Bharat Rakshak

Posted: **26 Dec 2013 23:23**

eklavya wrote: The IFS officer may have been lying about being subjected to a cavity search, or maybe the USMS is lying:

eklavya wrote:I'm not sure its easy to conclude that the USMS officer is lying and the IFS officer is not lying. The IFS officer allegedly lied on her application form for an Adarsh apartment, the IFS officer allegedly lied on the visa form for her maid, and the IFS officer may have told lies about being subject to a cavity search. Maybe the IFS officer is a victim of a terrible conspiracy, but maybe, just maybe, the IFS officer tells an awful lot of lies (not in the line of duty). Let the courts decide.

These two statements are not independent. If the USMS is lying then the courts can (and usually will) stoop down to any extent to protect them. This is a consistent theme in the US justice system. They operate like a gang of thugs with an omerta code. Very very rarely does it get broken.

In any case, whether she lied or not is not the matter, and there is no need to bring in Adarsh issue here, which is just a diversion from the real issue. The real issue is that diplomatic immunity was violated with just the arrest. The cavity search was mentioned in her testimony and I would rather believe her testimony than some gora propaganda machine, regardless of what she did or did not do with respect to Adarsh case.

Posted: **26 Dec 2013 23:26**

Theo_Fidel wrote:
Suraj wrote:This is not going to happen, since diplomatic immunity rightly prevents her from being subject to the legal system anymore.
Unfortunately this is not entirely correct. Some USA court is going to have to decide that she has immunity. I don't think it is clear at all that she has immunity for the charges filed. Her defense lawyer will undoubtedly go after this.

My own view that the very next USA move could be to go after her USA husband. If any of the money trail leads to him, say from a joint account, he could easily be in trouble. USA prosecutors tend to turn the screws till they get what they want.

This can climb the escalation ladder really fast, since both sides can play this game. It is for precisely this reason that anything related to diplomats are handled, well, diplomatically. The Vienna conventions were constituted for precisely this reason.

Posted: **26 Dec 2013 23:29**

But this is not a law but a right and if you do not assert your rights you lose them. There is no way a policeman can
distinguish between an ordinary person and a diplomat. The policeman who arrested her might have been briefed by an ignorant staff of US attorneys office who himself might not be aware of DK UN affiliation and assumed wrongly that DK was entitled to immunity only for official actions and not personal actions. Looks like they issue different IDs for UN reps and Consular staff. Why did this thing about UN staff come out only now?

Posted: **26 Dec 2013 23:33**

^^^ That is for the US system to fix (I have an urge to ROFL now, but let me continue). It is their screw up and they should have done the due diligence before proceeding to pull off their yahoogiri.

Posted: **26 Dec 2013 23:39**

chaanakya wrote:
eklavya wrote:I'm not sure its easy to conclude that the USMS officer is lying and the IFS officer is not lying. The IFS officer allegedly lied on her application form for an Adarsh apartment, the IFS officer allegedly lied on the visa form for her maid, and the IFS officer may have told lies about being subject to a cavity search. Maybe the IFS officer is a victim of a terrible conspiracy, but maybe, just maybe, the IFS officer tells an awful lot of lies (not in the line of duty). Let the courts decide.
1. On Adarsh, She did not lie. She informed that she is going to sell the flat in Oshiwara and from that proceed she would buy Adarsh which she eventually did. Adarsh Report did not find any evidence of her father dealing with Adarsh files in any manner unlike many other beneficiaries. The Commission merely listed her as not being eligible because she had a flat in Oshiwara. I don't think she was connected to Adarsh Scam in any way. Read Adarsh Report. Commission overlooked that submission.
2. She did not file Visa application SR did. And now, it has emerged that no wrong information was given but Mark Smith , Agent for DSS, USD misread Visa information. SO that charge is wrong and unwarranted.

Anyway Adarsh has nothing to do with the case. We are always talking about the Diplomat and not the individual.

