranbaxy came forward. Separately, Ranbaxy has experienced other quality and control lapses, one of which allowed pieces of glass to get into its generic Lipitor tablets in 2012. Ranbaxy is not the only Indian company that has been cited for sending flawed products to the U.S. Wockhardt and RPG Life Sciences have also received FDA admonishments.
Some critics have blamed lackluster FDA inspection practices for the mishaps, noting that although the FDA inspects domestic plants every two years, it only inspects foreign plants about once every seven to 13 years. In fiscal 2009, for example, the FDA inspected 1,015 domestic establishments but only 424 in all foreign countries combined. FDA data indicates that in 2013 the agency performed 111 inspections at Indian drug facilities.Simply ramping up the number of FDA inspections overseas would not solve the problem, however, says Roger Bate, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who studies the drug market. More unannounced inspections in India, along with testing products these plants send to the U.S. would help, he says, but any watershed changes would need to be fueled by the Indian government. The power to inspect and shut down facilities rests with each state in India, and some states are more diligent than others, he says. He notes that empowering India’s Central Drugs Standard Control Organization—equivalent to the FDA—to take action would help address the issue.
Commissioner Hamburg’s eight-day trip will apply needed pressure to the Indian government to crack down on the problem, Bate says. Hamburg is slated to take up food and drug safety issues during meetings with the CEOs of major drug and food producers and with India’s ministers for Commerce and Industry, Health and Family Welfare, and the drug controller general as well as state-level regulators.She will also be meeting with World Health Organization officials and speaking at the World Spice Congress. India supplies nearly one quarter of the spices, oil and food colorings used in the U.S., but an FDA evaluation last fall found that some of the Indian spices were contaminated. Just one of many findings: almost 9 percent of the 1,057 spice shipments from India were laced with salmonella.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 10 Feb 2014 20:02

qualified in the subject from France. Oenology is the study of wines.

Brings to mind that terminologically exceptional field pioneered by our shiv here: Oiseulogy. Also derived from La Francaise. Let's not diss Oenology, pls. Very essential to put valuation on the bottles given to Mantris, Aphsars etc during negotiations for phoren collaborashun.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 10 Feb 2014 20:21

UlanBatori wrote: P.S. AmberG, Lilo, I understand both pov. I once sent a comment first as my honest self, full naam, pata, etc. To Hundistan Crimes. Disappeared. Then I sent the SAME COMMENT, as Abdul bin Kabul from Oslo, Norway. Published within the day.

FWIW, Matrimc, UB et al - I tried to test.. and looks like at least in my case the comments seem to go..
Link:http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 667558.ece

I was extremely surprised and thoroughly disgusted by some of the "comments"
posted by your readers.

By now, even US citizens (like me), have come to know the facts, and realize that
despicable treatment given to DK was not only unnecessary it ought to be
condemned by any person with a milligram of decency. DK could be anyone's,
including some of your readers who posted some of the most vile stuff, sister or
daughter or mother.

Think about this for a moment before you post one of those vile stuff again,
blaming the victim.

DK deserves the support of all decent folks, Americans and specially Indians.

from: Amber G.
Posted on: Feb 10, 2014 at 02:56 IST

saip · Post by **saip** » 10 Feb 2014 20:27

The story:
Devyani defends call to dismiss U.S. visa fraud case

AmberG, congrats. You seem to have gotten your comment in and I see another comment in 'support' of DK.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 10 Feb 2014 21:15

JE Menon wrote:>>I think this is where PB and others associated with this badly miscalculated.

Could be, but I think what triggered the response was the viciousness and utter callousness involved. Observe the following:

1. There is, as yet, no claim or evidence of any physical or emotional maltreatment of Sangeeta Richard. It appears to be specifically a dispute about wages and related "working" hours. The latter is a red herring because the complainant was living on the premises, and by her own admission (if the letter and sibling testimonials are true) appears to have been quite pleased with her physical and emotional circumstances. If these are not true, the worst we can say is that there is no information on that; which is in itself exculpatory to some extent.

2. The issue of "trafficking" appears to have been submerged under the "visa fraud" charge. Of course, in that case, one wonders why SR is still in the US - if she was, after all, in the country on a fraudulent visa. It would also be right to wonder, if that were so, why her family was flown out while the matter was sub-judice in India, under surreptitious circumstances. SR is a GoI employee. This harkens back to the "trafficking" issue. In short, confusion all around and any half-capable defence lawyer's comfortable playground - as Arshack is demonstrating.

