India-US Strategic News and Discussion

[Sanku]

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.

Actually I think its a good idea. Unless US learns to behave, no need to have consular relationship with them.
Perhaps that is what is needed here.

[Theo_Fidel]

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

Shyam, the battle was lost when he asked me the question. Folks like me only have 5 minutes or less. It was not a prudent use of my time.

[anmol]

Using same playbook in Turkey

Growing Mistrust Between U.S. and Turkey Is Played Out in Public
by TIM ARANGO, nytimes.com
December 23rd 2013

ISTANBUL — Coming together over crisis has been a hallmark of the relationship between the United States and Turkey in recent years. So it was an especially troubling sign of degraded trust that a meeting between Turkish and American diplomats was canceled last week because it seemed more like an ambush than a consultation.

A corruption inquiry of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s inner circle had been quickly intensifying, and late in the week, the Turkish foreign minister requested through an intermediary a meeting with the American ambassador, Francis J. Ricciardone Jr., to discuss the crisis, according to interviews with American and Turkish officials.

For days, American diplomats had been privately pleading that the Turks resist trying to divert attention by playing off the investigation as part of a foreign plot. But on Saturday, before the scheduled meeting, the machinery was obviously spinning.

Pro-government newspapers featured Mr. Ricciardone on their front pages, and later in the day the Turkish news media reported that the foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, was set to call Secretary of State John Kerry and banish the American ambassador over an unspecified American role in the corruption inquiry. And Mr. Erdogan embarked on a series of speeches in which he, too, hinted at American treachery and suggested Mr. Ricciardone might be expelled from the country.

Mutual suspicion ruled the day, and the Americans called the meeting off.

It was only a couple of years ago that President Obama, struggling for an American response to the uprisings in Egypt, Libya and Syria, was said to be speaking with Mr. Erdogan more than the American president was to any world leader, with the exception of the British prime minister, David Cameron. And it was a source of pride for Turks: One newspaper at the time hailed the frequent conversations as a sign of Turkey’s “ascent in the international arena.”

[..]

[Sanku]

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

Shyam, the battle was lost when he asked me the question. .

At this point of time, I have to say I agree with you. The battle was lost when he asked you the question.

[Suraj]

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.

This is not accurate. DK was a member of consular staff, not diplomatic staff. Consular staff have immunity to a lesser extent than diplomatic staff do. Article 43 of VCCR:

Article 43
Immunity from jurisdiction
1.Consular officers and consular employees shall not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the judicial or administrative authorities of the receiving State in respect of acts performed in the exercise of consular functions.
2.The provisions of paragraph 1 of this article shall not, however, apply in respect of a civil action either:18
(a) arising out of a contract concluded by a consular officer or a consular employee in which he did not contract expressly or impliedly as an agent of the sending State; or
(b) by a third party for damage arising from an accident in the receiving State caused by a vehicle, vessel or aircraft.

DK's immunity was restricted specifically to activities related to her official consular work. Diplomatic immunity on the other hand, is significantly more broadbased.

Also:

Article 41
Personal inviolability of consular officers
1.Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority.
2.Except in the case specified in paragraph 1 of this article, consular officers shall not be committed to prison or be liable to any other form of restriction on their personal freedom save in execution of a judicial decision of final effect.
3.If criminal proceedings are instituted against a consular officer, he must appear before the competent authorities. Nevertheless, the proceedings shall be conducted with the respect due to him by reason of his official position and, except in the case specified in paragraph 1 of this article, in a manner which will hamper the exercise of consular functions as little as possible. When, in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 of this article, it has become necessary to detain a consular officer, the proceedings against him shall be instituted with the minimum of delay.

It can be argued that:
a) there was no 'great crime', at best a contractual dispute.
b) 41.3 states that consular personnel appearing before the law must receive respect due of his official position. Such preferential treatment was not accorded - she was processed like a common criminal.
c) The judicial process has not yet found her guilty. The hearings are in progress now. Therefore there is not yet a 'judicia decision of final effect'.

The issues here are that:
* US maintains case law in contravention of VCCR, by imposing its local laws above its treaty obligations and selectively defining the extent of immunity provided.
* DK was apprehended in a manner that arguably contravenes Article 41
* She was not accorded her rights according to Article 47 to not be held liable to domestic work permit related wage laws.
* Her consular immunity was insufficient to help her negotiate the legal system based on the precedent of two VCCR articles being violated in the process of her arrest.