In fact nowhere it is established that she lied.

The only reason Adarsh is important is to understand if the IFS officer is a habitual liar, or not, as the case may be. If the officer has lied about being subject to a cavity search by the USMS, that too is a serious matter. As for the maid's visa, let the courts decide.

The purpose of diplomatic immunity is to get our spies out of tricky situations, not to facilitate potential misrepresentation on US visa forms and potential maid abuse without fear of consequences.

On Adarsh, it is far from clear that the IFS officer did not lie when she made the original application in 2004 (the news reports appear to suggest she did). A lie here, a lie there, and before you know it, we are talking some serious consequences. Karma's a b**** etc.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/khobr ... l/1210170/

The Adarsh probe panel has claimed that Devyani Khobragade, the Indian diplomat arrested in the US for alleged visa fraud and underpaying her help, furnished false information to own a flat in the cooperative housing society.

She had falsely claimed that she did not own a flat anywhere else at the time of her application for Adarsh membership, the commission has said.

Devyani was allotted Flat 2301 measuring 1,076 sq ft in "A" wing against her application dated July 28, 2004, when she was posted in Germany. The application was submitted on her behalf by her father Uttam Khobragade who said he had power of attorney. Khobragade was then secretary of the animal husbandry department. When she was granted membership, he was general manager, BEST.

The commission noted that two copies of her application (MEM-392 and MEM-392-A) are on record, both signed by her father. While the first mentions 'Nil' against her residence ownership column, the second mentions she owned a flat in Meera Co-op Society, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai.

"Devyani told the Commission that she owned the Jogeshwari flat only in 2005. This statement is false since the 2004 application MEM-392-A mentions her to be a member of the society (Meera), which she said she would resign from when she gets the Adarsh allotment," the report says.

The report mentions she transferred the Jogeshwari flat on September 30, 2008, in favour of one Siddhrath Basu for Rs 1.90 crore through a sale deed that mentions her allotment letter dated July 5, 2004. "This clearly shows that Devyani already held a flat when she was allotted Adarsh membership on May 12, 2008, as Uttam Khobragade himself has stated," the commission says.

"This rendered her ineligible and despite that her membership was approved," the commision said.

Posted: **26 Dec 2013 23:40**

chaanakya wrote:Court has no say in jurisdiction. Once it is brought to their notice, case will be thrown out else someone will taste Tihar hospitality here.
We are not bothered about her husband. He is not representing India. he is US citizen and subject to their Laws. That's it.

I don’t think it works that way. State dept declared she had no immunity. This means it has to be proven that state dept records were wrong. It doesn’t matter if India decides she had immunity because of some job description. Was it recorded that way with State dept. If not we are back to square one. This why I am firmly of the belief that the IFS screwed up too.

Some judge is going to have to rule on this.

Undoubtedly India will act reciprocally. I think this is a good thing. A more rational relationship.
None of the Clinto era adulation, kumba ya, etc

Posted: **26 Dec 2013 23:42**

That is not even germane to the issue at hand. Period.

Posted: **26 Dec 2013 23:43**

eklavya wrote:
The IFS officer may have been lying about being subjected to a cavity search, or maybe the USMS is lying:

Between USMS and DK, I would instinctively trust the Indian woman. How many Indian women you know would lie about cavity searches if did not happen? Also Preet B did not contradict her and only later someone said we did not do it.

Posted: **26 Dec 2013 23:44**

Theo_Fidel wrote:
chaanakya wrote:Court has no say in jurisdiction. Once it is brought to their notice, case will be thrown out else someone will taste Tihar hospitality here.
We are not bothered about her husband. He is not representing India. he is US citizen and subject to their Laws. That's it.
I don’t think it works that way. State dept declared she had no immunity. This means it has to be proven that state dept records were wrong. It doesn’t matter if India decides she had immunity because of some job description. Was it recorded that way with State dept. If not we are back to square one. This why I am firmly of the belief that the IFS screwed up too.

