Bharat Rakshak

putnanja wrote:The Mays are from Texas, as per the FB posts. And it doesn't matter whether they are from the North or South. Their behavior is exactly like what can be expected from racist rednecks. So calling them out as they are is no crime I feel

...
WASHINGTON: If the US state department's unnamed mandarins who tattled to a Foreign Policy blog are to be believed, Gregory Starr's impressive resume is marred by an incident in which he shot himself in the foot, literally, when drawing an unauthorized small caliber weapon out of his ankle holster. The alleged mishandling of firearms, "a big no-no in the foreign service," didn't derail Starr's confirmation earlier this year as the state department's chief of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the agency whose sealed complaint enabled US attorney Preet Bharara to launch prosecution of Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade on charges of visa fraud and misrepresentation.


....
"It is clear that Mark Smith, the Diplomatic Security Services agent who handled the investigation and arrest of Dr Khobragade

LokeshC wrote:

Cosmo_R wrote: .....snip.......

Time wounds all heels.
......snip......

WTF am I reading????

ramana wrote:Kerry is hardly Boston brahmin material.

A month after the United States arrested an Indian diplomat in New York over charges she committed visa fraud, a consensus has emerged that U.S.-India relations have sustained grave damage. If recent headlines and commentary in both countries are to be believed, the arrest and alleged mistreatment of Deputy Consul General Devyani Khobragade on December 12 in Manhattan have triggered an unprecedented deterioration in bilateral relations between Washington and New Delhi. U.S.-India ties are now apparently between a rock and a hard place, experiencing a big chill, regressing and threatening to completely unravel. ....
-- have even prompted some experts to question the fundamental assumptions underlying U.S.-India relations, hailing an end to the honeymoon between the world's oldest and largest democracies. Khobragade's indictment, grant of diplomatic immunity, and subsequent departure from the United States have only strengthened this perception rather than end the controversy.

But is the U.S.-India strategic partnership really so fragile? Although the heated rhetoric surrounding the Khobragade episode would suggest otherwise, the United States and India have confronted other challenges far more formidable than the ongoing diplomatic row that has erupted between the two countries over the young diplomat's arrest and the circumstances surrounding it.

< Following examples are given.. please read the original article for details)

- India's close relationship with Iran, for example, long constituted a major irritant in ties between Washington and New Delhi....

- The stringent liability legislation enacted by India's parliament shortly after passage of the landmark U.S.-India civilian nuclear deal has also posed a potent challenge to bilateral relations for more than five years.
...

More recently, documents leaked by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed that India was among one of the NSA's top surveillance targets and that its United Nations mission in New York and embassy in Washington were bugged and monitored by the agency. While similar revelations of American surveillance on other friends and allies abroad provoked outrage and condemnation in capitals around the world, New Delhi's tepid response highlighted its resolve not to let the disclosures impact U.S.-India ties.

...
Viewed within this context, dire predictions regarding the future of U.S.-India relations appear exaggerated and inconsistent with the history of the strategic partnership. Ultimately, the overall trajectory of the U.S.-India ties is unlikely to be affected by the brewing controversy in the long-terms.

..

To be sure, the current diplomatic dispute is a significant one that has put genuine strain on the strategic partnership. But U.S.-India relations have proven remarkably durable and resilient in the face of even more daunting challenges. The Khobragade controversy is unlikely to change that.

LokeshC wrote:Anyway, my theory of a dirty attorney has come true. There has to be some org like this to organize this kind of movement.

I am now leaning towards an over-zealous "savage-civilizing-mission" gone wrong theory rather than CIA mole theory.

Recent drain-inspector reports about India were cribbing about how there is "slavery" in India and how everyone from top to bottom is exploiting the dalit slaves etc. So I guess they decided to make an "example" of someone when they got a chance.

Rudradev wrote:Ramana's point about Mayawati being "right" makes me wonder about something else.

