Bharat Rakshak

Theo_Fidel wrote: Exactly. The convention is quite old and uses terms not used any more or meanings have changed causing all kinds of interpretive round robbins.
.

It is important to realize that if US is a barbaric medevial country which violates international laws, the solution is not to rave and rant and froth at the mouth against international laws.

The solution is for US to learn to behave like human beings and submit themselves to the comity of nations. Sure they can claim that since they are very powerful, their cavemen boorish behavior is justified.

All Americans, particularly the neo-converts to America (since they tend to be more rah rah america is always right than older whites ) should also realize this.

A_Gupta wrote:Read the allegations in the Gurung case:
http://cdp-ny.org/wp-content/uploads/20 ... dgment.pdf

The 17-18 year old Gurung says they starved her, she went from 147 lb to 84 lb.

Neena Malhotra did not show up at court so lost by default.

Cannot compare the Gurung case to Sangeeta - Gurungs was a real case of intimidation and abuse with enough evidence. Sangeeta's seems to be contrived

Dipanker wrote:
I am sorry to say but you just being too emotional in your response, please try to think it out and see if you arrive at the same conclusion. Closing all consulates over the the need of our IFS officers
to bring along maid servant does not serve Indian interests.

I am sorry to say that you are being too clever by half in trying to suggest that US bullying of IFS officers to make them live a certain way has nothing to do with India and Indian interests.

Who are you and US to decide what and how should Indian diplomats live and do as long as all the relevant international laws are being followed ?

The way the above will be done, will be to tell the yahoos posted in Delhi embassy to live the way Indians do. We will apply our way of life and laws to them, and if they dont like it, we will rape them in Tihar.

Now I don't expect this to happen anytime soon as long as we have corrupt political system, politicians, and bureaucrats.

So basically your point is that we (US) will do as we want since we know your people have too many Gunga deens beholden to US ? That is fine, but kindly don't try and make an obvious case of bullying and power play into some sort of morality issue.

Be honest and say that India and Indians should only be yes massa, no massa, because they are worthless to be any better. For example Theo is quite clear that if you are not a US clone you are worthless (on many occasions) -- there is no harm in being upfront like that.

The US system is ruling on the primary of local law over the Vienna Convention, which looks contrary to their obligations as a signatory. But this is nothing new, considering this is the US we are talking about, and they often claim that their domestic law supersedes their international obligations. It's a good thing that DK obtained immunity early on before the hearings, rather than be subjected to the legal system and then be denied immunity from prosecution.

The US system is ruling on the primary of local law over the Vienna Convention, which looks contrary to their obligations as a signatory. But this is nothing new, considering this is the US we are talking about, and they often claim that their domestic law supersedes their international obligations. It's a good thing that DK obtained immunity early on before the hearings, rather than be subjected to the legal system and then be denied immunity from prosecution.

It is contrary to vienna convention would be a more accurate position.And it is an Indian diplomat who was arested on flimsy reason and US claims do not mean they are true.

(and I have no intention to pick up an issue with forum moderator).Authority and Rules cannot be followed selectively and India is no pushover.

We should ask for an apology.The SD thugs will mumble some regret.We can say we are not satisfied with their response,withdraw DK,and move on saying that we will not let Indo US relations, which has great potential for the future, be held hostage to one issue .All this would require high quality political leadership.Will MMS be upto it ?

Devyani Khobragade’s lawyer calls $4,500 salary charge an error, blames US for it


Not sure if wither of them DK or PB would make such elementary mistakes. yet it is worth looking into.

Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade, whose arrest triggered a diplomatic row between India and the US, could not have promised her housekeeper a salary of $4,500 a month when that's about how much she earned herself, her lawyer said on Monday

Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade, whose arrest triggered a diplomatic row between India and the US, could not have promised her housekeeper a salary of $4,500 a month when that's about how much she earned herself, her lawyer said on Monday.

Daniel Arshack alleged that the investigators mistook the amount of $4,500 on Sangeeta Richard's visa application as her monthly salary, which, in fact, was her employer's salary.

Mark Smith, the bureau of diplomatic security agent who processed the arrest and drew up the affidavit, "simply made an error" in reading Richard's visa form - the DS 160 - Arshack said.

"He erroneously read the $4,500 a month salary entry on the form as the domestic worker's expected salary when, in fact, it was clearly a reporting of the base salary to be earned by the diplomat in the United States," said Arshack.