Some judge is going to have to rule on this.

Undoubtedly India will act reciprocally. I think this is a good thing. A more rational relationship.
None of the Clinto era adulation, kumba ya, etc

Yeah, it works that way only or does not work at all. Once Judge is informed of Immunity status by State Dept case is out. What is done can not be undone but can only be reciprocated. And the full reciprocity comes into effect before Judge even starts for the court house on the Judgement day.

Posted: **26 Dec 2013 23:46**

Theo_Fidel wrote:I don’t think it works that way. State dept declared she had no immunity. This means it has to be proven that state dept records were wrong. It doesn’t matter if India decides she had immunity because of some job description. Was it recorded that way with State dept. If not we are back to square one. This why I am firmly of the belief that the IFS screwed up too.

These are two different claims of immunity. She was an advisor to the UN mission since August, and claimed diplomatic - not limited consular - immunity on that basis. The State Dept apparently denies this claim. However, she has recently been moved to the UN mission with full diplomatic credentials *after* her arrest, precisely because of the earlier advisory role not being accepted. As a result, she's no longer subject to the law. At most, they can declare her PNG, no more.

Posted: **26 Dec 2013 23:49**

The IFS officer allegedly lied on her application form for an Adarsh apartment, the IFS officer allegedly lied on the visa form for her maid,

You said it, allegedly, is the operative word. So dont go jumping into wrong conclusions. Besides discussion of Adarsh is prohibited on this thread and so cool it.

By the way, the visa form is signed by SR and not DK. So how can DK lie on it?

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 00:09**

saip wrote: By the way, the visa form is signed by SR and not DK. So how can DK lie on it?

Good Q. Judge for yourself:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressre ... plaint.pdf

I think the US state department is saying that the officer knowingly "caused" the misrepresentations.

If the officer's case is strong, GoI should help her fight the case. Who knows which way the wind may be blowing.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 00:27**

Eklavyaji,
In my humble opinion, GOI is saying that she had diplomatic immunity and can not be charged in US court. If that is the case, GOI can not fight the case, but continue to insist on immunity. GOI can also play tit for tat and start taking the feud to other levels. In any case, I do not see Dr K doing time in US fed prison. A compromise will take place. But we have to see who will blink first.
Gautam

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 00:30**

Suraj wrote:These are two different claims of immunity. She was an advisor to the UN mission since August, and claimed diplomatic - not limited consular - immunity on that basis. The State Dept apparently denies this claim.

Agree. And state has denied both so far. Someone has to prove that state dept is wrong. India can't do that by itself. Needs a court to rule.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 00:30**

eklavya wrote: The purpose of diplomatic immunity is to get our spies out of tricky situations, not to facilitate potential misrepresentation on US visa forms and potential maid abuse without fear of consequences.

How come you get to decide what the purpose of diplomatic immunity is and isn't, eh? When the Vienna Convention has already specified when it does not apply and members have even posted relevant articles from it.
Do you ignore those posts? Just because the US decides to overrule Vienna Convention when it wants, you decide to accept it and try to justify that?

If you are serious about "potential visa frauds and maid abuses", start talking about US respecting the Vienna Convention and steps to be taken by the MEA to protect our diplomats from such blackmail instead of claiming that Dr. Devyani Khobragade should not be covered by immunity.

Seeing some junta (not just on BR) trying to find some ridiculous excuse or the other to tarnish Khobragade's image and justify US' actions even after it is clear that it was US' mistake has been an eye-opener. I guess I was not living in the real world before.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 00:36**

eklavya wrote:
saip wrote: By the way, the visa form is signed by SR and not DK. So how can DK lie on it?
Good Q. Judge for yourself:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressre ... plaint.pdf

I think the US state department is saying that the officer knowingly "caused" the misrepresentations.