India chose to respond by moving her into a diplomatic position within the UN mission, which would amount to less than an implicit promotion within the NYC consular mission, but would give her the necessary immunity. The immunity is necessary to circumvent the legal process that - in our estimation - did not provide her the rights due to her by virtue of her previous consular position.

Satyameva Jayate and letting the legal system work towards a proper conclusion in our favor is all very well and noble, but it is not our system and we don't have the clout to change it. Rather than fight a good fight (and probably lose it, like the previously quoted examples of other countries), we simply avoided the process, implicitly assuring her her consular (and now diplomatic) privileges, now that her diplomatic position has apparently been officially accepted by the SD and she has been waived from attending the preliminary hearings.

In the process, the US now loses out on the benefits its diplomats and staff enjoyed in India, don't get any of the wages they claimed SR was due, and on top of that, pays for the welfare of SR and the other three members of her family, who will probably have their Indian passports revoked and denied entry in future, unless they're being repatriated to face trial.

I do not see how India lost out on much through this process. Sure, DK was subjected to a humiliating experience, but we responded in a very well thought out manner by circumventing a messy US legal framework in this matter. The US also loses out at their Indian mission, the costs of which are probably more than the few thousand dollars they'd have made from SR's higher wages. Finally, the extent of any 'immunity' we claim is dependent on the extent to which we respond to claim it. The US now faces the fact that in future such an action will result in a significant change in the freedoms accorded to their own mission, as it happened now.

[chaanakya]

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.[/quote]

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

She will be getting about $1000 to 1500 in Desh as salary incl of DA ( in equivalent rupee) and about $4000 as allowance. So that works out to $60000 PA incl of allowance PA and max of $66000 PA depending on her grade pay. That is not what you said. Your statement was $78000 + allowance wich is incorrect. Please also understand that $4500 would be inclusive of pay to be give to IBDA at 30% max which is about $ 1500 PM or $ 1650 PM max. At least that is my understanding not from any link as I know what salaries are drawn and what are the perks.

[chaanakya]

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.

This is not accurate. DK was a member of consular staff, not diplomatic staff. Consular staff have immunity to a lesser extent than diplomatic staff do. Article 43 of VCCR:

Article 43
Immunity from jurisdiction
1.Consular officers and consular employees shall not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the judicial or administrative authorities of the receiving State in respect of acts performed in the exercise of consular functions.
2.The provisions of paragraph 1 of this article shall not, however, apply in respect of a civil action either:18
(a) arising out of a contract concluded by a consular officer or a consular employee in which he did not contract expressly or impliedly as an agent of the sending State; or
(b) by a third party for damage arising from an accident in the receiving State caused by a vehicle, vessel or aircraft.

DK's immunity was restricted specifically to activities related to her official consular work. Diplomatic immunity on the other hand, is significantly more broadbased.

Also:

Article 41
Personal inviolability of consular officers
1.Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority.
2.Except in the case specified in paragraph 1 of this article, consular officers shall not be committed to prison or be liable to any other form of restriction on their personal freedom save in execution of a judicial decision of final effect.
3.If criminal proceedings are instituted against a consular officer, he must appear before the competent authorities. Nevertheless, the proceedings shall be conducted with the respect due to him by reason of his official position and, except in the case specified in paragraph 1 of this article, in a manner which will hamper the exercise of consular functions as little as possible. When, in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 of this article, it has become necessary to detain a consular officer, the proceedings against him shall be instituted with the minimum of delay.

It can be argued that:
a) there was no 'great crime', at best a contractual dispute.
b) 41.3 states that consular personnel appearing before the law must receive respect due of his official position. Such preferential treatment was not accorded - she was processed like a common criminal.
c) The judicial process has not yet found her guilty. The hearings are in progress now. Therefore there is not yet a 'judicia decision of final effect'.

The issues here are that:
* US maintains case law in contravention of VCCR, by imposing its local laws above its treaty obligations and selectively defining the extent of immunity provided.
* DK was apprehended in a manner that arguably contravenes Article 41
* She was not accorded her rights according to Article 47 to not be held liable to domestic work permit related wage laws.
* Her consular immunity was insufficient to help her negotiate the legal system based on the precedent of two VCCR articles being violated in the process of her arrest.