That figure was mentioned in Richard's visa application only to assure US officials that Khobragade would be drawing enough to pay Richard the $1,560 a month promised to her in the contract submitted with her visa form, he added.

Suraj wrote:She was on an official passport and can be characterized as a member of consular staff. Ditto for Ms.DK.

That is the nub of the issue. The USA indicates that they don't think SR was. She was not doing any consulate work. Changing diaper is not consulate work. USA has made clear that domestic workers are not an approved category.

Over and above DK may think think she was immune, it is clear she thought she had that privilege. But it is also clear consuls are not immune. India went ahead and imposed restrictions on consuls in India without any push back. I'm afraid folks got this all wrong and situation is messed up.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Sanku,

Cool your jets. You don't know anything about me. Cut out the personal attacks.

Theo_Fidel wrote:

Suraj wrote:She was on an official passport and can be characterized as a member of consular staff. Ditto for Ms.DK.

That is the nub of the issue.

No sir, that is NOT the nub of the issue. The nub of the issue is that after her arrest, DK was subjected to strip searching and cavity searches - that may be called law enforcement in the US but in India we see it as rape.

Again there was no cavity search.

Watch from 4.00 onwards.Shashi Tharoor is superbly articulate.

Theo_Fidel wrote:Again there was no cavity search.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 6#p1561326
Posted on 19th

GeorgeWelch wrote:

ramana wrote:5) Custodial rape of diplomats claiming standard procedure is not acceptable.

It was a strip search, not a cavity seach.

A strip search is not rape.

An interesting overview of how Americans view the matter:
<del>

It's apparent that a lot of the issues being raised here don't even register with Americans.

Devayani email is quite clear about this. It was Strip Search Body cavity search and DNA swabbing. Imaging she would have been photographed like a convict holding name and age on a slate with both front and side profile.

Here is the text of her email

I am so grateful for all the outpouring of unequivocal support and backing that has been available to me from the fraternity. I take comfort in the confidence that this invaluable support will also be translated into strong and swift action, to ensure the safety of me and my children, as also to preserve the dignity of our service which is unquestionably under siege.

While I was going through it, although I must admit that I broke down many times as the indignities of repeated handcuffing, stripping and cavity searches, swabbing, hold up with common criminals and drug addicts were all being imposed upon me despite my incessant assertions of immunity, I got the strength to regain composure and remain dignified thinking that I must represent all of my colleagues and my country with confidence and pride. I feel I can continue to do so thanks to this strong and prolific support.

I cannot say more now but will later, I did feel the deep need to thank you all so much.

Devyani


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/dev ... story.html

I would believe her rather than that Lawyer Bharara or any American suggesting otherwise.

And yes it will be rape even by Australian laws.

Theo_Fidel wrote:That is the nub of the issue. The USA indicates that they don't think SR was. She was not doing any consulate work. Changing diaper is not consulate work. USA has made clear that domestic workers are not an approved category.

It is not an issue. Both SR and DK were on official passports, with perhaps the latter on a diplomatic passport. Their respective duties are not relevant; they are consular staff - of that there is no disagreement either from India or from the US who issued SR a visa on an official passport (i.e. official business) and not a personal passport.

Article 47 does not distinguish roles, just whether or not the person is a member of the staff on an official passport. There's no such thing as 'not doing any consulate work' here - her visa itself classified her as an attendant or servant of the primary A class visa holder (DK in this case).

Article 47 states that such consular staff are not within the purview of any work permit laws. What the US should have done is have an A-3 subcategory (or a separate class for consular attendants) recognizing that local wage laws do not apply to them.

At most, the US can expel DK, but they would be doing so for no good reason. Every bit of police action they resorted to is against the letter of their obligation to Article 47. Neither SR nor DK - particularly not DK as a bonafide consul staff - can be held to US labor law or the consequences of violating it.

Just because the US has case law where they applied local laws over their Vienna Convention obligations does not make them right. It means they're setting up their own extra-legal framework, but which they would never countenance another state applying to their staff - they'd be the first ones to scream 'Vienna Convention!' in that case.

Had DK hired contract employees from the US, *then* they might be obliged to offer them prevailing wages, since such people would not be on an Indian official passport on a secondary attendant visa. But this not apply to SR.

Consular premises and Residents of members of Consular staff are treated as sending State's (Indian) Territory.That was the main reason arrest was made on the street while she was eturning from the school. If Maid worked in the house of consul then how could US law prevail inside when their law enforcement machinery can not even enter the consular residences. Clearly applicability of local laws is something that US insists upon in respect of other diplomats but wants exemption for their diplomats in other countries.