If this were simply a case of trying to bash India on "human rights/human trafficking" grounds, Preet Bharara and co. could have selected ANY Indian diplomat. I'm sure many of them hire domestic help from India, and would have been vulnerable under the same "visa fraud" technicality.

Certainly the India-baiters would have had a nicer story for the media, if they'd selected someone who was an Upper Caste Hindoo. Yet, they went for Devayani... an SC... specifically. Which means that there was a need for Devayani to be specifically targeted. The placement of Sangeeta Richards as a maid in her home, the coincidental service of Richards' in-laws at the homes of US diplomats in India, only lend further credence to the idea that this is not some general high-handedness around "human trafficking."

The main questions to be answered now:

1) On what grounds were Philip Richard (Sangeeta's husband) and his child brought into police custody?
2) Once detained, upon whose orders (and after how long) were they released?
3) Once released, how did they obtain US visas? Isn't there a check-box on the US Visa Application Form to specify whether one has ever been arrested for criminal activity in one's home state?
4) Once they obtained US visas, how were they allowed to leave the country by Emigration Officials?

Who pulled these strings? Too many clearances from high places WITHIN India were required for all of this to happen. Is the GOI's loud-mouthed reaction to the Devayani arrest, also a diversion to avoid these questions being asked?

Devyani wants freedom to return to US but MEA has other plans for plea deal

PranabDhalSamanta : New Delhi, Thu Jan 09 2014, 10:33 hrs 0

Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade seeks assurance that any criminal record from the case will not impede her from entering the US in the future. (Reuters)Related

Even as India stepped up pressure on the United States by ordering the closure of some facilities at its embassy in Delhi in connection with the alleged visa fraud case against its New York-based diplomat Devyani Khobragade, differences have cropped up between the IFS officer and the Ministry of External Affairs over the plea bargain offer from US Attorney Preet Bharara.

US authorities, predicated on Khobragade pleading guilty in the case, are willing to waive her prison term while recognising it as a criminal offence, it is learnt.

Khobragade was open to taking this discussion further with just one condition — an assurance that any criminal record from the case will not impede her from entering the US in the future, be it in obtaining a visa or related law-enforcement issues, as she is married to a US national.

The MEA, however, put its foot down, saying the government could not accept any deal which will frame this case as a criminal offence as that could hurt similar cases besides complicating matters for those currently posted in the US.

The starting point for any legal deal, sources said, was to convert this case into a civil offence confined to the alleged underpayment of wages to Khobragade's maid Sangeeta Richard. All previous cases involving Indian diplomats and their domestic helps in the US have been civil offences.

But if that is done, the US would suffer some loss of face as Khobragade had been arrested on trafficking charges and those were the grounds on which Richard's family was moved out of Delhi by the US embassy.

For the government, it's learnt, facilitating Khobragade's unimpeded re-entry into the US is not a priority as much as ensuring she gets diplomatic accreditation (G-1 visa) from the US state department following her transfer to the United Nations. Once that is done, the government may even move her out of the US after some time.

{So by asksing for the immunity to be waived the US forced the hand as she was transferred right away. Very clear GOI would not accpet the criminal charge under any circumustances.}


The diplomatic row is back on the boil as the January 13 deadline for Khobragade's indictment looms, with Bharara opposing the diplomat's plea for a one-month extension on grounds that the two sides are involved in discussions to resolve the case.

Sources said the first major casualty of this fresh escalation could be the India-US Energy Dialogue for which US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz was due to travel to New Delhi.

The dialogue was set for January 15-16 and it is believed the Indian side has suggested a postponement given the present acrimony in the relationship. The US, on the other hand, has conveyed that both sides should not let this issue affect other aspects of the relationship.

But South Block is in no such mood. It has planned a range of measures targeting US diplomats in India. Starting with simpler steps like stripping some diplomatic privileges to preparing grounds for serious legal action, all options are being explored.

The anger, it is learnt, has multiplied in the past week or so after the MEA established that it was the State Department which had taken the lead and sought prosecution in the case.