India chose to respond by moving her into a diplomatic position within the UN mission, which would amount to less than an implicit promotion within the NYC consular mission, but would give her the necessary immunity. The immunity is necessary to circumvent the legal process that - in our estimation - did not provide her the rights due to her by virtue of her previous consular position.

Satyameva Jayate and letting the legal system work towards a proper conclusion in our favor is all very well and noble, but it is not our system and we don't have the clout to change it. Rather than fight a good fight (and probably lose it, like the previously quoted examples of other countries), we simply avoided the process, implicitly assuring her her consular (and now diplomatic) privileges, now that her diplomatic position has apparently been officially accepted by the SD and she has been waived from attending the preliminary hearings.

In the process, the US now loses out on the benefits its diplomats and staff enjoyed in India, don't get any of the wages they claimed SR was due, and on top of that, pays for the welfare of SR and the other three members of her family, who will probably have their Indian passports revoked and denied entry in future, unless they're being repatriated to face trial.

I do not see how India lost out on much through this process. Sure, DK was subjected to a humiliating experience, but we responded in a very well thought out manner by circumventing a messy US legal framework in this matter. The US also loses out at their Indian mission, the costs of which are probably more than the few thousand dollars they'd have made from SR's higher wages. Finally, the extent of any 'immunity' we claim is dependent on the extent to which we respond to claim it. The US now faces the fact that in future such an action will result in a significant change in the freedoms accorded to their own mission, as it happened now.

Good summary. +1

[eklavya]

The withdrawal of special privileges to US consular/diplomatic staff in India was the right thing to do, regardless of how the IFS officer was treated by the US law enforcement authorities. IFS only thought of withdrawing these unwarranted privileges because an IFS officer wasn't treated well, in their opinion. Frankly the whole episode stinks of the IFS putting their own personal interests first, everybody else be damned. IFS thought that they had bought these privileges as a quid pro quo, Preet Bharara taught them otherwise.

[Dipanker]

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

Option #1: Sate Dept. can provide her with some sort of temporary immunity so that she continue to work at UN.

Option #2: US state dept. declare her persona non grata and ask her to leave the country.

Option #3: In case of unlikelihood of #1 or #2 materializing, DK's lawyer should try to settle this out of the court.


Option #4: She will not be found guilty in the trial ( risky option ).


Side-effects: IFS people will most certainly stop bringing maids to US unless they can comply by US laws.

I am ok with the side-effect part, bringing along maids sounds like a feudal practice we should dispense with.



Added Later: I just realized that option #3 is probably not possible at this time.

[Suraj]

It is not the IFS granting the special privileges - additional security and access passes - to the US mission in India. It is GoI, more likely the HM rather than MEA. As such the IFS has nothing to do with this. There's nothing to do with 'IFS putting their own personal interests first' involved.

[eklavya]

^^^^^
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 ?

A certain Foreign Secretary did not want the 25th anniversary of the 1971 victory marked as he felt it would upset the Pakistanis. A certain service chief called him "darpok" and organised the event regardless. So, you may have a point here, which you need to run by the heroes of Sharm el Sheikh.

[krisna]

Diplomat spat between usa and India has had differering perceptions-

In usa- if anything happens they tend to hide behind the law-- ex in this case they had a choice to avoid the row , but to highlight their grievance in whatever form it is with Indians( curently it is nebulous except for CTs but is for real) they humiliated DK. No other way as usa apologists like us to think.
Vienna consular conventions is the cornerstone of International relations. Even usa cannot wish it less so the apologists.
American media is as usual sees the world between the east and eest coast. They highlight only american views not in general the world relations. somuch so for freedom of press.
Usa escapes all this outrageous behaviour because of their superpower status- economic and military clout they enjoy- no other country can match this.
Usa diplomats are the worst behaved community in the world. They behave like bullies -- as they know uncle is a superpower and it always bails them out.


Will give an example how americans behave without any brains- they have lost it due to rules laws regulations etc. The public is trained to do this since early in career in whatever field.

As a hakim-- we have many guidleines etc and pathways for any disease in the hospital. I have also been involved in some of them. Many folks involved in treating them use them. ex- a person comes with chest pain- without even seeing patient the pathway/guidleine for chest pain is used including many expanseiv tests also when not reqd. No one finds fault here because they are just following the pathway/guidelines etc. There is no premium to get a good history and remove expansive tests. ex- a patinet may have had trauma or may have had asthma exacearbation or something else. All are ok but folowing the pathway is more important than your intelligent thoughtful work up of history. Infact needs more documnetation and back up if you refuse to do the necessary work up. This is in a nutshell what happened in usa.