One thing is clear that Indian courts can now easily deny extradition of any person desired by US on the ground that their laws violate human rights or constitutes custodial rape. I was told that they routinely deny extradition of persons on the ground of poor conditions in indian prisons. India can invoke similar arguments now in all such cases. Another point is that Intelligence cooperation with US is one sided with them not sharing much details. That should be limited to bare minimum.

See from 8.00 to 8.48

Shri Ronen Sen,Fmr Indian Ambassador to US

If A-3 Visa conditions changed unilaterally by US many times without consulting members states of VC and are contrary to letter and spirit of VC then India is not obliged to accept it. Contrarily India should change its local laws, ask for all documentations and affidavit and apply to Consular staff with due search of cavities and cohabiting them with common criminals. US would have lost ground to ask India to honor VCCR.

Theo_Fidel wrote:A CEO of a $200 million company asked me about it last week.
There was nothing I could say.

If you meet him again you can explain it in a language he can understand.

Say his company signed an agreement with a software vendor that the application he purchased will be used only in his US office. But his company had the internal policy to share all software application licenses globally.

Is he right to share the software, he purchased, globally, citing his internal policy?

In a way this is what happened in this case, and agreement was through Vienna Convention.

As Christmas and New Year is approaching we also arrest and do Pandu Danda search in their Ga*d for :-

New Year and Christmas parties without liquor license
Drunken driving and storing excess liquor beyond Delhi Excise Rules
Disturbing neighborhood with loud music
Use of Soft drugs and prostitutes (which is rampant)
Charge for customs duty violations for distributing any gifts that are taken out of embassy premises
Charge for customs duty violations for any food or beverage taken out of embassy premises


And we need not be right, just arrest on suspicion, keep for 23 hour allowed under Indian law, use Danda to do cavity search and then let them go. Do that to atleast 5 persons with US Consular passports and it will be reciprocity.

Or we can start a procedure were all US Diplomatic staff entering and exiting any airport or high security area are strip and cavity searched, after all Headely was their agent.

Theo_Fidel wrote: . The USA indicates that they don't think SR was.

What the eff is supposed to be "think" -- this is sheer nonsense. Either she was on an official passport or not. US can not think about it (it can not think about most things, but thats different)

This is sheer baloney of worst sort to say that US can think about something like whether a passport is official passport or not.

Sanku,

Cool your jets. You don't know anything about me. Cut out the personal attacks.

Theo cool yourself, I am not making personal attacks, I am calling out the sheer nonsense that you are putting out as sheer nonsense.

So yes, get used to it. If you put out nonsense people will call you on it. When you do it despite correction people will ask you why you are repeatedly being economical with truth and deliberately putting out wrong information.

So cool off making comments like some can think a official passport is not an official passport. Capiche

Jarita wrote:

A_Gupta wrote:Read the allegations in the Gurung case:
http://cdp-ny.org/wp-content/uploads/20 ... dgment.pdf

The 17-18 year old Gurung says they starved her, she went from 147 lb to 84 lb.

Neena Malhotra did not show up at court so lost by default.

Cannot compare the Gurung case to Sangeeta - Gurungs was a real case of intimidation and abuse with enough evidence. Sangeeta's seems to be contrived

The article by Prabhhu Dayal a few pages ago brought it up, and put it in the Sangeeta Richard category.

Theo_Fidel wrote:AFAIK DK was being paid ~ $80,000 per year + allowances. While low for NYcity it is a good USA wage for a consul. There is no way actual SR wages can relate to this.

BTW it doesn't matter if GOI or DK engages a maid. They both will have to pay to local wage levels. Else no visa.

No body is paid that much in GOI even with allowances. Salary is peanuts.

Why other oneself with such trivial things as facts?

chaanakya wrote:I would believe her rather than that Lawyer Bharara or any American suggesting otherwise.

I agree. Even strip search was completely unnecessary. unwarranted and illegal in this case, forget about cavity search. I thought that in these very columns, there was even support for the demeaning cavity search that it was after all SOP and what was the big deal about it.

New Year and Christmas parties without liquor license
Drunken driving and storing excess liquor beyond Delhi Excise Rules
Disturbing neighborhood with loud music
Use of Soft drugs and prostitutes (which is rampant)
Charge for customs duty violations for distributing any gifts that are taken out of embassy premises
Charge for customs duty violations for any food or beverage taken out of embassy premises

Brown man's burden, is it?