Khobragade had informed the State Department about her alleged troubles with her maid, to which Washington had asked her to meet officials of the Diplomatic Security division.

In response, New Delhi had written back saying the matter was sub-judice in India and fell outside the jurisdiction of the State Department. Thereafter, there was no communication from the US until Khobragade's arrest.

On Monday, a lawyer representing Devyani Khobragade, the Indian diplomat indicted on charges of alleged visa fraud in the U.S., is expected to appear in a New York court to defend his client against the allegations, including that she underpaid and overworked her domestic help.

The prosecution’s case, in part, centers around allegations that Ms. Khobragade had her domestic worker enter into two contracts: The first in which she promised to pay the woman a rate in accordance with the minimum wage required for such workers to obtain a U.S. visa, and the second, which agreed to a far lower salary and superseded the first.

Daniel Arshack told The Wall Street Journal that his client, Ms. Khobragade, kept her promise to pay her domestic worker in line with U.S. labor laws governing work visas.

The prosecution, in an indictment before a grand jury on Thursday, had alleged that the diplomat, who returned home to India last week, but still faces a case against her in the U.S., paid the woman a little less than $1.50 an hour and often required her to work more than 100 hours a week, without a full day off. This, prosecutors say, was in contravention of U.S. visa laws.

Ms. Khobragade’s arrest led to a diplomatic stand-off between the India and the U.S., which dismissed Ms. Khobragade from the country after she was indicted. India, in retaliation, asked the U.S. to remove one of its diplomats based in New Delhi.

In an emailed statement to the Journal, Mr. Arshack set out the case for his client’s innocence.

“Witnesses who actually stayed in the home have confirmed that the domestic worker had a very light work load, time off and plenty of spare money to give to people to bring home to India and to purchase gifts to send home to India,” the lawyer wrote.

“Dr. Khobragade entered into a contract to pay the domestic worker $9.75 per hour for 40 hours work. That is precisely what the worker received,” he added.

The prosecution, in the indictment, alleged that Ms. Khobragade had Sangeeta Richard, the domestic worker, enter a second agreement “setting forth the true terms of employment, which provided for the payment of a legally insufficient wage (a total of 30,000 rupees – approximately $573 per month or $6,876 per year, regardless of the number of overtime hours).”

To that, Mr. Arshack said that the second contact did not replace the first one. “It simply guaranteed that a portion of the funds discussed and promised to be paid during the signing of the first contract would be paid in India,” he wrote.

The second contract merely facilitated the payment of a portion of the funds earned under the first contract to be paid in India to the domestic worker’s husband, the lawyer said.

Prosecutors alleged Ms. Khobragade made false statements to U.S. visa officials in order to gain a U.S. visa for her domestic worker. “The allegations are false and demonstrate a disturbing lack of investigation,” Mr. Arshack said in response. He added that the statements made in the application for a visa for the domestic worker were made by the worker herself.

“Every question was answered by the domestic worker and the certification of accuracy was made [by] the domestic worker,” he wrote. Once the visa application was completed, the domestic worker went to the U.S. Embassy in Delhi alone for a face-to-face interview with a visa officer, he said.

During the interview, Mr. Arshack alleges, the domestic worker confirmed the accuracy of all of the information that she had provided in the visa application and presented the contract between herself and Ms. Khobragade.

Ms. Richard, the domestic worker who remains in the U.S., could not immediately be reached for comment.

Amber G. wrote:Now DK is safe in India, once charges are dropped it is time to bring a massive suit for false arrest.

To that, Mr. Arshack said that the second contact did not replace the first one. “It simply guaranteed that a portion of the funds discussed and promised to be paid during the signing of the first contract would be paid in India,” he wrote.

pankajs wrote:

Amber G. wrote:Now DK is safe in India, once charges are dropped it is time to bring a massive suit for false arrest.

After the massive outrage, the DoS/DoJ knew they had to step off their high horse and grant her immunity. The pressure on DK till the end to go with a plea bargain may have been precisely to avoid the massive suit that will invariably follow if the case is thrown out.

"Mr. Starr had an accidental discharge with a small caliber pistol. That obviously in no way affects his ability to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security,"

WASHINGTON: Somewhere in the middle of an epic 400-page tome on the History of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (BDS) of the US state department, there is a black and white photo of Special Agent James McDermott providing protection to PM Jawarharlal Nehru and defence minister Krishna Menon as they arrive in New York City in 1961 to attend the UN session.

As the month-long diplomatic spat between India and the US over the so-called Khobragade episode simmers and recedes to the background, the photo is a stark reminder of BDS' primary function — "providing a safe and secure environment for the conduct of US foreign policy" by protecting US and foreign leaders — and how it went off the rails vis-a-vis New Delhi, when the bureau arrogated for itself the task of rescuing a housekeeper employed by a diplomat.

Under any other circumstances, such interference would have invited contempt charges from the court, but the couple at the centre of what New Delhi sees as an outrageous and contemptible caper, US embassy officials Wayne May and his wife Alicia Muller May, have both left New Delhi after the husband was turfed out by MEA in retaliation for Devyani Khobragade's expulsion. Both had diplomatic immunity. As the Mays return to Washington, there is no sign that the state department has any intention of examining what drove them to pursue their activist agenda in New Delhi that shook bilateral ties to its roots.

But their social media presence and online fingerprints are being keenly examined by the digerati, who see in their observations the very epitome of the "Ugly American," a widely used pejorative term describing a blundering, offensive American that traces its origins to the eponymous book by William Lederer and Eugene Burdick.

In the book, set in the fictional south east Asian country of Sarkhan, a local journalist writes: "For some reason, the people I meet in my country are not the same as the ones I knew in the US. A mysterious change seems to come over Americans when they go to a foreign land. They isolate themselves socially. They live pretentiously. They're loud and ostentatious. Perhaps they're frightened and defensive, or maybe they're not properly trained and make mistakes out of ignorance." Going by their social media observations, the Mays fit the bill, recording their complaints about cows on the road, moaning about lack of red meat, and ridiculing local customs and mores. The irony is that Alicia Muller May was the embassy's Community Liaison Officer.

Wayne May himself sets the tone soon after his posting to New Delhi in 2010. In a March 2011 interview to a college journal, he cites "unhealthy living conditions like air and water pollution, the threat of disease and sickness, bad traffic" among the challenges of serving in India. All true, as most Indians would themselves acknowledge, except that, read in conjunction with various other observations by his wife and their friends, it appears they had ill-concealed contempt for a country they were asked to serve in. Their digital presence has now been largely scrubbed. May did not respond to a message last Friday when this paper first reviewed the social media entries of the husband-wife, shortly before they hit public domain.

But in Washington, there is no sign of any concern about what is now brewing to be a PR disaster on the heels of a diplomatic fiasco.

More recent disclosures by Devyani Khobragade's attorney Daniel Arshack, who believes the case involved major flubs in judgment and an "embarrassing failure of US international protocol," point to the US attorney Preet Bharara's office trying to extract a guilty plea from the diplomat as part of any deal. He and two Indian diplomats who participated in the negotiations "were troubled by the intransigence of the US attorney's office," Arshack said, even as both Khobragade and the Indian government rejected the idea of pleading guilty. Indian sources said New Delhi even rejected the idea from the prosecution that she should plead guilty to a lesser charge of misdemeanor.

As far as the Indian side is concerned, one of the questions that remains unanswered is why the higher level state department officials did not step in to stop the bilateral bleeding once it became obvious that the BDS and their law-enforcement associates, who seemed to be acting in tandem, had a poor case, particularly when it came to using human trafficking provisions to rescue the Richard family.

One surmise: The state department's political bureaucracy, going up from assistant secretary Nisha Biswal to her boss Wendy Sherman to her boss Bill Burns to his boss John Kerry, all of whom were engaged in talks with visiting Indian foreign secretary Sujatha Singh while the arrest was in the works, did not want to take on the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. They are, after all, the people who watch their backs all the time, and are therefore, "not to be messed with." Except, they may have made a mess of US-India relations — for now.

sivab wrote:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 767404.cms

but the couple at the centre of what New Delhi sees as an outrageous and contemptible caper, US embassy officials Wayne May and his wife Alicia Muller May, have both left New Delhi after the husband was turfed out by MEA in retaliation for Devyani Khobragade's expulsion. Both had diplomatic immunity. As the Mays return to Washington,

Madhusudhan wrote:Looks like Dean Olsen appears to shares the views of the Mays. Here's a twitter exchange:

AndrewBuncombe ‏@AndrewBuncombe 10h
'Was expelled US diplomat racist? Reminder that anything said on social media can return to bite you. V @DelhiDean http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 719329.cms …

Dean Nelson ‏@DelhiDean 9h
@AndrewBuncombe I don't think they were. They don't look good, but many common complaints among homesick expats in there

SECOND RULE
Not only are blacks' complaints discounted, but black victims of racism are less effective witnesses than are whites, who are members of the oppressor class. This phenomenon reflects a widespread assumption that blacks, unlike whites, cannot be objective on racial issues and will favor their own no matter what. This deep seated belief fuels a continuing effort - despite all manner of Supreme Court decisions intended to curb the practice - to keep black people off juries in cases involving race. Black judges hearing racial cases are eyed suspiciously and sometimes asked to recuse themselves in favor of a white judge - without those making the request even being aware of the paradox in their motions.

FOURTH RULE
When a black person or group makes a statement or takes an action that the white community or vocal components thereof deem "outrageous," the latter will actively recruit blacks willing to refute the statement or condemn the action. Blacks who respond to the call to condemnation will receive superstanding status. The blacks who refuse to be recruited will be interpreted as endorsing the statements and action and may suffer political or economic reprisals.

saip wrote:On Nov 11, when the DS160 was filed no offence was committed as there were no DK lies on the form (in anycase it was signed by SR). I read somewhere it was filled by DK (they even traced the IP to DK's computer)

Reg. officiousness of US officials is well known,some truly nasties,esp. women are posted as visa officers.But some of our own kind working for them are equally repulsive.Aeons ago when in Univ,as film sec. I used to get films and docs. from the various embassies,consulates,etc.A close relative was Hon.Consul for an EU country who gave me free run of their entire stock.I once borrowed a film from the USIS and when I went there a second time,was rudely received by one of our own "darkies",property manager,whose office was in the basement of all places,telling me "Don't you know who we are,the USA? We Americans don't hand out our films to just anybody!"
I impolitely told him who I was,an Indian in my own country and where he and "his" country could get off with the appropriate finger too.His jaw just dropped,as he had expected some servile whimpering.

www.business-standard.com/article/pti-s ... 078_1.html

Expelled diplomat's comments doesn't represent Gov position:US
by Press Trust of India | Washingto, business-standard.com
January 14th 2014

"Those comments absolutely do not reflect US Government policy, nor were they made on any official US Government social media account," State Department Deputy Spokesperson, Marie Harf, told reporters at her daily news conference.

Harf was responding to questions on the Facebook postings by American diplomat Wayne May and her spouse Alicia Muller in which they allegedly make offence comments about India and appear to be insensitive to the Indian culture.

Citing privacy reasons, the State Department official refused to identify the diplomat who was asked to leave India last week. But Indian sources have identified them as Wayne May and Alicia Muller May. The couples were not available for reaction.

Harf said she has not seen the comments.

"I've seen the reports of them... Again, I would underscore that these do not in any way represent the US Government position," she said.

US has distanced itself from the alleged offencive comments made by its diplomat, who was last week expelled by India in a tit-for-tat action following arrest of a senior Indian diplomat in New York last month.