The usa pandu was given the case from higher ups who did not take a deligent case history wrt DK, passed the case downstairs- the usa pandu thinks at spinal level- does according to the SOP as laid down in the manual. They will not be penalised as they are only following as laid down in the book.
Usa pandu if he thinks too much he will be penalised if something goes wrong.
Why should he do it-- he has been trained all his career to think like a spinal animal, gets his salary. If he does something contrary to expected from superiors, no amount of documnetation is enough to make it good enough. He can be screwed royally if higher ups take a dim view of his actions. So better follow the SOP.


Now why did the SD or higher ups did not take a intelligent decision based on vienna consular regualtions etc a friendly democratic country with it own laws etc-- they need to be taken to task. Again they are only spinal animals since they are americans though to obey the rules and regulations etc. However they need to have been thoughtful- IOW might actually also have been the other way – like sending a message to Indian govt or more likley the Indian babus that they are helpless as Indians GOI is compromised . Only the babus know what exactly usa wanted from this ugly preventable episode.

Overall I believe usa chewed off more than they bargained it. I must credit the media to make it a big furore and cause normal Indians to act as they did.

[Theo_Fidel]

^^^
So which is it. Not a big deal or is it a big deal.
Was it worth damage a few MNC buildings and huge furor, threats of nuclear tests, etc or not.

Very conphused onlee...

[chaanakya]

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

Option #1: Sate Dept. can provide her with some sort of temporary immunity so that she continue to work at UN.

Well she is now having full immunity and also exempted from personal appearances in court. Proceedings are not dropped. If she commits murder she can do so with full immunity like Raymond Davis.

Option #2: US state dept. declare her persona non grata and ask her to leave the country.

They could have done that or simply ask India to withdraw her. If they declare her PNG one of US diplomat would have been sent back as PNG.

Option #3: In case of unlikelihood of #1 or #2 materializing, DK's lawyer should try to settle this out of the court.

If jurisdiction of court is not accepted then out of court settlement is also difficult. but then that is what happened in last two cases. in one case GOI paid up and in another case it was after departure of diplomat so nothing was done presumably.

Option #4: She will not be found guilty in the trial ( risky option ).

If court case proceeds, rest assured someone will be booked here sooner or later and his trials and tribulations would be on world stage at opportune time. It is not the question of DK, the individual but DK, the DCG

Side-effects: IFS people will most certainly stop bringing maids to US unless they can comply by US laws.

Not likely. Most likely there will be some arrangement by which employee contract will be signed by consular staff as agent of state which keeps such contract out of purview or Jurisdiction of US laws will be reciprocated to bring some sense into them.

I am ok with the side-effect part, bringing along maids sounds like a feudal practice we should dispense with.

Not likely. If you know then GOI has give allowances to keep personall attendance at home for which part of the wages is paid by GOI. Go Figure.

Added Later: I just realized that option #3 is probably not possible at this time.

US has only one option. Withdraw cases, drop all charges. Accept that wage laws do not apply to members of Service staff for domestic work of Consular ( a phrase found in VCCR which is HBDA or IBDA).
Or face slow attrition and cold relations and limited access to Govt offices and restricted movements depending on the guts of GOI of the time. Relations would at best become transactional though Citizen to citizen relation might not get affected. Anyway cold relations would be there for sometime to come.

[Suraj]

Option #1: Sate Dept. can provide her with some sort of temporary immunity so that she continue to work at UN.
Option #2: US state dept. declare her persona non grata and ask her to leave the country.

Option #1 has been taken. There's no such thing as temporary immunity. If they accept her diplomatic credentials, she has the corresponding immunity. If they decline, it defaults to option #2.

[krisna]

^^^
So which is it. Not a big deal or is it a big deal.
Was it worth damage a few MNC buildings and huge furor, threats of nuclear tests, etc or not.

Very conphused onlee...

it depends on wheteher you are a pawn in chess -- explains the confusion angle
or behave as a bigger peice. when there is less confusion.