3. The treatment of Khobragade, completely out of line with the presumed offence (wage dispute), in terms of the procedures - strip and cavity search, lock-up with petty criminals, arrest in front of general public - in terms of the bail ($250K), and in terms of the personal involvement of the Public Prosecutor in what would ordinarily be a run of the mill case.

It is the last part which got GoI's (and here I mean the state - represented by MEA and the associated bureaucracy) hackles up, and rightly so. The lady represents the country. What is done to her is done to the state, in effect - just as it might be if a local cop in Delhi stuck his digits up Alicia May's orifices while searching for Chinese pearls. And there, admittedly, there is valid cause given her own proud admission of the same. In Devyani's case, it is unlikely that she inserted Sangeeta's unpaid salary into her rectum for safekeeping.

The matter is simple. The Department of State has to get it's act together, monitor the activities of its employees more closely in terms of their personal commercial interests and partisan political agendas, set standards for private interaction on social media (or enforce them vigorously), train its personnel on how to hide their true feelings for the countries they work in. Indians and the GoI know pretty well what people of the calibre and breeding of the Mays think of Indians, their civilisation, and their country. Truly, we don't mind. We understand that such perspectives are common among those with more in the way of everything material. It's alright. We also know that this is not a general thing about all American diplomats. There are many many elegant minded, socially sophisticated and genuinely good-hearted individuals among them.

That, and the fact that we are going to have to do a lot of stuff together in the years ahead, is why we will work this through. But they need to know that this is a mess created by their people, and it caught bureaucracies on both sides somewhat by surprise. They need to clean it up, and we'll just get right back on track without missing a stride.

Very nicely put. To add, it seems that both India and US would like to move ahead making sure that this type of thing does not happen again. For example, there are indications that on US and India will draw up more clear cut guide lines on how each others diplomats are treated.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Feb 2014 21:48

sivab wrote:
matrimc wrote:The timing of accrediting the UN transfer to whit 5:47 PM, is a dead giveawayof the shadow boxing going on between DoS and DoJ.

Amber G. wrote:
5:47 PM on January 8, 2014 to approximately 8:30 PM on January 9, 2014
The 5:47pm on Jan 8 was neither related to shadow boxing nor a lucky break. It was widely reported by MSM at that time JK will discuss the issue with BO on Jan 8 evening. Here is one report about JK and BO mtg on Jan 8.

http://www.americanbazaaronline.com/201 ... ite-house/

January 08, 2014

President Barack Obama is likely be briefed on the Devyani Khobragade issue by Secretary of State John Kerry when the duo meet each other at the White House later today; their first meeting after the holiday vacations.

Kerry and the President are scheduled to meet later today, at 4:20 PM.
The mtg cleared DK immunity which was given the same day.

SivaB, THanks for digging this article which was lost int he din. It implies that Obama had to sign off on the diplomatic immunity for DK and the issue went all the way up to his level.
The Mays really took the US down a rat hole.
It also indicates why the time stamp of 5:47pm Jan 8th, 2014 came about. It was after the meeting was over.
Incidentally the "shooting in the foot" DSS director Starr appointment was sworn in before the meeting!!!

...
The meeting between Kerry and Obama is set to take place after the swearing in of Gregg Starr, the soon-to-be assistant secretary for diplomatic security. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security is a sub-division of the State Department, and is “a world leader in international investigations, threat analysis, cyber security, counterterrorism, security technology, and protection of people, property, and information.”

...

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 10 Feb 2014 22:39

^FYI ; The "shooting in the foot" DSS director Starr was appointed Director of the Diplomatic Security Service in February 2013. Interestingly prior to that he also was(few years ago) United Nation's Under-Secretary-General for Safety and Security.

( His new position is assistant secretary for diplomatic security)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Feb 2014 22:41

So appointed in Feb 2013, but sworn in on 8th Jan 2014! Must be some deep background screening in process.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 10 Feb 2014 22:59

ramana wrote:So appointed in Feb 2013, but sworn in on 8th Jan 2014! Must be some deep background screening in process.

He was appointed as "Director" in Feb 2013. The current/recent position ( assistant secretary for diplomatic security) is a sort of promotion. (First case when an "agent" has been appointed as assistant secretary - so it was sort of a big deal)

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 10 Feb 2014 23:10

KLP Dubey wrote:
Inexplicably, some say undiplomatically, Khobragade chose US nationality for her two children, which was possible because of Rathore. Clearly, the couple did not want their children to grow up as Indians although their mother represented India on the international stage.
I find this still disturbing. Clearly the MEA was looking the other way all this time.

This is flatly in violation of IFS rules. Wait till the family is back home, start an internal investigation, and quietly ask her to leave the service if found in violation. If papa Khobragade raises a stink, let him. Daughter's in India, the country did its part for her. Time to show something in return.