Isnt it amazing the way the headlines grabbing DK sexual assault issue inversely correlates to AAP forming government in Delhi with a "NOT UN-conditional" support clause from DIEnasty after AK swears on his children to not take or give support to either BJP or Congress.

A_Gupta wrote:

I think from the minutes of the 1963 UN conference (which are dense and not easy to understand) a work permit is different from a visa.

Some thought actually makes it clear even in today's context. E.g., a tourist visa or student visa in the US does not give you permission to work. E.g., in the US an alien normally has to file an I-765 for employment authorization. http://www.uscis.gov/i-765

A-3 Visa does not allow one to work anywhere in US except with the Consular Officer holding A-1 or A-2 Visa to whom A-3 Visa holder is attached. So they are not subject to work permit and attendant laws. US interpretation is malafide.

The Vienna convention has not been drafted with American visa process and its terminology in mind. It is futile to interpret the clauses through the prism of US terminology. It is the overall import that must be considered in its broadest sense.

SSridhar wrote:The Vienna convention has not been drafted with American visa process and its terminology in mind. It is futile to interpret the clauses through the prism of US terminology. It is the overall import that must be considered in its broadest sense.

Absolutely. Americans are giving primacy to their laws since other don't have in them to stand by their own laws as applied to Americans in the spirit of reciprocity. They are in violation of Vienna convention which is the lynchpin of international diplomacy and relations.

India cancels all Identity cards issued to US Consul staff all over India effective immediately. US consul staff will be issued the same courtesy Indian staff gets in US. Why the heck did we extend more courtesy to US staff is beyond me. I dont think this is even close to a response. Let the US declare her persona non grata and let MEA send her a IAF plane with fighter escort to get her back to India. Once she is back we will let our courts decide what Indian law she broke. If she has to be put in Tihar jail then so be it. But let us bring her back in a way which will send a message to the world.

Altair wrote: send her a IAF plane with fighter escort to get her back to India.

whoa, whoa, whoa. We are not yet ready to tangle with F-22 ityadi. But we could insist that American workers in India based diplomatic posts get paid Indian-level wages and seek IRS proof of compliance. Cooks, bartenders, teachers etc. Let them find out what a "hard posting" feels like in purely Indian terms.

Victor ji, why would most powerful and most civilized need to go even a bit out of limits set by Vienna Convention and be brown man's white burden? Law must be applied equally and so on and so forth. It is up to embassy personnel at individual level to make sure not to be part of any infringement and worse various other offenses against laws as per IPC.

Altair wrote: and let MEA send her a IAF plane with fighter escort to get her back to India.

What for? Please leave the IAF out of this absurd case.

It is for the IFS to ensure that its officers are compliant with the laws, rules and regulations that apply to them (to the extent they believe that such things apply to IFS officers).

Big mistake to turn this into an issue of national pride.

If the IFS officer has done no wrong, and if the officer's treatment at the hand of the US authorities was wrong, IFS is welcome to spend taxpayer's money to fight the officer's case, sue for damages, etc.

As far as I can tell, the IFS case is "we give your consular/diplomatic staff so many privileges, please extend a few to ours (like paying the maid whatever we feel like, ignoring misrepresentations, etc.)".

The IFS owes it to the country to explain why their officers lie on official documents. How many other IFS officers have done the same? Is the leadership of the IFS aware of the situation, and if so, what steps have they taken to deal with it?

eklavya wrote:

Altair wrote: and let MEA send her a IAF plane with fighter escort to get her back to India.

What for? Please leave the IAF out of this absurd case.

It is for the IFS to ensure that its officers are compliant with the laws, rules and regulations that apply to them (to the extent they believe that such things apply to IFS officers).

Big mistake to turn this into an issue of national pride.

If the IFS officer has done no wrong, and if the officer's treatment at the hand of the US authorities was wrong, IFS is welcome to spend taxpayer's money to fight the officer's case, sue for damages, etc.

As far as I can tell, the IFS case is "we give your consular/diplomatic staff so many privileges, please extend a few to ours (like paying the maid whatever we feel like, ignoring misrepresentations, etc.)".

The IFS owes it to the country to explain why their officers lie on official documents. How many other IFS officers have done the same? Is the leadership of the IFS aware of the situation, and if so, what steps have they taken to deal with it?