IOW- for an ordinary american -- the usa pandus acted only as law enforcers.americans no wonder justify it as american media does not tell the whole truth. ( they are like pawns. they do as they are supposed to do.)

bigger peices- as in SD or higher ups- know what was happening-- did what they did as in coveying the message across. there are 1000s of diplomats/consular officilas in usa- many are from Africa Asia etc where nothing is done for the same reasons as DK. why?. Americans laws can twisted as per whims and fancies depending on what they want to achieve. these do not reach common american.talk about sheep and shepherd. All is well with aam american who thinks america follows law and order etc.

[chaanakya]

Option #1: Sate Dept. can provide her with some sort of temporary immunity so that she continue to work at UN.
Option #2: US state dept. declare her persona non grata and ask her to leave the country.

Option #1 has been taken. There's no such thing as temporary immunity. If they accept her diplomatic credentials, she has the corresponding immunity. If they decline, it defaults to option #2.

Or she can be holed up like Assange till matter is sorted out Indian Mission can not be entered by USA. However Option one is done deal but no big deal.

[Gus]

Will give an example how americans behave without any brains- they have lost it due to rules laws regulations etc. The public is trained to do this since early in career in whatever field.

this is on the dot. especially middle class is indoctrinated in this 'follow the rules' at almost orwellian levels. the rich can break laws because they can afford the best lawyers and poor don't care.

[Suraj]

Or she can be holed up like Assange till matter is sorted out Indian Mission can not be entered by USA. However Option one is done deal but no big deal.

Assange is not a diplomat. He sought and was granted asylum. BIG difference.

[chaanakya]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 860235.cms

Sources said that new cards, which are replicas of those provided to Indian consulate officials in the US, are being given in lieu of the withdrawn cards.

Also, New Delhi has decided that no cards will be given to the family members of US consular officials, since that is not a courtesy extended to Indians in the US.

ID cards issued to Consular Officers and members of staff and families by USA

Details of other types of ID cards issued by USA

GOI will replace existing ID cards issued to USA Consular Officers with similarly worded ID cards.

[Theo_Fidel]

I think the only good step that has come out of this that the America consulate folks have been reduced to normal status. India should not have special status for anyone including all citizens.

The down side of course is wait lists for visa/travel documents will increase even further. The waitlist at Chennai consulate was quite incredibly a few years ago. Waiting In line overnight was nothing. Not sure how it is now.

[chaanakya]

Or she can be holed up like Assange till matter is sorted out Indian Mission can not be entered by USA. However Option one is done deal but no big deal.

Assange is not a diplomat. He sought and was granted asylum. BIG difference.

I am not talking about the difference or asylum. I am talking about inviolability of Premises even if the person living inside might not have any immunity. In fact, if she was not granted full diplomatic status (is ie still under consideration by USD since they are closed for christmas) then she is liable to attend prosecution , cancellation of bail and could lead to jail. In such an extreme eventuality she would have no option but to be holed up till extricated from US.Though, I am sure option one will materialise by Friday.

[chaanakya]

I think the only good step that has come out of this that the America consulate folks have been reduced to normal status. India should not have special status for anyone including all citizens.

The down side of course is wait lists for visa/travel documents will increase even further. The waitlist at Chennai consulate was quite incredibly a few years ago. Waiting In line overnight was nothing. Not sure how it is now.

Looks like some sort of action, though not strictly reciprocal to current acts of USG , is underway.

Devyani arrest case fallout: India withdraws ID cards of US Consulates

India on Tuesday withdrew all ID cards provided to US Consular officials as a reciprocal measure taken by the New Delhi government in retaliation against the alleged harsh treatment (so now it has become alleged)of its deputy consul-general Devyani Khobragade in New York following her arrest in the alleged visa fraud case involving a maid she had taken from India.

The firm reciprocal step by the Indian government came following the end of Monday deadline for surrendering the identity cards provided to US Consular Staff in India.

The new ID cards will only be given to the Consular officials and not to their family members.

Acting reciprocally, US consular staff will now only be permitted to import their requirements during the first six months on assuming office.

According to reports, the data including salaries paid to staff in US schools has been received and is being analysed.
--------------
-------------

[Suraj]

DK has already been granted a waiver from attending proceedings consequent to her new UN diplomatic status.

[Abhi_G]

An Indian female diplomat is subjected to orifice search which is not acceptable to Indian sensitivities. How would the western world countries feel if their women diplomats are stripped, disrobed and cavity searched just like hardened serial rapists, drug addicts and criminals. What is so difficult to understand by certain folks eludes me? Expressing outrage seems to have become the preserve right of islamists and the western world. How would the Islamic world respond if something similar happens to one of their women?