The reason I am qualifying the rules part is because my understanding IFS is from open source media, and common sense. One cannot represent a country when family is citizen of another.

To add to it, the kids were naturalized, to boot.

Devyani expresses anguish over uncertainty surrounding daughters, says she misses family

Her children, Khobragade said, were familiar with India. “Both my children were born in India. I flew from Pakistan, where I was posted then, to Mumbai, for the delivery of my second child,” she said.

While I can understand not wanting kids to be born in Pakistan, why naturalize them to be American?

Khobragade in violation of IFS rules?

The fact that Ms Khobragade is married to an American citizen has been widely reported in the media but what has not been pointed out is that under the rules applicable to IFS officers, they cannot marry foreign citizens. In case they do marry a foreign citizen, the person concerned has to give up his foreign citizenship and take up Indian citizenship. Ms Khobragade's husband still retains his US passport and American citizenship. As if that was not enough, sources in the government have confirmed that both of Ms Khobragde's daughters also carry US passports and carry American citizenship, which is a further violation of the IFS rules.

My sympathy extends only to the DCG in NY, not DK personally. Now that India has got her DCG back, time to do some cross checking and house cleaning.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 11 Feb 2014 00:54

The fact that Ms Khobragade is married to an American citizen has been widely reported in the media but what has not been pointed out is that under the rules applicable to IFS officers, they cannot marry foreign citizens. In case they do marry a foreign citizen, the person concerned has to give up his foreign citizenship and take up Indian citizenship. Ms Khobragade's husband still retains his US passport and American citizenship. As if that was not enough, sources in the government have confirmed that both of Ms Khobragde's daughters also carry US passports and carry American citizenship, which is a further violation of the IFS rules.

Sorry but this is flat wrong.
1. Under Indian passport law, the wife is presumed to have the nationality of the husband, unless otherwise clearly designated. So naturally, the children are also presumed to have the nationality of their father. (Used to) say so on the passport, or the passport application (can't remember, too lazy to go look).

2. The OCI law as it came out said: If you change citjenship and apply for OCI within 6 months, you are PRESUMED TO NEVER HAVE LOST INDIAN CITIZENSHIP. Look under the original OCI Law as passed by Parliament, which conveys the Intent of The People. Later babucratic cra* may have lost this fact, but this is what the ORIGINAL law passed by Parliament said.

3. If you are an OCI, you can be anything as long as you don't vote, stand for elections nor hold government positions nor get security clearance unless specifically authorized by Parliament. Says nothing about being married to Indian citizen.

In other words, assuming her hubby is an OCI, there is nothing wrong in her being married to an OCI, nor in kids having got (also) US citjenship, like their daddy. Indian law presumes that they should.

Why create needless Patriotism rah-rah conditions to beat up on people living their lives and doing their jobs as best they know how? DK and all of them are a heck of a lot more patriotic Indians than the sh1ts who sit in India pontifecating about Patriotism as they grovel before the foreigners to get baksheesh - and write attacking Indians anytime Indians are attacked by foreigners, as has been seen in this case. Instead, they should consider reading the Constitution and laws passed by their own Parliament.

I am sure when DK met and decided to marry Dr. WineTaster, that had to be communicated to the Chain of Command, who probably attended their wedding too. If it was approved by the MEA, well, that's who approves the passport and the OCI as well. Enough said.

anmol · Post by **anmol** » 11 Feb 2014 01:07

US diplomat in Mumbai pays his Filipina maid less than $3 per hour
by Newest, timesofindia.indiatimes.com
February 10th 2014
NEW DELHI: India and the US still seem locked in a battle for righteousness over the Khobragade issue as the strategic partners pick up the pieces after the bitter standoff, bringing the bilateral engagement back on track by scheduling the energy dialogue next month.

With the US authorities refusing to withdraw visa fraud charges against diplomat Devyani Khobragade, Indian authorities are proceeding with the pursuit of tax issues related to American School employment contracts and are also closely following contracts entered into by US diplomats here with their domestic helps.

One such contract between a Mumbai-based US diplomat and his Filipina maid, a copy of which is with TOI, suggests that the maid is being paid less than $3 per hour. The minimum hourly wage in the US is $7.25.

According to her lawyer, Khobragade actually paid $9.75 per hour to her maid in New York, as promised by her in the employment contract, in the form of the amount paid here to her husband and also cash payments and "permissible deductions'' for various services in the US.