It is absurd that you think that National pride is not connected here. Do you even know what IFS is for? It is not the question of the officer being a women or some community she belongs to. She may be a corrupt officer for all we know it. That is it. If she is corrupt then Indian courts will proceed as per Indian Law once she is back in India.
This is about US and its security/justice departments sexually assaulting an officer representing India abroad. It IS Indian pride in question here and you are wrong just as all other leftist psychos that it is not a matter of national pride. If IFS was wrong to misrepresent salaries then CAG or some government audit department will ensure this is sorted out. IFS officer enjoys diplomatic immunity and she must be released. What we do with her once in India is none of American business. Let there be a trial and if she is convicted put her in the jail with no fan or mattress. I dont give a damn.
The position of Dy. Consul General is insulted here. The position represents India in many dimensions. The idea of sending a IAF escort is to send a message that we protect our interests.

saumitra_j wrote:

Theo_Fidel wrote: That is the nub of the issue.

No sir, that is NOT the nub of the issue. The nub of the issue is that after her arrest, DK was subjected to strip searching and cavity searches - that may be called law enforcement in the US but in India we see it as rape.

Why is only DK facing the fire? Why not her umrican pati?

Only DK had the A1/2 Visa and she is being prosecuted for 'visa fraud'.

^^^^^
You say the officer was sexually assaulted, in which case, why hasn't the officer or the IFS filed a sexual assault case with the authorities?

If the law in that country is barbaric and does not recognise sexual assault, then withdraw your officers from that country.

As for your solution of prosecuting the officer in India, why haven't the Indian authorities filed a case against the officer?

The position of the IFS is that the officer had diplomatic immunity. If they still think that that was the case, why has the officer now been transferred to the UN? It's an admission that the IFS officer broke the law, did not have immunity, and the IFS now wants to protect the officer from the consequences of breaking the law.

The concerned officer and the IFS appear to believe and act in manner that suggests that they should suffer no consequences if they break the law. Where is their national pride?

saip wrote:Only DK had the A1/2 Visa and she is being prosecuted for 'visa fraud'.

Doesn't the pati have any say in employing someone living in their own home? Surely the pati should also be questioned. Its not as if only she pays the wages. Even if they are paid by her, its a joint responsibility surely.

eklavya wrote:^^^^^
Some nonsense about Indian not doing enough to punish US means US is right

India does not also do enough in terms of punishing Paki's and bombing their camps etc.

Are we to assume that there are Paki camps or Pakis are anything but toilet paper ?

If the law in that country is barbaric and does not recognise sexual assault, then withdraw your officers from that country

Such ideas aren't and perhaps can't be part of International diplomatic conventions. Why take focus off international diplomatic understanding??

? It's an admission that the IFS officer broke the law, did not have immunity, and the IFS now wants to protect the officer from the consequences of breaking the law.

No it's not an admission at all. In fact, many prominent personalities in India have given their opinions very clearly such as:
* treatment of the Indian lady diplomat is barbaric.
* entire chain of command who were part of mistreatment should be prosecuted.
Etc.

Even the PM of India weighed in with his thoughts. Foreign diplomats and very senior representatives have been clear on this. There must be clear words in Vienna accord for such barbaric mistreatment of diplomat.

The lady diplomat has written about repeated handcuffing and so and this is all in black and white. Why should anyone think different and why should anyone care what others say, especially ones who misinterpret international diplomatic conventions as per whims, fantasies and go on to insult a lady diplomat.

chaanakya wrote:

Theo_Fidel wrote:AFAIK DK was being paid ~ $80,000 per year + allowances. While low for NYcity it is a good USA wage for a consul. There is no way actual SR wages can relate to this.

BTW it doesn't matter if GOI or DK engages a maid. They both will have to pay to local wage levels. Else no visa.

No body is paid that much in GOI even with allowances. Salary is peanuts.

Hmm! Per this link. She is paid $6,500 PM while in USA. Which works out to $78,000 per year.
Is this wrong. Please clarify.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -York.html

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/devyani-khob ... 080-3.html

Dipanker wrote:

JwalaMukhi wrote:The main issue is, this incident happened to extract something - which will become clear in due course and to send a message.

Could be, or it could something as simple as putting and end to this maid business altogether, given that this is third case in almost as many years.

You have been going on and on blowing hot and cold. So what according to you is an acceptable resolution of this incident?