What was the reaction when a lady journalist, who went to be part of the arab spring in tahrir square, suddenly felt fingers in all of her orifices. How her clothes were torn and she was subjected to rape by enthusiastic predatory islamists in Egypt. Further, how did the US feel when one of their diplomats was repeatedly tortured, s*******d and then killed brutally by islamist terrorists in Libya. We in India felt revulsion at the thought of total loss of humanity. December 16 came after that when dilli which has always been notorious with regard to safety of women exploded in public fury over the brutal rape.

Let us have some perspective. When they arrested DK, they knew she was a diplomat. She was not a serial killer, a drug trafficker who needs to be stripped and cavity searched. Was it all necessary? And over that was the tremendous amount of arrogance with which the harf lady commented 'standard operation procedures" were followed. What does it convey to India? Maybe something had turned sour between India and the US (and why not....when we have so many violations from Pak and when war criminals are given a new lease of life in BD under the mentorship of the US) and there was a necessity to teach India a lesson. And what is the best way? Disrobe the woman, do a cavity search on her and the Indians will be told their place. Let them thunder inanities and within a week things will climb down. What is the premonition here? Indian foreign service people are stake. You guys will be targetted not only with truck bombs in Kabul, Islamabad etc., but now a new "procedure" had been shown to you. Your women will stripped and raped if necessary to teach your country a lesson. Alas you deserve it, leaders are non-existing in your country.

[Abhi_G]

Slightly digressing here: let me tell the forum something. I have observed several times that the difference of opinion among Indians and resulting arguments are actually enjoyed and laughed at by foreigners. It is seen as total weakness and mocked at. Long back some BRF-ite reported that the big madrassa had misrepresented the Indian map on its website and that too before "honorable" hrd minister sibal paid a visit with an intent to open doors to US-based univs. Some BRF-ites protested to the madrassa webpage/magazine editor due to which madrassa withdrew the webpage. They never apologized and reminded the BRF-ites that the map was drawn by an Indian employee only! Apparently, there was no protest from Indian embassy as well.

[JwalaMukhi]

The system failed to protect the diplomat's dignity and meted out punishment under the guise of SOP. Be that as it may, her move to UN was prompted to fortify her immunity, since a system that could not even have the courtesy to deal with appropriate care, cannot be expected to provide a fair deal further. Hence get as much immunity as could be mustered so there is no need to test any other SOPs that may be in the bag.

There is craving by some that the same system which failed, to actually provide a clean certificate to Dr.DK. There is no need for any such certificates or accolades from that process. It is merely being used for other purposes to teach lessons etc.

Some are concerned to make her a poster child for corruption, in India, which clearly is not the case. There are many many more who deserve and qualify for that in India.

[Vayutuvan]

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.

That is the nub of the problem. That is a complication from what US should not have done in the first place - arrest Dr. DK.

A big screwup on US's part and amends should be made.

Ps. I hope Indian govt. looks into the corruption allegation and not use the victimization by US to lionize Dr. DK and her father.

[SaiK]

i want this dk issue blow big holes in modus operandi of us-india gov exchanges. i want to see the wrongs put on the table from indian side, and work towards cleaning it up.

[JwalaMukhi]

Ps. I hope Indian govt. looks into the corruption allegation and not use the victimization by US to lionize Dr. DK and her father.

Unfortunately saar, the victimization by US is the reason she/her father is in limelight. Else no one would bother or know about Dr.DK. Corruption which is endemic, with Telecom Raja, kalmadi to kanimozhi, is handled at glacial pace. DK is a small fry, there is no need to pile on her when the chips are down. There is a time for that, not when she had a traumatic experience. Proportionate and reasonable action should be taken in fullness of time.

[Theo_Fidel]

That is the nub of the problem. That is a complication from what US should not have done in the first place - arrest Dr. DK.

Absolutely. The whole thing could have been handled quietly in a civil court somewhere and no one would even have known about it. But once she was arrested, you might as well pi$$ into the wind about avoiding strip search, etc. This is something India based folks are having trouble understanding.

Bottom line in USA is don't get arrested!