The US state department says that the salary paid to local staff of US diplomats is based on "prevailing wage rates and compensation practices''. Unlike the contract between Khobragade and her maid Sangeeta Richard, though, this one between the US official and his maid doesn't carry any stipulation of hours of work. The contract, which came into effect on December 1 last year, says the Filipina maid would work "six full workdays per week'' at a salary of $458 per month. Even at only eight hours per day, it is perhaps safe to assume she works well over 40 hours every week.

Authorities here believe the Khobragade contract was more favourably inclined towards the maid also because it restricted work to five days and 40 hours per week. The Filipina also has only five holidays apart from a 12-day annual leave and no ticket for home leave during the period of three years. On the other hand, all domestic helps going with Indian diplomats are entitled to a return air ticket after completing a year's stay abroad.

There was no response from the US embassy here on questions about the contract between the US diplomat and the Filipina maid. Like Richard, the Filipina maid too has rent-free accommodation, free internet and food allowance. She also has "appropriate contributions'' to the Philippine Social Security System. While the Filipina maid has medical insurance, Richard had "100 per cent'' medical cover under which all such expenses were borne by the Indian government.

In case of any negligence, the contract with the Filipina maid also specifies that all such issues will be decided by the employer only. There is no option of any recourse to local courts or US courts or even courts in the Philippines.

CNN reported in 2009, quoting a state department report, that many local staff of US diplomats across the world were being paid less than a dollar per day. The state department-mandated contract between Khobragade and Richard projected an average of 40 working hours per week (approximately a salary of $1,560 per month at an hourly wage of $9.75). Around $560 was given in the form of Rs 30,000 transferred to her husband's account, another $625 in cash and remaining in deductions.

Meanwhile, income tax department has also begun a probe into alleged tax violations by the American Embassy School here. "Once the preliminary information is gathered, the tax department would be taking a view on issuing notices to the authorities concerned. Also, the CBDT would be informed as this is not a regular case and involves relations between two countries," an agency report quoting government sources said.

As per information available with the government, several teachers at the American Embassy School were working "illegally", in violation of both tax laws and their visa status.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 11 Feb 2014 01:26

I am glad to see rohitvats interjecting, and UB's commenting on Dubeyji' post. Honestly I was as much disturbed with that post as the comments in the Hindu piece which I posted before. More than that, Dubeyji comments made no sense to me, the tone was xenophobic.

Anyway just a few points, FYI:

If a person is born in US, (s)he has right to be a US citizen.
GOI, or any decent Indian citizen, should have no issue with that. It's not as if being a US citizen is akin to 'infidel' simply because some one think that it is not "pure" enough.

US has no objection if a US citizen also has Indian (or other citizenship). India did not allow dual citizenship but with OCI, other than right to vote, such person can be a proud Overseas Citizen of India.. If some one thinks they are not Indian enough, it is only shows one's small-mindedness.

It is not up to parent(s) (or others) to "choose" their children's citizenship. If one's parents (or just one parent) is US citizen at the time the person is born, (s)he has a right to become US citizen. When the child becomes 18, (s)he may keep or renounce, any citizenship. The parent (let alone a poster in Brf) doesn't decide what citizenship the kid ought to have. (The parent may choose what passport or other document their child gets but this is different thing)

I don't know exactly what IFS rules are. May be some one can post them here. It is one thing to comment if any of the rules are broken. It is silly to pontificate otherwise and about, as rohitvats put it, irrelevant stuff. It is beyond silly to question others patriotism, just because you think you can do it.

Just think about it, I know Indian PM's, Presidents, and many others who have close family members who carry other than Indian passports.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 11 Feb 2014 02:30

UB and others ..All I found from googling that apparently it is looked down if an IFS marry "outsiders" . for example..

Haryana IFS officer decides to marry outside caste, family faces threats

The family of an Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officer has received threats and faced protests from her caste group and a section of the village panchayat in Haryana's Bhiwani district for her decision to marry outside her caste.

Neelam Sharma, who is currently posted at the Indian mission in Moscow, is set to marry IAS officer Kuldeep Yadav in Delhi on November 8. Yadav, whom Sharma met during training, is currently Additional District Magistrate in Godhra.

Sharma reached New Delhi today and is expected to reach her home in Patranwali village tomorrow morning.

If just marrying outside the cast can cause such a reaction, may be I am underestimating something...

(May be we need bositive news thread for India)

member_26011 · Post by **member_26011** » 11 Feb 2014 02:32

OCIs are not citizens of India, or are they? OCI is a life-long visa with no reporting requirements, recognizing the ties one has to India, and confers many benefits and parity...but it is not citizenship.

It would be strange at the least, I think, in a conflict for OCIs to fight for India when their formal allegiance is elsewhere. The conflict of interest is not unique to OCIs, obviously --many immigrants to the US, particularly dual citizens from countries that allow it seem to face this dilemma. It's a tough problem, at least for me. As a citizen of India and an NRI for decades, I always stop short at the "worst case scenario" that has no chance of happening. hmph.

Nevertheless, I deeply appreciate DKs stand for India and now that the family can be together, one hopes that it all works out for them.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 11 Feb 2014 02:46

From WSJ (may require subscription)
U.S. Brings Solar Case Against India at WTO

The U.S. on Monday filed a World Trade Organization case against India over a solar-power dispute that has limited U.S. access to the Indian market, a move that could further inflame relations between the two countries.

U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said a major government program in India to expand its solar generation capacity discriminates against American suppliers. The WTO case follows a complaint the U.S. lodged at the trade body last year against the initial phase of the Indian program. Negotiations to settle that complaint have failed to progress.

Both cases could move to WTO adjudication if the U.S. and India can't reach an agreement.

"This is something we've been asking for a while now," said John Smirnow, vice president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. Mr. Smirnow estimates India's rules put $200 million to $300 million in U.S. exports at risk. That is significant but less than the billions of dollars involved in solar trade disputes with China, he said.

U.S. officials said solar energy sales in India are expected to grow rapidly in coming years. Phase 2 of India's solar building program is expected to add 750 megawatts out of a total 20,000 megawatts for the entire program, and U.S. solar producers want to make sure they can participate as the program expands.

In recent months, ahead of Secretary of State John Kerry's trip to India, the U.S. business community has complained in Washington over intellectual-property issues, especially over drugs.

The solar spat comes at a time of friction between the two countries, including a recent disagreement over the treatment of diplomats. Federal prosecutors last month filed a criminal indictment against an Indian consular official, accusing her of visa fraud and making false statements about a domestic worker.

Indian police removed barriers in front of the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi in apparent retaliation. The diplomat, Devyani Khobragade, denied the charges and has left the U.S.

In the WTO, the U.S. has opened half a dozen cases against India since 1996, according to the WTO's website, mostly related to agriculture. China is a more frequent target of U.S. officials, with 15 cases brought since 2004.

A spokesman for the Indian embassy in Washington didn't immediately reply to a request for comment on the solar case.

Indian officials have argued that Washington has also supported protectionist policies and that U.S. officials make unreasonable demands on India's economy.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 11 Feb 2014 02:54

Amber G. wrote:UB and others ..All I found from googling that apparently it is looked down if an IFS marry "outsiders" . for example..

Haryana IFS officer decides to marry outside caste, family faces threats
The family of an Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officer has received threats and faced protests from her caste group and a section of the village panchayat in Haryana's Bhiwani district for her decision to marry outside her caste.

Neelam Sharma, who is currently posted at the Indian mission in Moscow, is set to marry IAS officer Kuldeep Yadav in Delhi on November 8. Yadav, whom Sharma met during training, is currently Additional District Magistrate in Godhra.

Sharma reached New Delhi today and is expected to reach her home in Patranwali village tomorrow morning.
If just marrying outside the cast can cause such a reaction, may be I am underestimating something...
(May be we need bositive news thread for India)

Amber G. there is a point there but this one is not the right example of this sort of thing. media nonsense. Damn, stuck in my cave. grumble,grumble, rabble,rabble,rabble,... carry on.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 11 Feb 2014 02:55

Just stating what the original law creating the OCI category stated. This was done in 2003/04 b4 the NDA guvrmand went out india-shining. Only citjens of some 8 countries were approved at the time. Then MMS &Co dragged their feet for a while and eventually brought out the Babucracy version. They added hajaar-karod countries. Some citjens of Fiji etc begged guvrmand to say that "OCI.ne.IndianCitjen" saying that otherwise their land would be taken over and they would be driven out by the savages there. So the guvrmand specified that it is not a citjenship.

But the original intent, and the law passed by Parliament, said very clearly that those who changed to phoren citjenship and applied for OCI inside 6 months were presumed never to have given up their Indian citjenship. That's why it was called Overseas citjen.

DK's hubby and kids should be off-limits in this tamasha. Have to presume that MEA is not so 404 that they didn't know who she had married etc. Future PM is (un)married to a Colombian and his mom carries an Eyetalian pajport, hain? Used to be Mrs. PM too, which means former PM was married to an Alien?

Does not keep her from "participating" in the decision-making on the most critical of defense contracts, from what I read.

Future Deputy PM SubSwamy's daughter is USC, hain na? List could be endless.. OK, OT, but enuf of this line of attack already.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Feb 2014 03:29

AmberG, As was stated in the other thread, BBC and NYT already provide Positive News about India. So no need for that on BRF.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 11 Feb 2014 03:54

Another criticism I have read about Dr. DK is that she is "angling" for "US Green card" (or formally known as Permanent Resident Card as the card is not green in color anymore). This line of criticism is unadulterated hogwash. If one needs to pick on her, may be there are other points that can be pushed. But as a spouse of a US citizen, she is entitled to PR Card provided she follows the application procedure as laid out by US Immigration. This "angling-shangling" makes zero sense. I don't think she would have asked Prof. Rathore before they realized they are in love or before saying yes to Prof. Rathore's proposal (who ever proposed is not relevant but in most cases the man takes the initiative and the woman has a choice of accepting or rejecting) whether he is a US citizen.

.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 11 Feb 2014 04:30

Another thing we discussed here in brf is also a newspaper story (see below). I (and others) made comment about the opinion of the UN Office of Legal Affairs (From UN Assistant Secretary General for Legal Affairs) among all the documents submitted by DK's attorney.

Here is the newspaper article:
UN agency backs India, says Devyani had full immunity

A United Nations agency has endorsed New Delhi’s claim that Indian Foreign Service officer Devyani Khobragade enjoyed full diplomatic immunity when she was arrested by the United States law-enforcement officials in New York on December 12 last.

The opinion of the UN Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) supports New Delhi’s argument that Khobragade enjoyed full immunity at the time of her arrest as she had already been accredited to the international organisation as a representative of India since August last year.

Khobragade’s lawyers have cited the UN OLA’s view in a court in Manhattan to counter the recent move by Preet Bharara, the US district attorney for southern district of New York, to dismiss New Delhi’s claim.

Stephen Mathias, UN Assistant Secretary General for Legal Affairs, on January 27 last wrote to India’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the international organisation conveying the UN OLA’s views on the issue.

He wrote that representatives of all members of the United Nations “to the principal and subsidiary organs of the United Nations and to conferences convened by the United Nations, while exercising their functions and during their journey to and from the place of meeting, enjoy the privileges and immunities set forth in Section 11 of the General Convention”.

The General Convention or the “Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations” was adopted by the international organisation in February 13, 1946.
Khobragade was posted at the Consulate General of India in New York.

But she was also designated as adviser to the Permanent Mission of India to the UN ahead of the United Nations General Assembly last September in view of the additional workload due to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to the international organisation for the annual meet.

She had been accredited by the international organisation as an adviser to the Permanent Mission of India to the UN on August 26 and the accreditation was valid till December 31.

According to the Section 11 A of the Article 4 of the “General Convention”, all representatives of the members of the international organisation enjoy “immunities from personal arrest or detention and from the seizure of their personal baggage”.

The Section 16 of the convention made it clear that the “representatives” of a country should include all delegates, deputy delegates, advisors, technical experts and secretaries of the delegations.

The US claimed that Khobragade, being a consular official, only enjoyed limited immunity, which was not violated by her arrest for committing visa fraud and allegedly underpaying her domestic help. But New Delhi argued that she had full immunity cover as her accreditation to the UN was valid when she was arrested.

Bharara last week urged the US court of the Southern District of New York to deny a motion filed by Khobragade’s lawyer Daniel N Arshack for dismissing the January 9 indictment against her, as the UN accreditation had granted the IFS officer immunity from arrest and prosecution.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 11 Feb 2014 05:08

ramana wrote:AmberG, As was stated in the other thread, BBC and NYT already provide Positive News about India. So no need for that on BRF.

True, but not only BBC and NYT, many others including some of India's top newspapers..

BTW, I have gotten some limited success by contacting, in case of papers like NYT, ombudsman (or sometimes they are called 'public editor' ) when a particularly bigoted piece appears. (More effective than contacting the reporter or writing a letter to the editor)

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Feb 2014 05:37

May be this is the wrong thread but why the need for bruhaha over Mrs. Devyani ? When former president was given a pat down no one said nothing and oh btw he never broke any LAW . She has a pretty influential background and now things have been taken care of including a plush job for her husband in JNU , we don't even extend a helping hand to a road accident victim with such urgency and here and here we are cleaning up someone's mess just because she is a diplomat. I for one believe diplomatic immunity and all such farce needs to be done away with in any case the 'powerful' treat such treaties as a toilet paper like the US has done before (they even strip searched another Indian lady , 'I forget her name' from IAS cadre) .