If the officer's case is strong, GoI should help her fight the case. Who knows which way the wind may be blowing.

Saari Ram Kahani Ho gayi aur Pooch rahe ho ki Sita Kiski Bibi hai?? Arre Bhai, Mark Smith Ko padna Nahi Aata. Lo IQ jo thahara wo.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 00:40**

Theo_Fidel wrote:
Suraj wrote:These are two different claims of immunity. She was an advisor to the UN mission since August, and claimed diplomatic - not limited consular - immunity on that basis. The State Dept apparently denies this claim.
Agree. And state has denied both so far. Someone has to prove that state dept is wrong. India can't do that by itself. Needs a court to rule.

Can you provide substantiation that the latter claim has been denied ? It would be extremely irregular on the part of the US to deny diplomatic immunity to a UN-accredited diplomat. Note that the UN accepted her credentials only on Monday (23rd). The accreditation is then sent to the state department, which we can presume will take a day. Little is likely to be done on either 23rd or 24th at GOTUS due to holiday staffing. So I'm very interested in seeing proof that there was any State Department decision on the latter.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 00:44**

From Rediff: US court releases Kashmiri separatist Ghulam Nabi Fai

December 26, 2013 18:27 IST

Kashmiri separatist leader Ghulam Nabi Fai was released early from a minimum-security penitentiary, thanks to a surprising motion moved by the prosecution.

He served only 16 months of a two-year sentence for conspiracy and violations of various tax laws pertaining to a nonprofit. Srinagar-born Fai, 64, was released from the Federal Correctional Institution in Cumberland, Maryland, after Assistant United States Attorney Gordon Kromberg moved a motion November 15 calling for his prison sentence to be reduced.

Kromberg said Fai had provided information leading to the indictment of three individuals who had been funneling money from Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence into the US to propagate Pakistan’s causes through the Kashmiri American Council, the non-profit that Fai headed.
...

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 00:44**

saip wrote:How many Indian women you know would lie about cavity searches if did not happen?

Saip,

Every second of USMS actions are recorded, from multiple angles, including the body searches. I know because I have seen the equipment up close. In such a sensitive case all of it will be preserved and reviewed and if necessary placed before a judge. For the truth to be known a case will have to filed by DK. My own suspicion is that this data has already been shared with India and hence the tone down of statements.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 00:45**

Could the US really claim that it is not bound by the Vienna Convention (apparently the Senate never ratified it? (http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewc ... xt=facpubs). Oooh, the implications.
This case should go to trial in the US. Keep it on the radar.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 00:47**

Suraj wrote:Can you provide substantiation that the latter claim has been denied ? It would be extremely irregular on the part of the US to deny diplomatic immunity to a UN-accredited diplomat. Note that the UN accepted her credentials only on Monday (23rd). The accreditation is then sent to the state department, which we can presume will take a day. Little is likely to be done on either 23rd or 24th at GOTUS due to holiday staffing. So I'm very interested in seeing proof that there was any State Department decision on the latter.

I should have been clearer. State dept has denied retrospective immunity applies.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 00:56**

Theo_Fidel wrote:I should have been clearer. State dept has denied retrospective immunity applies.

I did not say that this is a claim to retrospective immunity. She has full current immunity now, and can refuse to be subject to the due process of law henceforth. She has been fully accredited as a UN diplomat and has been granted a waiver from attending proceeding, which she would be otherwise obligated to attend.

So, as it stands, there's there's no reason to believe she does not lack immunity, just a grey area where the State Dept can make the unprecedented decision of refusing the credentials of a diplomat the UN accredited.

The problem here is that the US position is very inconsistent. They first contravened VCCR to arrest her. They then granted her waiver of apperance once India moved her to the UN around the 17th, effectively making her a diplomat with corresponding immunity. The UN accepted her credentials on 23rd.