[brihaspati]

Slightly digressing here: let me tell the forum something. I have observed several times that the difference of opinion among Indians and resulting arguments are actually enjoyed and laughed at by foreigners. It is seen as total weakness and mocked at. Long back some BRF-ite reported that the big madrassa had misrepresented the Indian map on its website and that too before "honorable" hrd minister sibal paid a visit with an intent to open doors to US-based univs. Some BRF-ites protested to the madrassa webpage/magazine editor due to which madrassa withdrew the webpage. They never apologized and reminded the BRF-ites that the map was drawn by an Indian employee only! Apparently, there was no protest from Indian embassy as well.

Our response must be "dharmik" - which means according to our sweet and convenient interpretation to justify what we want to do while we would bash "dharma" to be a retrogressive, primitive, traditional, patriarchal whenever that is convenient too to please others we think we must please, - if you are on US soil - even if you have Indian roots, you must show loyalty and choose USA over India in a dispute.

If you are not on US soil, you must think in a nuanced way, in context - both nuance and context again defined according to the perceived needs of the hour, and think of the greater "national interests" which will again be defined by a select few - and must allow long term, mutually beneficial, overlapping national interests between USA-India to trump over all such emotional, "over-reaction".

We must give highest position to transactional nature of all engagements, and appreciate ruthlessness of behaviour. The Dilli billis who raped on 16th of December were ruthless too - and I now wonder if the appreciators of US "ruthlessness" have a secret and unstated appreciation of the rapists too. After all they then by the same logic should be admired so much for the success of their brutal rape that their act itself pales in insignificance.

[member_22733]

Absolutely. The whole thing could have been handled quietly in a civil court somewhere and no one would even have known about it. But once she was arrested, you might as well pi$$ into the wind about avoiding strip search, etc. This is something India based folks are having trouble understanding.

Bottom line in USA is don't get arrested!

This is a valuable advice. And I give it to everyone who comes to the US. Dont get arrested. Every arrest, every traffic stop can result in your death with absolutely no consequence to the cop. Given that most cops are Iraq, Afghan war vets and are barred from service if they are above certain IQ ( http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barr ... y?id=95836 ), that means that you are in significant danger even in the case of a simple traffic stop. So much can be said of a US citizen or a legal alien (illegal aliens have it tougher)

That being said, one cannot take away the fact that this was nothing but ill-treatment of a senior diplomat of a friendly country. If getting arrested was such a dangerous thing, the US admin could have prevented her from getting arrested. And even if she did get arrested someone high up there could have asked the Pandus to go easy on her. But no... we HAVE to follow SOP.... like krisna mentioned above. Very fascist state and a big indication of one of the near certainties of the future state of this country.

[chaanakya]

But once she was arrested, you might as well pi$$ into the wind about avoiding strip search, etc. This is something India based folks are having trouble understanding.

Bottom line in USA is don't get arrested!

I don't agree here. Even if she was to be arrested , lets say for some heinous crime, she is entitled to respect due to her position. And why she, anyone who is holding that post and represents a Country is entitled to according to Article 41 VCCR.

Article 41
Personal inviolability of consular officers
1. Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trail, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority.
2. Except in the case specified in paragraph 1 of this Article, consular officers shall not be committed to prison or liable to any other form of restriction on their personal freedom save in execution of a judicial decision of final effect.
3. If criminal proceedings are instituted against a consular officer, he must appear before the competent authorities. Nevertheless, the proceedings shall be conducted with the respect due to him by reason of his official position and,

Is this Article so difficult to understand. But of course if you insist on SOP arrest do apply in her case then I am sure they would be ready for this as well. As one member remarked, they would have gamed it but perhaps did not bargain for petty retaliations of mean minded India based folks like removing barricades or stopping import items on Christmas or restricting access to airport or changing ID card. Real fun might not start even now as India would be busy electing new Govt. Even then we would trade cautiously without giving them any chance to point fingers at us.

But I am still not able to get it why they would go to this extreme length to make IFS against them. Who the hell bothers about Sangeetha or Philips going to US on T Visa , they can take as many as they like we have no dearth of such people from illiterate to highly educated ones without causing any loss to the country and they can pay as much as they want.

[chaanakya]

. Given that most cops are Iraq, Afghan war vets and are barred from service if they are above certain IQ ( http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barr ... y?id=95836 ), that means that you are in significant danger even in the case of a simple traffic stop. So much can be said of a US citizen or a legal alien (illegal aliens have it tougher)

What a find>
I think same standards applied to Presidents like Bush Sr and Jr.

[Theo_Fidel]

she is entitled to respect due to her position.

You can ask for it but the USA will never agree. It is part of their origin myth.

The only person who can end it right fully is either a judge or Obama. Obama could easily pardon her with one stroke of his pen and end the entire episode.

[chaanakya]

With congis in power I am inclined to agree with you . Lets see. Its wait and watch in international diplomacy. You don't want to play a game that backfires badly. Sometime real reason would have to come out.

[Suraj]

Theo is correct in stating that the US often views international commitments as optional, and will assert domestic law over it, and in doing so will demonstrate complete cognitive dissonance about 'cultural differences' etc.

Crises like this will happen when it comes to dealing with them (and I suspect, with PRC as well). The response is to use the system to avoid their legal process altogether, and to impose costs upon them, so that when they consider doing the same thing again, the costs weigh upon them.

Overall, I think India responded to this situation effectively. Nothing could be done about her actual arrest - which according to Article 41 should never have happened, since Article 47 prevents either DK or SR from being beholden to local hiring law.

Since the US violated two articles just in the process of her arrest, there's no point in subjecting DK to the legal process, which would simply reject her claims of immunity because consular immunity according to Article 43 is not as wideranging as diplomatic immunity. Letting her go through the legal system presuming dharmic righteousness is a waste of time in this case. So MEA moved her into the UN mission to give her the necessary immunity.

DK is not a fugitive, so the Assange comparison does not apply. She has diplomatic immunity. The US can simply declare her PNG, but they can no longer arrest her or try her using US law anymore. She has nothing further to lose.

The ones who lost are SR and the US. SR - in her green card grab effort - is now unable to reconnect with her Indian ties anymore, unless she's repatriated to face the law. The US is obliged to pay for her family's welfare, which will probably cost them more than anything they'd have gained from taxing her wages. They also lost out on the additional benefits that they enjoy in India. They have no net gain from the whole thing, while we have the net gain of having set a precedent of how we would respond to such events.

[saip]

I hope Babus in Delhi will suitably change the language when issuing new IDs to US diplomats. Terms like Felony and misdemeanor are not used in India.

[vasu raya]

Satyabrata Pal, a former High Commissioner to Pakistan, is a Member of the National Human Rights Commission.

Breaching the Vienna Conventions

The minimum wage in the U.S., as in India, is the government’s fanciful notion of what it costs to keep body and soul together, but civil society has long argued that it is woefully inadequate. Several U.S. non-governmental organisations make calculations for every city and county what the living wage should be, taking into account that the wage-earner must pay for food, housing, medical care, transportation and other essentials, including clothing. They hold that the minimum living wage in New York city for a single person is $12.75 an hour.

The SD's charge in excluding these components from minimum wage is wrong

Iran case

Instead, the U.S. claims that its laws were broken, and since a consular officer does not have the full immunity of an accredited diplomat, Ms. Khobragade was not immune from either arrest or subsequent prosecution. This, though, is not what the U.S. argued as the applicable international law when its diplomatic and consular staff were taken hostage in Iran in 1979, and the government in Tehran threatened to prosecute them for acts that were, in its view, crimes in Iranian law. The U.S. moved the International Court of Justice and in its submission, claimed inter alia that: “Pursuant to Articles 28, 31, 33, 34, 36 and 40 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Government of lran is under an international legal obligation to the United States to ensure that … the consular personnel of the United States be treated with respect and protected from attack on their persons, freedom, and dignity; and that United States consular officers be free from arrest or detention. The Government of Iran has violated and is currently violating the foregoing obligations.”

The court ruled in favour of the U.S. on all points, by a large majority on most, but unanimously on the U.S. contention, examined at length in its judgment, that the Iranian threat to prosecute diplomatic and consular staff was a violation of the Vienna Conventions. The court held that: “no member of the United States diplomatic or consular staff may be kept in Iran to be subjected to any form of judicial proceedings or to participate in them as a witness.”

The U.S. therefore does not really have a case, on either moral or legal grounds. What is surprising is that it was prepared to offend a country that is now of some strategic and commercial interest to it, and so blatantly breach the Vienna Conventions that protect its diplomatic and consular agents as much as they do all others. Except, it seems, in Iran in 1979 and in the U.S. in 2013.