The way I see things US probably has come up with a new way to exert external pressure on GOI i.e. by employing the dirty tactics of harassing Indian diplomats and at times even ministers in order to intimidate the injuns , all this for opening up the Indian market for American players etc etc. I mean this is not first such incident and as usual we have protested and lodged complaints before but it is obvious they have fallen on deaf years , however with Mrs Devyani's case GOTUS actually got a somewhat solid case on their hands and they pushed even harder than before , as far as point about UN conventions regarding diplomatic immunity are concerned I was about to laugh at it for as far as I can remember US has only shown middle finger to what UN says hell it has even gone against the security council as it deemed fit, luckily enough this time it ceded ground. Anyways my point being we will continue to be shoved and pushed around and the reason is we stand on a shaky ground , a ground made on foundations of broken system, corrupt leaders and babus with a high sense of self entitlement.

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Feb 2014 06:11

Negi,

You are making the same mistake that those trolls on the Hindu comments page made. You are confusing DK the person with DK the Deputy Consul General. When you think of DCG it doesn't matter if she's rich, poor, high caste, Dalit or even smart Alec.

Remember that both DK as well as SR were in NY at the pleasure of the GoI and not in their personal capacity. And hence in any dispute between DK and SR the jurisdictional authority should rest with GoI. And that's how it was being played out when Amir Khan literally inserted its grubby fingers into the affair. In fact they flew out SR's family on trafficking visas. Remember any trafficking allegations ultimately goes back to GoI and not DK because it's GoI who paid for SR's tickets.

If even after that you don't understand the brouhaha then perhaps you've been listening to the "Who let the dogs out..." limerick for too long.

And yes accident victims, please give us a break. It's sounds like: "Why are we spending so much on rockets to Mars when we have so many starving people etc". Let's keep all that for Sagarika Ghose types.

however with Mrs Devyani's case GOTUS actually got a somewhat solid case on their hands and they pushed even harder than before

May be you know something that we don't know? Pray enlighten us on this as even the Bray of Pigs has failed to do so. We'll all be excited if Negi sails in to the rescue.

Your point about Kalam's patdown and the various indignities suffered previously by Indian officials, remember two wrongs don't make one right. Just because we were stupid and spine less previously doesn't mean we have to remain so in perpetuity, even though it might get chaddis of some folks in a twist - both Amir Khan as well as SDRE - both desis as well as those staying in phoren lands.

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Feb 2014 06:22

Those complaining about the fact that DK married an Indian origin American citizen should take a look at this picture:

They should also keep in mind that the person in this picture (seen along with his wife in case some folks don't get the significance) was considered for the Foreign Secretary post in 2013 but didn't get it because he was considered too junior. I'll bet my last naya paisa he's going to become the FS sooner than later and would probably be one of the best we've ever had.

And yes this guy's dad is considered the doyen of Indian strategic thinkers.

Moral of the story: You don't become less patriotic if you heart finds love in foreign lands.

Edit: Changed the picture to a smaller one so that it doesn't destroy the page formatting.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Feb 2014 06:35

negi wrote:May be this is the wrong thread but why the need for bruhaha over Mrs. Devyani ?

Arre? How can you able to say such a things? Ek Bharatiya naari par kisine haath lagaya and you is wanting to keep quoiet?

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Feb 2014 06:38

^ Amit is there a difference between DCG and the GOI ? If yes then is GOI some individual ? The rot is much more deeper, who do you think comes up with bright bulb ideas like lying on a VISA application ? It is the same IAS cadre aren't they the ones who formulate all these formalities and policies for ministers come and go , it is the AS that actually puts the pen to paper ? IAS is part of the GOI so when you blame the GOI who are you exactly blaming ? MMS ? MOE ? IFS ?

As for your line about "DK as well as SR were in NY at the pleasure of the GoI and not in their personal capacity" , seriously boss are you even going to persist with this line of argument over a VISA fraud case ?

You yourself must have filed for a visa before, I hope you do realize that even if it is your employer who sponsors it it is the individual who takes 400% responsibility of whatever goes into the form , please note be it a cab driver, SW techie or a student of F1 they all get shafted in form of a 10 year ban on them entering US if they are found to have lied on a VISA application unless I am mistaken there is no separate form for a diplomat .

Oh please don't pull that Sagarika analogy on me you know it does not fit. I hope you do know that a few months back Infosys chaps were asked to pay about 30+ millions as fine for abusing B1 visa now I know there is no toilet paper form UNO which gives them any kind of immunity but immunity part aside question is were they at fault or no ? If Yes then law of the land did what it was supposed to do , no one shed a tear for Infy leave Infy the chaps on B1 who got deported by homeland security and got their passport smeared with "Cancelled with prejudice" , they don't have a frigin Adarsh to come back or no one will give their spouse a job in JNU because Unkil ji ne danda mara.