Whether or not the State Department allows immunity regarding actions before the 17th is not relevant because they have already set a precedent by granting her a waiver on the basis of her current immunity. If they now indicate that they will decline to grant her full immunity and declare her PNG, the best choice would be for India to remove her from the US beforehand, to avoid having to deal with US legal process.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 00:59**

Theo,

Once the officer has UN accreditation (i.e. full diplomatic status), she cannot be prosecuted, even if "the incident occurred prior to or during the period in which such immunity exists."

See p.13, under TERMINATION OF IMMUNITY

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/150546.pdf

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 01:02**

Suraj wrote:
eklavya wrote:Let the courts decide.
This is not going to happen, since diplomatic immunity rightly prevents her from being subject to the legal system anymore.

Correct sir, unless she comes back to the US in her personal capacity

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 01:03**

eklavya wrote:The purpose of diplomatic immunity is to get our spies out of tricky situations, not to facilitate potential misrepresentation on US visa forms and potential maid abuse without fear of consequences.

It serves many purposes, including the ability to kill people and then escape the tentacles of local law enforcement, a la the Raymond Davis incident where the US claimed diplomatic immunity for a contractor. It is fair to say that, compared to the purposes it has been used for over the years by many countries, there's nothing to apologize for India using it in this case.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 01:06**

India can take USA to International Court of Justice like US did to Iran and Indian Govt will have precedents to fall back on.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 01:07**

eklavya wrote:Theo,
Once the officer has UN accreditation (i.e. full diplomatic status), she cannot be prosecuted, even if "the incident occurred prior to or during the period in which such immunity exists."

So, have they returned her passport? Or are they going to hang on to it?
"India can take USA to International Court of Justice like US did to Iran and Indian Govt will have precedents to fall back on."
Saiji,I do not think the US obeys International Court of Justice, except when it suits their purpose.
Gautam

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 01:10**

eklavya wrote:Correct sir, unless she comes back to the US in her personal capacity

If she is that crazy, she deserves to be arrested just for being so stupid.

She has immunity now. GoI can choose to pursue the case until dismissal, or turn around and push the case against SR upon the US, who will probably stonewall upon it. My guess it that it will be quietly buried over the next few weeks and she will be left alone. The only good thing to have come of the whole matter is that it has been established that India will cause a big stir if such a matter occurs, and thereby deter the same thing in future. For the US, I see very little having been gained out of all this. A significant number of institutions look rather bad, all for a few thousand dollars in alleged wage payment irregularities. Just the annual costs of managing the changes at the New Delhi embassy will probably be much more.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 01:16**

Gautam,

See p.9 of the booklet:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/150546.pdf

Apparently the only documents the US authorities care about is the blue border ID card issued for diplomats by the US Department of State

GoI can issue any number of passports, so it doesn't matter if the US law enforcement authorities hang on to one or two samples.

In reality, this incident is now over.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 01:24**

Saari Ram Kahani Ho gayi aur Pooch rahe ho ki Sita Kiski Bibi hai?? Arre Bhai, Mark Smith Ko padna Nahi Aata. Lo IQ jo thahara wo.

He could have goofed too, after all he is NOT God and did not write the bible. The charge tha DK made something under oath is not making sense.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 01:29**

The troubling question is, why did US DoS work in tandem with The US attorney's office? Someone else is pushing this to damage relations.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 01:29**

eklavya wrote:Gautam,

See p.9 of the booklet:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/150546.pdf

Apparently the only documents the US authorities care about is the blue border ID card issued for diplomats by the US Department of State

GoI can issue any number of passports, so it doesn't matter if the US law enforcement authorities hang on to one or two samples.

In reality, this incident is now over.