You see we all are entitled to having opinions , my opinion on all such things is I for one don't believe in this entire system of different laws for different designations and which is the case here i.e. a VISA form is the same for a DCG as well as a cab driver or a ITVTY coolie so if latter get shafted for violating those why should it be different from someone else ? Just because she holds a government job and she ostensibly represents India ? Rest of the Indians working abroad represent TSP or what ?

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Feb 2014 06:43

shiv wrote: Arre? How can you able to say such a things? Ek Bharatiya naari par kisine haath lagaya and you is wanting to keep quoiet?

Bharatiya ? Yes, Lady ? Yes but she was no abla , entire weight of GOI machinery was thrown behind her to save her . Good for her. My only point was we never show such urgency any where else because every where else the person affected is not of their OWN KIND. Where was this government machinery when Savita Halappanavar died in Ireland or say when that poor couple were literally begging to get their kid from foster care ? Where was this pain for India being humiliated ? Sab chootiayapa hai .

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 11 Feb 2014 06:45

I hope you do realize that even if it is your employer who sponsors it it is the individual who takes 400% responsibility of whatever goes into the form

Er.. that's what DK's attorney said too: It is SR who takes 400% responsibility of whatever goes into the form. So exactly what case does GOTUS have against anyone else?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Feb 2014 06:47

negi wrote:Unkil ji ne danda mara.

You see we all are entitled to having opinions , my opinion on all such things is I for one don't believe in this entire system of different laws for different designations and which is the case here i.e. a VISA form is the same for a DCG as well as a cab driver or a ITVTY coolie so if latter get shafted for violating those why should it be different from someone else ? Just because she holds a government job and she ostensibly represents India ? Rest of the Indians working abroad represent TSP or what ?

Negi for what it is worth, I have a slightly different take on this, and I will simply repeat it. No one should strip a woman and search her genitals because she was accused of writing something wrong on a form. As far as I am concerned that is indefensible. I would not want my asshole probed because I made an error of judgment in a visa for - even if US law demands that. US law demanding something ridiculous needs ridiculous responses and what surprises me is the umber of Americans who have their privates probed and sit tight claiming they live in the free-est and best society in the world, cheered on by a bunch of rahrahkars who agree with that ass-e-ssment

saip · Post by **saip** » 11 Feb 2014 06:48

Negi: Could you please educate this unwashed abdul where exactly DK lied on Visa application? A mere allegation does not constitute a crime or that is what they told us in law school. But then it is a third world law school, why care about it?

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Feb 2014 06:49

UlanBatori wrote:
I hope you do realize that even if it is your employer who sponsors it it is the individual who takes 400% responsibility of whatever goes into the form
Er.. that's what DK's attorney said too: It is SR who takes 400% responsibility of whatever goes into the form. So exactly what case does GOTUS have against anyone else?

Aha! The Mongolian Internet is 400 per cent faster than the one I have to suffer here in this God Forsaken Land!

You just beat me to it. As regards the case GOTUS has, Negi ji has provided the answer in his previous post:

somewhat solid case on their hands

Meaning: The poo is semi solid and not liquid as you would get when you have a case of loose motion.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Feb 2014 06:52

negi wrote:
shiv wrote: Arre? How can you able to say such a things? Ek Bharatiya naari par kisine haath lagaya and you is wanting to keep quoiet?
Bharatiya ? Yes, Lady ? Yes but she was no abla , entire weight of GOI machinery was thrown behind her to save her . Good for her. My only point was we never show such urgency any where else because every where else the person affected is not of their OWN KIND.

We never show urgency when anyone else is probed because we don't care and believe that the US is a great society We only got upset that an Indian woman was probed based on the usual charges of cheating, slavery, caste etc that every Indian has to swallow while he slobbers over the west and stands in a long visa queue so that people in Amrika can say "Humph - but your immigration queues never get shorter"

As a nation we have little shame and you are, in my view, asking why we must show indignation in the one case where we did.

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Feb 2014 07:07

UlanBatori wrote:
I hope you do realize that even if it is your employer who sponsors it it is the individual who takes 400% responsibility of whatever goes into the form
Er.. that's what DK's attorney said too: It is SR who takes 400% responsibility of whatever goes into the form. So exactly what case does GOTUS have against anyone else?

Nice but you do realise that false fact in this case was the wage part (at least that is what the case is about , we don't know if other details like age etc were fudged as well) , if what was stated on VISA form was not being met who as per the law was to be blamed ? SR ? Who filled her I-9 ? Indian consulate ?