Immunity does not depend on the ID card. If the diplomat is entitled to immunity the mere fact that she did not have in her possession the ID card of right color cant go against her.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 02:03**

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 034_1.html

"We have been advised by the Government of India that Dr Khobragade was notified to the United Nations as a member of India's delegation to the United Nations General Assembly in September. We are currently looking into the matter," State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf told PTI today.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 02:06**

eklavya wrote:I'm not sure its easy to conclude that the USMS officer is lying and the IFS officer is not lying. The IFS officer allegedly lied on her application form for an Adarsh apartment, the IFS officer allegedly lied on the visa form for her maid, and the IFS officer may have told lies about being subject to a cavity search. Maybe the IFS officer is a victim of a terrible conspiracy, but maybe, just maybe, the IFS officer tells an awful lot of lies (not in the line of duty). Let the courts decide.

Sigh! ekalavya, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Already three people have been warned for bringing in DK's India related issues into this thread.

Assuming you haven't read those warnings, will let you go but one more after my post will lead to warning.

Thanks, ramana

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 02:12**

Suraj wrote:If they now indicate that they will decline to grant her full immunity and declare her PNG, the best choice would be for India to remove her from the US beforehand, to avoid having to deal with US legal process.

I think you are thinking immunity is amnesty. So far state dept is not buying this argument. Immunity is only for duration of her UN post. It does not appear to amnesty for past and future actions.

USA is holding the passport and court has given her bail. If she absconds now there will be personal complications for her. USA system is odd in the sense judgement can be granted in absentia. It is possible that she won't care and make a run for it. At that point it is a question of how determined USA is in withdrawing immunity and capturing her at an airport or in transit or needling further with interpol etc.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 02:18**

Theo_Fidel wrote:My own suspicion is that this data has already been shared with India and hence the tone down of statements.

IOW, DK lied about cavity search.

This after they themselves admitted of doing it as part of their standard intake process.

Astounding.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 02:20**

If they declare her PNG it will close the case as US can not have it both ways.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 02:30**

Theo_Fidel wrote:I think you are thinking immunity is amnesty. So far state dept is not buying this argument. Immunity is only for duration of her UN post. It does not appear to amnesty for past and future actions.

No, that is your presumption. I did not claim anything to do with amnesty at all, implicitly or otherwise. I stated that she has immunity from the current proceedings and any judgement related to it, as long as she is a UN diplomat. All the US can do punitively is declare her PNG, which is the SOP.

Theo_Fidel wrote:USA is holding the passport and court has given her bail. If she absconds now there will be personal complications for her. USA system is odd in the sense judgement can be granted in absentia. It is possible that she won't care and make a run for it. At that point it is a question of how determined USA is in withdrawing immunity and capturing her at an airport or in transit or needling further with interpol etc.

You do realize that the US has already done the same thing with SR, who is on an Indian official passport, as well as her spouse and children, who have Indian personal passports ? If DK returns to India and the US demands her extradition, India will demand the same of SR.

Withdrawing immunity to a UN-accredited diplomat will have much wider repercussions for the US beyond this particular case. It would place a huge question upon the very location of the UN HQ within the borders of a nation that demonstrates that it does not respect the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, in addition to those on Consular Relations.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 02:33**

Gus wrote:This after they themselves admitted of doing it as part of their standard intake process.

Hmm! where did you read this. It would be a interesting development if this is so.
Cavity search is usually not part of intake unless circumstances indicate for it. Strip search most definitely is part of standard intake.

Posted: **27 Dec 2013 02:43**

Suraj wrote:I stated that she has immunity from the current proceedings and any judgement related to it, as long as she is a UN diplomat.

Yes, as long as she is a accepted UN diplomat. But the moment that status ends the judgment will be waiting for her.

Suraj wrote:You do realize that the US has already done the same thing with SR, who is on an Indian official passport, as well as her spouse and children, who have Indian personal passports ? If DK returns to India and the US demands her extradition, India will demand the same of SR.

I actually think this maybe a rational thing to do. DK wants to be done with USA and SR wants to be done with India. Return DK to India permanently. SR to USA permanently. Pass judgments on both, call it good and depend on the reach of the law not being overly long.

Bharat Rakshak

India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion