I wonder if Dominos pizza tastes the same in India as it does in America?
It's better in India :3 spicy and shiz
Angry India tells US 'times have changed' after diplomat spat
- Thread starter Indo-guy
- Start date
It's better in India :3 spicy and shiz
US diplomats who got away with abuse - The Times of India
US double standards in diplomacy are common enough and pretty familiar to foreign office officials of countries which host embassies and consulates of the US. But what might be not so well known are the specific cases of US diplomats not only underpaying their domestic help but also physically abusing them, and how they got away lightly in most such cases.
In 2011, an Ethiopian national, Jan Doe, filed a case against American state department employee Linda Howard accusing her of forced labour, involuntary servitude and human trafficking. Doe said that Linda Howard hired her during her assignment in the US embassy in Yemen. In late 2008, when Howard was reassigned to Japan, Doe agreed to move with her and continue as her housekeeper. Her contract promised $300 a month, time off each week, health insurance and a safe place to live and work.
However, in Japan, Doe was forced to work more than 80 hours a week for less than a dollar an hour. The minimum hourly wage at the time of Jane Doe's employment was $6.55. Doe was even raped and forced to engage in sexual acts with Linda Howards's husband, Russell Howard, who threatened to deport her. When she finally escaped and complained, Linda Howard was removed from her post in the US embassy in Tokyo but returned to the US and continued to work for the state department.
By the time the Virginia court found the Howards guilty and awarded Doe over $3 million in damages in November last year, the Howards had fled the country. No effort seems to have been made by the US to track down the Howards who committed felony on federal property.
In a similar case, in July 2006, Harold Countryman, a former state department agent, and his wife, Kimberly Countryman, a realtor in northern Virginia, were found guilty of abetting visa fraud, forced labour and underpaying a Cambodian woman they had hired during their posting in South Korea and brought to the US. Kimberly Countryman admitted that she withheld a portion of the woman's pay, took possession of her passport and physically assaulted her. Though they had to pay the Cambodian woman $50,000 in restitution, Harold Countryman, the diplomat, only received probation. Visa fraud carries a statutory maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and a maximum fine of $250,000. The maximum sentence for involuntary servitude is a 40-year jail sentence.
In a much older case, in 1993, a US diplomat Thurmond Borden and his Filipino wife hired a domestic help from Manila offering to pay $300 to her to work for them in Japan. To comply with Japanese immigration regulations, they made a contract stating that they would pay her $1,500 to work six days a week for eight hours a day with overtime pay of 125%. The contract was submitted to both the US embassy and the Japanese immigration bureau.
Lucia found that she was forced to work from 6 am to 10 pm and not allowed to take a break even on Christmas or New Year. When she complained, her air ticket and alien registration certificate were confiscated. Lucia managed to escape after complaining to the Japanese police. When she tried to sue the Bordens, the US state department claimed diplomatic immunity for them and the Japanese legal system was forced to drop the case. Borden is now consul general Jakarta where among others tasks he will also be responsible for issuing maid visas to domestic help for US diplomats headed for the US.
These and many other cases have been put together on a blog, The Dissenter, by Peter Van Buren. Van Buren is a former US foreign service employee who turned whistle blower with his book criticizing American reconstruction efforts in Iraq. He now writes blogs and columns on American foreign policy especially on the working of US consulates, embassies and the foreign office
US double standards in diplomacy are common enough and pretty familiar to foreign office officials of countries which host embassies and consulates of the US. But what might be not so well known are the specific cases of US diplomats not only underpaying their domestic help but also physically abusing them, and how they got away lightly in most such cases.
In 2011, an Ethiopian national, Jan Doe, filed a case against American state department employee Linda Howard accusing her of forced labour, involuntary servitude and human trafficking. Doe said that Linda Howard hired her during her assignment in the US embassy in Yemen. In late 2008, when Howard was reassigned to Japan, Doe agreed to move with her and continue as her housekeeper. Her contract promised $300 a month, time off each week, health insurance and a safe place to live and work.
However, in Japan, Doe was forced to work more than 80 hours a week for less than a dollar an hour. The minimum hourly wage at the time of Jane Doe's employment was $6.55. Doe was even raped and forced to engage in sexual acts with Linda Howards's husband, Russell Howard, who threatened to deport her. When she finally escaped and complained, Linda Howard was removed from her post in the US embassy in Tokyo but returned to the US and continued to work for the state department.
By the time the Virginia court found the Howards guilty and awarded Doe over $3 million in damages in November last year, the Howards had fled the country. No effort seems to have been made by the US to track down the Howards who committed felony on federal property.
In a similar case, in July 2006, Harold Countryman, a former state department agent, and his wife, Kimberly Countryman, a realtor in northern Virginia, were found guilty of abetting visa fraud, forced labour and underpaying a Cambodian woman they had hired during their posting in South Korea and brought to the US. Kimberly Countryman admitted that she withheld a portion of the woman's pay, took possession of her passport and physically assaulted her. Though they had to pay the Cambodian woman $50,000 in restitution, Harold Countryman, the diplomat, only received probation. Visa fraud carries a statutory maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and a maximum fine of $250,000. The maximum sentence for involuntary servitude is a 40-year jail sentence.
In a much older case, in 1993, a US diplomat Thurmond Borden and his Filipino wife hired a domestic help from Manila offering to pay $300 to her to work for them in Japan. To comply with Japanese immigration regulations, they made a contract stating that they would pay her $1,500 to work six days a week for eight hours a day with overtime pay of 125%. The contract was submitted to both the US embassy and the Japanese immigration bureau.
Lucia found that she was forced to work from 6 am to 10 pm and not allowed to take a break even on Christmas or New Year. When she complained, her air ticket and alien registration certificate were confiscated. Lucia managed to escape after complaining to the Japanese police. When she tried to sue the Bordens, the US state department claimed diplomatic immunity for them and the Japanese legal system was forced to drop the case. Borden is now consul general Jakarta where among others tasks he will also be responsible for issuing maid visas to domestic help for US diplomats headed for the US.
These and many other cases have been put together on a blog, The Dissenter, by Peter Van Buren. Van Buren is a former US foreign service employee who turned whistle blower with his book criticizing American reconstruction efforts in Iraq. He now writes blogs and columns on American foreign policy especially on the working of US consulates, embassies and the foreign office
Did you even try to understand what i meant before you brought the green flag in?? I was saying that treating a foreign diplomat or anyone for that matter in such a disgusting way is shameful. The action they took against her was extreme even though she can be blamed. Please read things well before commenting and if you have doubts regarding the context you can ask before jumping to conclusions that suit you.
Faithful guy. The US has broken laws in many countries. Read this
Raymond Allen Davis incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One thing that needs to be kept in mind is the extra concessions that India has made for US diplomats working in India. Same-sex relationships are not recognised by Indian law, yet they made adjustments for US personnel to make their lives easier.
Strict application of US law = Removal of special privileges (not recognised by Indian law). That's fair
It will be interesting to see whether the US actually pays Indians working in accordance with US minimum wages. If not, the US has no moral ground to stand. It must lead by example and the Ray Allen case is an example of where the US government falsified documents.
What should happen according to me (which I think may be mutually acceptable)is that
1. The case should be dropped, with the maid getting an out of court settlement(probably the bail money $250k or more) + a US fine for falsifying information that Devyani should pay (not the Government of India). The US does not have sufficient moral ground to pick this case and run with it. The US has failed to lead by example in many cases
2. The Indian government should sack this lady for falsifying information (IF TRUE) while holding a diplomatic position in the Indian Consulate. India has been plagued by corruption and there will be no shortage of Indian support towards bring a corrupt person to Justice.
3. All Indian diplomats are informed that domestic help is not something that the government will cover/get involved with. There needs to be some clarification here. No special passports/visas for maids heading overseas. They should be seen like anyone else.
4. US law enforcement updates its procedures in handling of politically sensitive cases involving Diplomats etc
5. Mutual agreement by India and the US that their representatives will abide by the law in of the land in their respective countries. Now that may mean foregoing some previously enjoyed exceptions.
Just for thought:
This minimum wage thing is not new. There are 11 million illegals in the US. Lets assume 1/3th of that 11 million are working somewhere(approx under 4 million). Furthermore, assume atleast 1/3rd of that number are getting below minimum wage, that is still over a MILLION people that are getting below the minimum wage. They are employed by US employers. Is the US sending law enforcement to search and check the ID's of people working in Restaurants etc? See Chinatown. I know a few illegal people working there. Their personal stories are sad but their bosses pay them $3 an hour! Yes, Human is an issue that needs tackling but its absolutely not worth playing this game of political tennis, for both countries. Especially when the US has potentially over 1 million of these cases to deal with and they don't have a clue about where or how to search. What is worse is that these illegals, after breaking US law (unlawful entry) are eventually provided a pathway to Citizenship(reward)! Think about that!
Raymond Allen Davis incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One thing that needs to be kept in mind is the extra concessions that India has made for US diplomats working in India. Same-sex relationships are not recognised by Indian law, yet they made adjustments for US personnel to make their lives easier.
Strict application of US law = Removal of special privileges (not recognised by Indian law). That's fair
It will be interesting to see whether the US actually pays Indians working in accordance with US minimum wages. If not, the US has no moral ground to stand. It must lead by example and the Ray Allen case is an example of where the US government falsified documents.
What should happen according to me (which I think may be mutually acceptable)is that
1. The case should be dropped, with the maid getting an out of court settlement(probably the bail money $250k or more) + a US fine for falsifying information that Devyani should pay (not the Government of India). The US does not have sufficient moral ground to pick this case and run with it. The US has failed to lead by example in many cases
2. The Indian government should sack this lady for falsifying information (IF TRUE) while holding a diplomatic position in the Indian Consulate. India has been plagued by corruption and there will be no shortage of Indian support towards bring a corrupt person to Justice.
3. All Indian diplomats are informed that domestic help is not something that the government will cover/get involved with. There needs to be some clarification here. No special passports/visas for maids heading overseas. They should be seen like anyone else.
4. US law enforcement updates its procedures in handling of politically sensitive cases involving Diplomats etc
5. Mutual agreement by India and the US that their representatives will abide by the law in of the land in their respective countries. Now that may mean foregoing some previously enjoyed exceptions.
Just for thought:
This minimum wage thing is not new. There are 11 million illegals in the US. Lets assume 1/3th of that 11 million are working somewhere(approx under 4 million). Furthermore, assume atleast 1/3rd of that number are getting below minimum wage, that is still over a MILLION people that are getting below the minimum wage. They are employed by US employers. Is the US sending law enforcement to search and check the ID's of people working in Restaurants etc? See Chinatown. I know a few illegal people working there. Their personal stories are sad but their bosses pay them $3 an hour! Yes, Human is an issue that needs tackling but its absolutely not worth playing this game of political tennis, for both countries. Especially when the US has potentially over 1 million of these cases to deal with and they don't have a clue about where or how to search. What is worse is that these illegals, after breaking US law (unlawful entry) are eventually provided a pathway to Citizenship(reward)! Think about that!
Devyani Khobragade gets exemption from personal appearance in US court - The Times of India
NEW DELHI: India and the US may be moving towards a resolution of the stand-off over senior diplomat Devyani Khobragade's case with the envoy getting exemption from personal appearance in a New York Court hearing visa fraud charges against her even as she got her accreditation to the UN headquarters.
Khobragade, who was arrested on December 12 in New York, had been transferred by the government to its mission to the UN with a view to giving her full diplomatic immunity. Her accreditation is expected to be followed by some paperwork at the US state department for which India has already submitted the papers.
Simultaneously, her exemption from personal appearance in the court is a significant step towards a way out of the stand-off created by her arrest and strip search which had evoked a sharp reaction by the Indian government which has been pressing the US to drop the charges against her unconditionally.
39-year-old Khobragade, a 1999-batch IFS officer posted as deputy consul general in New York, was taken into custody on visa fraud charges as she was dropping her daughter to school before being released on a $250,000 bond after pleading not guilty in court.
Meanwhile, the US embassy here has sought extension of today's deadline for filing the visa and other key details of the Indians employed by it and its officers. This information includes salary being paid to domestic help employed by US diplomats in India.
Jaishankar flies to US as new envoy amid Khobragade crisis - The Times of India
WASHINGTON: India's new ambassador to the United States S Jaishankar arrives in Washington DC on Tuesday amid a rocky phase in US-India ties caused by the Khobragade episode. A familiar hand in the capital's sub-continental circuit because of his central role in the US-India civilian nuclear deal and other initiatives, Jaishankar is expected to hit the ground running soon after Christmas break to extricate his beleaguered junior colleague Devyani Khobragade, charged in New York with visa fraud in connection with bringing a domestic assistant from India.
Moving forward the nuclear agreement and elevating US-India ties to the next level, not resolving a Nannygate boondoggle, is what this pedigreed diplomat would have expected while coming to Washington DC. Instead, he is having to first deal with public outrage in India and disquiet among the New Delhi bureaucratic elite, where the fact remains that Khobragade's methods form the template many officials use on foreign postings to bring domestic assistants.
So, besides extricating Khobragade from the jam, he also has to quickly oversee rewriting the ground rules of bringing domestic personnel to make sure they are in compliance with US laws. It helps that he has had a previous stint in the embassy in Washington DC (as First Secretary in 1985-1988), and two postings on the Americas desk of the external affairs ministry in New Delhi, and so knows the background and the build-up that has led to this horrendous diplomatic mishap, seen purely through a legal lens by mid-level officials of the state department and US law enforcement.
Jaishankar succeeds Nirupama Rao, during whose tenure the whole affair came to a boil, before spilling over just after she demitted office, leaving the newly arrived deputy chief of mission Taranjit Sandhu holding the can. Rao has been pilloried by some of her own former colleagues for allowing the issue to fester and get out of hand. But in a series of tweets, the former ambassador, who will be returning to US in January as a fellow at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said "the incident has created a deep crater in the bilateral relationship and we in India have reason to protest as we have done."
"The legitimate question we ask is did not the US weigh the disastrous consequences of their moves in this case? Was the much vaunted defining partnership btw the two countries so inconsequential that US decided to treat whole case as routine?" Rao asked, pronouncing rather dramatically that the relationship is now in ER (Emergency Room), the trauma surgeons need to wake up and cool thinking on both sides was needed to defuse the situation.
"Tit for tat butter for fat cannot solve matters. Diplomacy can't be conducted in an amphitheater. Neither government's hand should be seen to be forced. Say no to hyperventilation," Rao advised.
Cool head and clear thinking, besides being low-key and non-demonstrative, is what Jaishankar is known for among his peers. In fact, he is just coming off one of the hottest portfolios in MEA, the ambassadorship in Beijing, where he navigated some difficult moments, including tricky issues relating to border incursions and stapled visas.
He was on the short-list to be named foreign secretary because of his what many consider an exemplary record, but the government preferred to go by seniority in naming Sujatha Singh for the post. The Khobragade spat erupted even as Singh concluded her maiden visit to Washington DC as foreign secretary.
The Washington posting was in a sense meant to recognize Jaishankar for his exemplary work on the US-India portfolio, something that also involves familial connections. He is the son of India's strategic guru, the late K Subrahmanyam, jocularly dubbed ''Bomb Mama'' but more seriously regarded as the "Bhishmapitamah" of India's nuclear doctrine that constantly challenged and pushed back against US-laid down red lines. One of his brothers, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, is a distinguished historian, currently holder of the Navin and Pratima Doshi Chair of Indian History at University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA). Another brother, S Vijay Kumar, is a secretary in the government of India
NEW DELHI: India and the US may be moving towards a resolution of the stand-off over senior diplomat Devyani Khobragade's case with the envoy getting exemption from personal appearance in a New York Court hearing visa fraud charges against her even as she got her accreditation to the UN headquarters.
Khobragade, who was arrested on December 12 in New York, had been transferred by the government to its mission to the UN with a view to giving her full diplomatic immunity. Her accreditation is expected to be followed by some paperwork at the US state department for which India has already submitted the papers.
Simultaneously, her exemption from personal appearance in the court is a significant step towards a way out of the stand-off created by her arrest and strip search which had evoked a sharp reaction by the Indian government which has been pressing the US to drop the charges against her unconditionally.
39-year-old Khobragade, a 1999-batch IFS officer posted as deputy consul general in New York, was taken into custody on visa fraud charges as she was dropping her daughter to school before being released on a $250,000 bond after pleading not guilty in court.
Meanwhile, the US embassy here has sought extension of today's deadline for filing the visa and other key details of the Indians employed by it and its officers. This information includes salary being paid to domestic help employed by US diplomats in India.
Jaishankar flies to US as new envoy amid Khobragade crisis - The Times of India
WASHINGTON: India's new ambassador to the United States S Jaishankar arrives in Washington DC on Tuesday amid a rocky phase in US-India ties caused by the Khobragade episode. A familiar hand in the capital's sub-continental circuit because of his central role in the US-India civilian nuclear deal and other initiatives, Jaishankar is expected to hit the ground running soon after Christmas break to extricate his beleaguered junior colleague Devyani Khobragade, charged in New York with visa fraud in connection with bringing a domestic assistant from India.
Moving forward the nuclear agreement and elevating US-India ties to the next level, not resolving a Nannygate boondoggle, is what this pedigreed diplomat would have expected while coming to Washington DC. Instead, he is having to first deal with public outrage in India and disquiet among the New Delhi bureaucratic elite, where the fact remains that Khobragade's methods form the template many officials use on foreign postings to bring domestic assistants.
So, besides extricating Khobragade from the jam, he also has to quickly oversee rewriting the ground rules of bringing domestic personnel to make sure they are in compliance with US laws. It helps that he has had a previous stint in the embassy in Washington DC (as First Secretary in 1985-1988), and two postings on the Americas desk of the external affairs ministry in New Delhi, and so knows the background and the build-up that has led to this horrendous diplomatic mishap, seen purely through a legal lens by mid-level officials of the state department and US law enforcement.
Jaishankar succeeds Nirupama Rao, during whose tenure the whole affair came to a boil, before spilling over just after she demitted office, leaving the newly arrived deputy chief of mission Taranjit Sandhu holding the can. Rao has been pilloried by some of her own former colleagues for allowing the issue to fester and get out of hand. But in a series of tweets, the former ambassador, who will be returning to US in January as a fellow at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said "the incident has created a deep crater in the bilateral relationship and we in India have reason to protest as we have done."
"The legitimate question we ask is did not the US weigh the disastrous consequences of their moves in this case? Was the much vaunted defining partnership btw the two countries so inconsequential that US decided to treat whole case as routine?" Rao asked, pronouncing rather dramatically that the relationship is now in ER (Emergency Room), the trauma surgeons need to wake up and cool thinking on both sides was needed to defuse the situation.
"Tit for tat butter for fat cannot solve matters. Diplomacy can't be conducted in an amphitheater. Neither government's hand should be seen to be forced. Say no to hyperventilation," Rao advised.
Cool head and clear thinking, besides being low-key and non-demonstrative, is what Jaishankar is known for among his peers. In fact, he is just coming off one of the hottest portfolios in MEA, the ambassadorship in Beijing, where he navigated some difficult moments, including tricky issues relating to border incursions and stapled visas.
He was on the short-list to be named foreign secretary because of his what many consider an exemplary record, but the government preferred to go by seniority in naming Sujatha Singh for the post. The Khobragade spat erupted even as Singh concluded her maiden visit to Washington DC as foreign secretary.
The Washington posting was in a sense meant to recognize Jaishankar for his exemplary work on the US-India portfolio, something that also involves familial connections. He is the son of India's strategic guru, the late K Subrahmanyam, jocularly dubbed ''Bomb Mama'' but more seriously regarded as the "Bhishmapitamah" of India's nuclear doctrine that constantly challenged and pushed back against US-laid down red lines. One of his brothers, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, is a distinguished historian, currently holder of the Navin and Pratima Doshi Chair of Indian History at University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA). Another brother, S Vijay Kumar, is a secretary in the government of India
Star Wars
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 12,446
- Reaction score
- -14
- Country
- Location
Why extension ?
Nice ......
So....Can she fly off to India now , since she has limited immunity ...
Last edited:
Juice
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 4,018
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
At least someone pays attention....
I believe we got our guy back....he should have been showered with accolades for his service.
Last edited:
Iggy
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2009
- Messages
- 8,300
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Devyani Khobragade case: diplomat a step away from full immunity, current case still on..
New Delhi/New York: Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade, who was arrested in the US for alleged visa fraud, has been granted UN accreditation, which will take her one step closer to full diplomatic immunity, top sources say.
Accreditation to India's permanent mission to the UN will entitle Ms Khobragade to a US State Department Identity card, which means she will not have to be present in court and will also have immunity but not in the ongoing case. The ID card is likely to be issued after Christmas, say sources.
Sources say India hopes to push for the charges to be dropped, but if not, Ms Khobragade can at least get her passport back, and can be sent back to India. American authorities have already waived the diplomat's pre-trial appearance today.
The Americans in India have asked for more time to comply with a slew of retaliatory orders issued by New Delhi after Ms Khobragade's arrest and humiliation. US diplomats and consulate staff are likely to surrender their ID cards today, but have reportedly asked for more time to furnish staff salary details as demanded by India.
Sources say India took a tough stand to show that it means business and special privileges to diplomats are based on reciprocity.
Ms Khobragade, posted as Deputy Consul General in New York, was arrested on December 12 over allegations that she paid her domestic help Sangeeta Richard a fraction of American minimum wages and lied on the woman's visa application.
As US and India look at resolving the deadlock over the row, questions are being raised about whether Indians have been denied benefits given to other nations.
49 Russian diplomats were charged with healthcare fraud after they allegedly lied about their incomes to get health benefits in the US. However, no action has been taken against them.
Some say, Ms Khobragade's case was different as she could only claim consular immunity and not complete immunity.
Devyani Khobragade case: diplomat a step away from full immunity, current case still on | NDTV.com
New Delhi/New York: Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade, who was arrested in the US for alleged visa fraud, has been granted UN accreditation, which will take her one step closer to full diplomatic immunity, top sources say.
Accreditation to India's permanent mission to the UN will entitle Ms Khobragade to a US State Department Identity card, which means she will not have to be present in court and will also have immunity but not in the ongoing case. The ID card is likely to be issued after Christmas, say sources.
Sources say India hopes to push for the charges to be dropped, but if not, Ms Khobragade can at least get her passport back, and can be sent back to India. American authorities have already waived the diplomat's pre-trial appearance today.
The Americans in India have asked for more time to comply with a slew of retaliatory orders issued by New Delhi after Ms Khobragade's arrest and humiliation. US diplomats and consulate staff are likely to surrender their ID cards today, but have reportedly asked for more time to furnish staff salary details as demanded by India.
Sources say India took a tough stand to show that it means business and special privileges to diplomats are based on reciprocity.
Ms Khobragade, posted as Deputy Consul General in New York, was arrested on December 12 over allegations that she paid her domestic help Sangeeta Richard a fraction of American minimum wages and lied on the woman's visa application.
As US and India look at resolving the deadlock over the row, questions are being raised about whether Indians have been denied benefits given to other nations.
49 Russian diplomats were charged with healthcare fraud after they allegedly lied about their incomes to get health benefits in the US. However, no action has been taken against them.
Some say, Ms Khobragade's case was different as she could only claim consular immunity and not complete immunity.
Devyani Khobragade case: diplomat a step away from full immunity, current case still on | NDTV.com
Iggy
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2009
- Messages
- 8,300
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
UN gives accreditation to Devyani Khobragade
New Delhi: Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade, who was arrested for alleged visa fraud in the United States of America, has now been given accreditation by the United Nations. She has also been exempted from personal appearance in the case in the US.
Devyani was moved to India's Permanent Mission at the United Nations to allow her greater diplomatic immunity from the US law. However, Devyani will still have to face the due process, since she was charged when she was still a Deputy Consul.
"Receiving diplomatic immunity does not nullify any previously existing criminal charges. Those remain on the books. Nor does obtaining diplomatic immunity protect the diplomat from prosecution indefinitely. It relates to the status of a diplomat's current status for the length of the time of that status," State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said earlier.
UN gives accreditation to Devyani Khobragade
Meanwhile, US Embassy has sought extension of the deadline to file key details of people employed by it and by its officers in India.
Diplomatic immunity means, among other things, that a foreign diplomat is not subject to criminal jurisdiction in the United States for the time they are a diplomat, for the time they have that immunity, she said.
A 1999-batch IFS officer, Devyani was arrested by the New York police on the charges of visa fraud. Devyani was taken into custody as she was dropping her daughter to school before being released on a $250,000 bond after pleading not guilty in court.
She could face a maximum sentence of 10 years for visa fraud and five years for making a false declaration if convicted.
Meanwhile, US Embassy has sought extension of the deadline to file visa and other key details of people employed by it and by its officers in India.
UN gives accreditation to Devyani Khobragade
New Delhi: Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade, who was arrested for alleged visa fraud in the United States of America, has now been given accreditation by the United Nations. She has also been exempted from personal appearance in the case in the US.
Devyani was moved to India's Permanent Mission at the United Nations to allow her greater diplomatic immunity from the US law. However, Devyani will still have to face the due process, since she was charged when she was still a Deputy Consul.
"Receiving diplomatic immunity does not nullify any previously existing criminal charges. Those remain on the books. Nor does obtaining diplomatic immunity protect the diplomat from prosecution indefinitely. It relates to the status of a diplomat's current status for the length of the time of that status," State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said earlier.
UN gives accreditation to Devyani Khobragade
Meanwhile, US Embassy has sought extension of the deadline to file key details of people employed by it and by its officers in India.
Diplomatic immunity means, among other things, that a foreign diplomat is not subject to criminal jurisdiction in the United States for the time they are a diplomat, for the time they have that immunity, she said.
A 1999-batch IFS officer, Devyani was arrested by the New York police on the charges of visa fraud. Devyani was taken into custody as she was dropping her daughter to school before being released on a $250,000 bond after pleading not guilty in court.
She could face a maximum sentence of 10 years for visa fraud and five years for making a false declaration if convicted.
Meanwhile, US Embassy has sought extension of the deadline to file visa and other key details of people employed by it and by its officers in India.
UN gives accreditation to Devyani Khobragade
UN accreditation for Devyani Khobragade, immunity to follow soon - The Times of India
NEW DELHI: Even as the US remains reluctant to drop visa fraud charges against diplomat Devyani Kohobragade, the government has taken the line that the 39-year-old IFS officer had fulfilled all her commitments in contracts signed with domestic help Sangeeta Richard. Khobragade on Monday got accreditation from the UN in her current posting at India's permanent mission paving the way for full immunity after acknowledgement from the state department.
The government is insisting before the US that as per the contract signed between Khobragade and Richard on November 11, 2012, the diplomat had to pay only $1,560 (at $9.75 hourly wage and 40 hours of work per week) to the help monthly. Sources said this was being paid to her in the form of $560 (or Rs 30,000 transferred to Richard's bank account in India every month), another $375 as deducted from the salary to pay for her chargeable utilities like telephone usage, cable TV, non-work related conveyance, expenses and another $625 given in cash, occasionally with signed receipts. As there were several months where the weekly hours fell well below 40 working hours, the cash payment was apparently adjusted accordingly.
The government has conveyed to US authorities that the figure of $4,500, which is mentioned in the salary details box in form DS-160 that Khobragade helped Richard fill, has been "mistakenly'' quoted by US agencies.
It has also been discovered that all three tickets meant for husband Philip Richard and two children were purchased by the US embassy. Even tax exemption was availed. The tickets were paid for through Master Card, and the endorsement reads JNTAXEXEMPTEDUSEMBASSY. The three flew to New York three days before Khobragade's arrest.
The diplomat has been allowed exemption from appearing in court personally. Khobragade is expected to have full immunity which will preclude any court jurisdiction over her, even if the crime was committed before the period of immunity. This will not be a "perpetual benefit'' for the diplomat though. In case she continues to stay back after the expiry of her full immunity, or comes back to the US in her personal capacity, she will have to face prosecution.
The US embassy here has sought extension of Monday's deadline for filing the visa and other details of the Indians employed by it and its officers. This information includes salary being paid to domestic help employed by US diplomats in India. New Delhi has also sought information about spouses of diplomats and other officials working with the American Embassy School (AES).
India is expected to deliver new identity cards to US consular officials, which will ensure that they have only consular, and not diplomatic, immunity. The US sought to draw a distinction between consular and diplomatic immunity in the Khobragade case saying that she was entitled to only consular immunity in her capacity as deputy consul general. Until now, India had not differentiated between consular and diplomatic privileges for US officials and had given diplomatic immunity to all of them.
Indian-Americans petition Obama to drop case against Devyani - The Times of India
WASHINGTON: A section of the Indian-American community in the United States has petitioned President Barack Obama to drop the criminal case against Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade, who is charged with visa fraud in the context of bringing an India-based domestic assistant to New York, saying the manner of her arrest and her public humiliation ''injures the sentiments of the Indian American community'' and ''such incidents are bound to strain the India-US relations.''
In a White House petition generated on December 18, the activists recounted the events surrounding her arrest and said there was ''perceptible animus in the manner in which the arrest was handled,'' an episode they said involved her being detained when she was dropping her daughter to school, followed by hand-cuffing, strip-search, and body cavity search before being temporarily incarcerated.
Protesting the ''manner of detention'' (but not the case itself), the petitioners requested the President that given the trauma and public humiliation the diplomat has ''egregiously suffered, the criminal case against her should be dropped immediately.'' The petition described her as one of the faces of Indian government for the Indian community in the United States.
Some 400 people had signed the online petition at the time of writing this article under a new ''We the People'' provision that allows Americans to seek a White House review on important national issues.
A whitehouse.gov user account needs to be created to sign the petition. If a petition gets enough support, White House staff reviews it, ensures it is sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issues an official response. To cross the first threshold and be searchable within WhiteHouse.gov, a petition must reach 150 signatures within 30 days (which this one has done). To cross the second threshold and require a response, a petition must reach 100,000 signatures within 30 days.
Among the more popular and successful petitions is one seeking pardon for whistleblower Edward Snowden that has gathered some 142,000 signatures. Another petition to declare Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization has 196,000 signatories.
The White House petition chugged along even as officials from the two sides parlayed quietly to resolve the issue, the immediate one of ensuring diplomatic immunity for Devyani, and the larger, longer term one of seeking a fair and equitable resolution of all such diplomatic and consular matters, which the Indian side feels in heavily weighted in favor of the US.
If Washington insists on going through with the prosecution of the Indian diplomat, New Delhi has let it be known that US will lose many of the facilities and concessions that have been unilaterally granted to it in India.
Ahead of negotiations on these matters, which will pick up steam after the arrival of the new Indian ambassador in Washington S Jaishankar and the holiday break, wire services report that Devyani will get an exemption from personal appearance in a New York court in connection with the case.
In so far as the petition and support for the diplomat is concerned, the Indian-American community is far from united on the issue. Some community activists have demonstrated in front of Indian missions in support of the housekeeper Sangeeta Richard, whose charges of being underpaid and overworked by the diplomat led to the stand-off.
Others, such as USPINPAC, a political action group, have framed it on the context of the arrest procedure and the overall effect of such an approach on bilateral ties, saying such ''failure in diplomatic protocol can cause irreversible damage to US-India relations.''
NEW DELHI: Even as the US remains reluctant to drop visa fraud charges against diplomat Devyani Kohobragade, the government has taken the line that the 39-year-old IFS officer had fulfilled all her commitments in contracts signed with domestic help Sangeeta Richard. Khobragade on Monday got accreditation from the UN in her current posting at India's permanent mission paving the way for full immunity after acknowledgement from the state department.
The government is insisting before the US that as per the contract signed between Khobragade and Richard on November 11, 2012, the diplomat had to pay only $1,560 (at $9.75 hourly wage and 40 hours of work per week) to the help monthly. Sources said this was being paid to her in the form of $560 (or Rs 30,000 transferred to Richard's bank account in India every month), another $375 as deducted from the salary to pay for her chargeable utilities like telephone usage, cable TV, non-work related conveyance, expenses and another $625 given in cash, occasionally with signed receipts. As there were several months where the weekly hours fell well below 40 working hours, the cash payment was apparently adjusted accordingly.
The government has conveyed to US authorities that the figure of $4,500, which is mentioned in the salary details box in form DS-160 that Khobragade helped Richard fill, has been "mistakenly'' quoted by US agencies.
It has also been discovered that all three tickets meant for husband Philip Richard and two children were purchased by the US embassy. Even tax exemption was availed. The tickets were paid for through Master Card, and the endorsement reads JNTAXEXEMPTEDUSEMBASSY. The three flew to New York three days before Khobragade's arrest.
The diplomat has been allowed exemption from appearing in court personally. Khobragade is expected to have full immunity which will preclude any court jurisdiction over her, even if the crime was committed before the period of immunity. This will not be a "perpetual benefit'' for the diplomat though. In case she continues to stay back after the expiry of her full immunity, or comes back to the US in her personal capacity, she will have to face prosecution.
The US embassy here has sought extension of Monday's deadline for filing the visa and other details of the Indians employed by it and its officers. This information includes salary being paid to domestic help employed by US diplomats in India. New Delhi has also sought information about spouses of diplomats and other officials working with the American Embassy School (AES).
India is expected to deliver new identity cards to US consular officials, which will ensure that they have only consular, and not diplomatic, immunity. The US sought to draw a distinction between consular and diplomatic immunity in the Khobragade case saying that she was entitled to only consular immunity in her capacity as deputy consul general. Until now, India had not differentiated between consular and diplomatic privileges for US officials and had given diplomatic immunity to all of them.
Indian-Americans petition Obama to drop case against Devyani - The Times of India
WASHINGTON: A section of the Indian-American community in the United States has petitioned President Barack Obama to drop the criminal case against Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade, who is charged with visa fraud in the context of bringing an India-based domestic assistant to New York, saying the manner of her arrest and her public humiliation ''injures the sentiments of the Indian American community'' and ''such incidents are bound to strain the India-US relations.''
In a White House petition generated on December 18, the activists recounted the events surrounding her arrest and said there was ''perceptible animus in the manner in which the arrest was handled,'' an episode they said involved her being detained when she was dropping her daughter to school, followed by hand-cuffing, strip-search, and body cavity search before being temporarily incarcerated.
Protesting the ''manner of detention'' (but not the case itself), the petitioners requested the President that given the trauma and public humiliation the diplomat has ''egregiously suffered, the criminal case against her should be dropped immediately.'' The petition described her as one of the faces of Indian government for the Indian community in the United States.
Some 400 people had signed the online petition at the time of writing this article under a new ''We the People'' provision that allows Americans to seek a White House review on important national issues.
A whitehouse.gov user account needs to be created to sign the petition. If a petition gets enough support, White House staff reviews it, ensures it is sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issues an official response. To cross the first threshold and be searchable within WhiteHouse.gov, a petition must reach 150 signatures within 30 days (which this one has done). To cross the second threshold and require a response, a petition must reach 100,000 signatures within 30 days.
Among the more popular and successful petitions is one seeking pardon for whistleblower Edward Snowden that has gathered some 142,000 signatures. Another petition to declare Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization has 196,000 signatories.
The White House petition chugged along even as officials from the two sides parlayed quietly to resolve the issue, the immediate one of ensuring diplomatic immunity for Devyani, and the larger, longer term one of seeking a fair and equitable resolution of all such diplomatic and consular matters, which the Indian side feels in heavily weighted in favor of the US.
If Washington insists on going through with the prosecution of the Indian diplomat, New Delhi has let it be known that US will lose many of the facilities and concessions that have been unilaterally granted to it in India.
Ahead of negotiations on these matters, which will pick up steam after the arrival of the new Indian ambassador in Washington S Jaishankar and the holiday break, wire services report that Devyani will get an exemption from personal appearance in a New York court in connection with the case.
In so far as the petition and support for the diplomat is concerned, the Indian-American community is far from united on the issue. Some community activists have demonstrated in front of Indian missions in support of the housekeeper Sangeeta Richard, whose charges of being underpaid and overworked by the diplomat led to the stand-off.
Others, such as USPINPAC, a political action group, have framed it on the context of the arrest procedure and the overall effect of such an approach on bilateral ties, saying such ''failure in diplomatic protocol can cause irreversible damage to US-India relations.''
Indian diplomat’s arrest in US: Media coverage and some intriguing questions & answers by In Search of Propriety : V Mahalingam's blog-The Times Of India
Indian diplomat’s arrest in US: Media coverage and some intriguing questions & answers
V Mahalingam
Devyani Khobragade, deputy consul general at the consulate general of India in New York was arrested, handcuffed; strip and cavity searched in custody and made to stand with common criminals, drug addicts and sex workers by the New York Police. More than these indignities, the associated actions connected with the incident enacted by various US departments raise a number of questions and suspicions.
The Special Agent, United State Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security specifies two charges based on which he has required the United States Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York to issue a warrant of arrest for the diplomat. The first charge relates to visa fraud. The charge alleges that the diplomat under oath had made a false statement in the employment contract (First Employment Contract) submitted in support of visa application in respect of Sangeeta Richard, employed for working as a domestic worker with her in New York. The second charge concerns a false statement in the employment contract (First Employment Contract) stating that she would pay $4500 US dollars as monthly salary whereas she actually paid $573 US dollars as per a subsequent contract (Second Employment Contract) signed shortly before her departure to New York.
The salary of most of the Indian diplomats in US is around Rs 3 lakh per month and Devyani herself is not getting more than Rs 4 lakh per month. How could she afford to pay $4500 US dollars per month to her domestic help which amounts to approximately Rs 2.8 lakh in addition to free boarding and lodging? Incidentally, a large number of post graduate technical workers from India employed in US are paid about $4500 to 6000 US dollars per month as their monthly salary without any boarding or lodging. Where is the logic?
Most Indian diplomats as well as those from other developing countries are known to take their domestic help from their respective countries while proceeding on postings abroad including to the US as wages payable there are beyond their paying capacity. Isn’t that the reason why US companies outsource some of the service sector related work to Indian companies working from India? Normally such domestic workers in US are provided free boarding and lodging facilities and are paid the higher bracket of the wages applicable in their own countries. The entire salary therefore becomes a saving for the employed.
Are all diplomats serving in US from various countries of the world paying a monthly salary of $4500 US dollars to their domestic workers? If not, are they not violating US rules? Have their domestic helps been given an A3 visa based on actual wages declared by the diplomats concerned in their respective employment contracts which is lesser than the minimum wages payable in US? Or have the diplomats made false statements in respect of the salary being paid to their domestic helps? If they are indeed paying lesser salaries or have made false statements, why has the Indian diplomat and specifically Ms. Khobragade been singled out and targeted?
This system adopted by Ms. Khobragade seems to be the usual practice of employing domestic aids amongst at least the Indian diplomats. This perhaps is in the knowledge of the MEA. That being so, why did the US Government not consider it necessary to discuss the matter with the Government of India? The Indian Foreign Secretary was in US just a day before the arrest and the matter could have been resolved without much ado. It therefore appears that the aim was to humiliate the particular diplomat and perhaps India in the larger context.
All the Indian diplomats with Indian diplomatic passports and officials with Indian official passports are being paid wages as per Indian rules and norms. Ms. Richard has been issued with an official Indian Passport. For all purposes she is an official of the Government of India. Why is it that she alone amongst the Indian Staff is required to be paid the US rates of salary? The fact is some of the lower staff working in Indian diplomatic missions in US may not be getting paid $4500 as their monthly salary.
Ms. Richard, sometime after her arrival in US, it seems had sought Khobragade’s permission to take up another part-time job in New York. Considering that taking up an employment in US requires a H1B visa which she did not possess and the security implications involved she was perhaps denied permission. However she went missing on June 23, 2013.
Ms. Khobragade tried to report the matter to New York Police Department (NYPD) but was unsuccessful in lodging a complaint. She then approached the Office of the Foreign Missions (OFM) and sought their help in tracing the domestic help. On the advice of the OFM, Khobragade went to file a missing person’s report with the police but was informed that she could not, since Richard was an adult, and that such a report could only be lodged by a member of her family.
The missing person’s report was finally filed by the Police on July, 01, 2013. If such a report could be filed then, why not earlier when the matter was first reported? Why was the diplomat made to run from pillar to post to get a missing person’s report lodged with the Police? What is one expected to do when he gets to know that an individual has gone missing? Start searching for a member of his or her family and waste valuable time? Even if that was the case, why wasn’t the Indian diplomat informed the correct procedure and saved much of the harassment and mental torcher?
When Sangeeta’s husband, was contacted, he refused to file a Missing Person’s Report, probably because he knew the whereabouts of his wife. How did that happen? Either he was informed of the matter by one of the departments of the US Government or his wife has been in touch with him. If she was in police custody, would the authorities have provided such an open ended privilege to her, a facility which according to media reports was denied to the Indian diplomat? Or was she under the protection of some US department?
On July 15, and 19, 2013, Philip Richard, Ms. Richard’s husband filed a writ petition against Khobragade and the Union of India, alleging that his wife Sangeeta Richard was in police custody in New York since July 8, 2013, charging the Indian diplomat with “slave labour” and illegally making Sangeeta sign a ‘second contract’ with far less pay and perks. The Union of India was accused of not paying according to the requirements of the local law. Richard withdrew his writ petition four days later. If the missing person was indeed in NYPD’s custody as stated in the writ petition, why was Ms. Khobargade not informed by the police about the status of her missing person’s complaint? Since Ms Richard was an Indian official passport holder, wasn’t it the responsibility of the NYPD to inform the Government of India of the status of the individual?
Ms Richard knowing fully well that she had already signed the ‘First Contract’ signed the Second Contract. Why did she agree to sign the ‘Second Contract’? Was she forced to sign the ‘Second Contract’? Does this not show that Ms. Richard was fully aware of the arrangement and was trying to exploit the situation probably with intent to migrate to US?
On July, 01, 2013, a woman claiming to be the Richard’s lawyer had called up Khobragade to stipulate conditions for forestalling Ms. Richard from going to the court. The conditions include, the Indian diplomat should sign the 566 Form authorising the maid to terminate her employment, get her visa status changed from official to normal visa, and, to compensate her for 19 hours of work per day. Khobragade refused to negotiate on phone, insisting that the caller identify herself. The next day Khobragade informed the OFM about these developments in writing, seeking NYPD’s support in ascertaining the identity of the caller and her links with Richard, given that the conversations clearly indicate that the runaway maid was attempting to migrate to the US illegally and was trying to extort money by making false accusations. Ms. Khobragade had also filed a complaint with NYPD. The US embassy in New Delhi was also briefed by the MEA about the missing aid. Reports were filed with the US State Department and NYPD, and a FIR filed in India against Sangeeta Richard. The assistance of the State Department and US Embassy was emphatically solicited in locating the maid and sending her back to India to preempt this being used as an attempt to help an illegal immigrant. Similar requests were made by the Indian embassy in Washington to the US State Department. No action was taken.
Prompted by lack of cooperation by Ms. Sangeeta’s husband, the MEA advised Khobragade to file a First Information Report in Delhi against the Richard’s family for willful deceit and attempt to cheat with a view to illegally migrate to the US employing illegal means. Based on MEA’s advice, the diplomat also filed an anticipatory anti- suit injunction in the Delhi High Court so as to preempt Ms. Richard from filing any case in the US and to avoid litigation in that country.
Delhi High Court issued an ex- parte ad interim injunction against Philip and Sangeeta Richard on September, 20, 2013, restraining them from initiating any legal action or proceedings against Khobragade in any Court / Tribunal / Forum outside India with regard to her employment. On November, 19, 2013, Metropolitan Magistrate of South District, New Delhi, also issued a non bailable arrest warrant against Sangeeta Richard which was forwarded to the US State Department and the US Embassy in India asking them to instruct the authorities concerned to arrest and repatriate the maid to India. No action has been taken by the US. On the other hand the Indian diplomat was arrested and humiliated disregarding Delhi High Court’s injunction orders.
In the meanwhile on July, 08, 2013, Khobragade was called to an immigration lawyer’s office, to discuss terms of settlement with Richard. Accompanied by the consulate officers, Khobragade met Ms. Richard who sought a payment of $ 10,000 and grant of an ordinary Indian passport along with immigration relief required to stay on in the US on that ordinary passport. Ms. Richard was categorically informed by the Consulate officials that she cannot remain in the US under any circumstances without legal authorisation, and that she should return to India as per her contract with Khobragade. Richard was also informed that any discussions over salary or working hours could be settled in the consulate before her return to India. Ms. Richard negated the suggestion stating that she wants to remain in the US. A complaint to the NYPD on the matter was made but was not responded to, as usual. The Government of India revoked Richard’s passport and a notice for termination of her personal identity was also given to OFM with effect from June 22, 2013. Richard is now staying in the US illegally.
Despite these pleas from the Government of India, Ms. Khobragade was arrested on December, 12, 2013 for visa fraud after she had dropped her daughter to the school on the road. Her bail was posted at $ 250,000. Her passport was seized, and was directed not to leave the country or seek another travel document. She could however travel within the US after notifying authorities. Media also reported that the diplomat was permitted to make only one call after the arrest.
What was the hurry in arresting the diplomat in such circumstances? Why on a public road? Could the Indian Ambassador not have been informed in time to enable him to make arrangements for the safety and care of the diplomat’s children? How was she expected to manage her children being in jail? Mother is a vital comfort factor for minor children especially in India. Was this factor taken into account by those who arrested her? When the child came out of the school how was the child expected to cope with the news that her mother has been arrested and was in jail? A country which shouts ‘human rights’ from roof top ought to have known better about minor children’s care and rights.
At this point the Richards connection to US embassy officials would be relevant. Media reports suggest Sangeeta Richard was previously employed by a senior US diplomat (pages 6 & 7). Her parents in laws, the parents of Philip live in the house of a US diplomat at 5, Aurangzeb Lane in New Delhi and the premises used to be the residence of the US embassy's political counselor. Earlier the house was occupied by Geoff Pyatt, Ted Osius and Uzra Beya. Philip's mother worked for the Pyatts as their cook, and the father was employed there as well. The house is currently occupied by a senior US diplomat, and the Richards' continue to live there.
The treachery behind the episode is evident from the fact that on December, 10, 2013, two days before the diplomat’s arrest, Ms. Richards’s husband, Philip and two children were quietly whisked away to the US by an Air India flight. The whole world knows how difficult it is to get a US visa. How was this visa arranged? How and why did the US authorities get in direct contact with the family and flew them out of India into US? Who paid for their airfare? Who is footing their boarding and lodging charges in New York? Why was this done without any information to the Government of India even though the Indian Foreign Secretary was in US when this operation was being planned or perhaps in progress? Was this conspiracy aimed at facilitating the permanent immigration of Richard’s family to US? Who was behind the conspiracy?
Does the US do this in respect of every case of visa fraud and false statement? The only instance I remember when US had flown the family in this manner is that of Mr Ravinder Singh an officer of the R&AW, the Indian external intelligence agency. He was alleged to be a mole of CIA, the US intelligence agency. The question is why was Ms. Richard so very important for the US? Is there a similar conspiracy angle to the entire story?
As for the Indian Government, it was well aware of the manner in which Indian diplomats took their domestic help to the US and the complications involved in the process. As an institution responsible for the safety, prestige and morale of the Indian diplomatic corps, it ought to have resolved the issue with the US Government or given clear directions to Indian diplomats going to the US not to take domestic helps with them. It failed in its responsibility.
It is time India realised that diplomacy is not appeasement. US acted in this manner because it was confident that it could do this and get away with it. Could US have done this with Russia or China? Or could they have stripped and carried out a cavity search of a lady leave alone a diplomat from the Muslim world? US will respect India only if it learns to be correct and firm in its dealings.
Indian diplomat’s arrest in US: Media coverage and some intriguing questions & answers
V Mahalingam
Devyani Khobragade, deputy consul general at the consulate general of India in New York was arrested, handcuffed; strip and cavity searched in custody and made to stand with common criminals, drug addicts and sex workers by the New York Police. More than these indignities, the associated actions connected with the incident enacted by various US departments raise a number of questions and suspicions.
The Special Agent, United State Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security specifies two charges based on which he has required the United States Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York to issue a warrant of arrest for the diplomat. The first charge relates to visa fraud. The charge alleges that the diplomat under oath had made a false statement in the employment contract (First Employment Contract) submitted in support of visa application in respect of Sangeeta Richard, employed for working as a domestic worker with her in New York. The second charge concerns a false statement in the employment contract (First Employment Contract) stating that she would pay $4500 US dollars as monthly salary whereas she actually paid $573 US dollars as per a subsequent contract (Second Employment Contract) signed shortly before her departure to New York.
The salary of most of the Indian diplomats in US is around Rs 3 lakh per month and Devyani herself is not getting more than Rs 4 lakh per month. How could she afford to pay $4500 US dollars per month to her domestic help which amounts to approximately Rs 2.8 lakh in addition to free boarding and lodging? Incidentally, a large number of post graduate technical workers from India employed in US are paid about $4500 to 6000 US dollars per month as their monthly salary without any boarding or lodging. Where is the logic?
Most Indian diplomats as well as those from other developing countries are known to take their domestic help from their respective countries while proceeding on postings abroad including to the US as wages payable there are beyond their paying capacity. Isn’t that the reason why US companies outsource some of the service sector related work to Indian companies working from India? Normally such domestic workers in US are provided free boarding and lodging facilities and are paid the higher bracket of the wages applicable in their own countries. The entire salary therefore becomes a saving for the employed.
Are all diplomats serving in US from various countries of the world paying a monthly salary of $4500 US dollars to their domestic workers? If not, are they not violating US rules? Have their domestic helps been given an A3 visa based on actual wages declared by the diplomats concerned in their respective employment contracts which is lesser than the minimum wages payable in US? Or have the diplomats made false statements in respect of the salary being paid to their domestic helps? If they are indeed paying lesser salaries or have made false statements, why has the Indian diplomat and specifically Ms. Khobragade been singled out and targeted?
This system adopted by Ms. Khobragade seems to be the usual practice of employing domestic aids amongst at least the Indian diplomats. This perhaps is in the knowledge of the MEA. That being so, why did the US Government not consider it necessary to discuss the matter with the Government of India? The Indian Foreign Secretary was in US just a day before the arrest and the matter could have been resolved without much ado. It therefore appears that the aim was to humiliate the particular diplomat and perhaps India in the larger context.
All the Indian diplomats with Indian diplomatic passports and officials with Indian official passports are being paid wages as per Indian rules and norms. Ms. Richard has been issued with an official Indian Passport. For all purposes she is an official of the Government of India. Why is it that she alone amongst the Indian Staff is required to be paid the US rates of salary? The fact is some of the lower staff working in Indian diplomatic missions in US may not be getting paid $4500 as their monthly salary.
Ms. Richard, sometime after her arrival in US, it seems had sought Khobragade’s permission to take up another part-time job in New York. Considering that taking up an employment in US requires a H1B visa which she did not possess and the security implications involved she was perhaps denied permission. However she went missing on June 23, 2013.
Ms. Khobragade tried to report the matter to New York Police Department (NYPD) but was unsuccessful in lodging a complaint. She then approached the Office of the Foreign Missions (OFM) and sought their help in tracing the domestic help. On the advice of the OFM, Khobragade went to file a missing person’s report with the police but was informed that she could not, since Richard was an adult, and that such a report could only be lodged by a member of her family.
The missing person’s report was finally filed by the Police on July, 01, 2013. If such a report could be filed then, why not earlier when the matter was first reported? Why was the diplomat made to run from pillar to post to get a missing person’s report lodged with the Police? What is one expected to do when he gets to know that an individual has gone missing? Start searching for a member of his or her family and waste valuable time? Even if that was the case, why wasn’t the Indian diplomat informed the correct procedure and saved much of the harassment and mental torcher?
When Sangeeta’s husband, was contacted, he refused to file a Missing Person’s Report, probably because he knew the whereabouts of his wife. How did that happen? Either he was informed of the matter by one of the departments of the US Government or his wife has been in touch with him. If she was in police custody, would the authorities have provided such an open ended privilege to her, a facility which according to media reports was denied to the Indian diplomat? Or was she under the protection of some US department?
On July 15, and 19, 2013, Philip Richard, Ms. Richard’s husband filed a writ petition against Khobragade and the Union of India, alleging that his wife Sangeeta Richard was in police custody in New York since July 8, 2013, charging the Indian diplomat with “slave labour” and illegally making Sangeeta sign a ‘second contract’ with far less pay and perks. The Union of India was accused of not paying according to the requirements of the local law. Richard withdrew his writ petition four days later. If the missing person was indeed in NYPD’s custody as stated in the writ petition, why was Ms. Khobargade not informed by the police about the status of her missing person’s complaint? Since Ms Richard was an Indian official passport holder, wasn’t it the responsibility of the NYPD to inform the Government of India of the status of the individual?
Ms Richard knowing fully well that she had already signed the ‘First Contract’ signed the Second Contract. Why did she agree to sign the ‘Second Contract’? Was she forced to sign the ‘Second Contract’? Does this not show that Ms. Richard was fully aware of the arrangement and was trying to exploit the situation probably with intent to migrate to US?
On July, 01, 2013, a woman claiming to be the Richard’s lawyer had called up Khobragade to stipulate conditions for forestalling Ms. Richard from going to the court. The conditions include, the Indian diplomat should sign the 566 Form authorising the maid to terminate her employment, get her visa status changed from official to normal visa, and, to compensate her for 19 hours of work per day. Khobragade refused to negotiate on phone, insisting that the caller identify herself. The next day Khobragade informed the OFM about these developments in writing, seeking NYPD’s support in ascertaining the identity of the caller and her links with Richard, given that the conversations clearly indicate that the runaway maid was attempting to migrate to the US illegally and was trying to extort money by making false accusations. Ms. Khobragade had also filed a complaint with NYPD. The US embassy in New Delhi was also briefed by the MEA about the missing aid. Reports were filed with the US State Department and NYPD, and a FIR filed in India against Sangeeta Richard. The assistance of the State Department and US Embassy was emphatically solicited in locating the maid and sending her back to India to preempt this being used as an attempt to help an illegal immigrant. Similar requests were made by the Indian embassy in Washington to the US State Department. No action was taken.
Prompted by lack of cooperation by Ms. Sangeeta’s husband, the MEA advised Khobragade to file a First Information Report in Delhi against the Richard’s family for willful deceit and attempt to cheat with a view to illegally migrate to the US employing illegal means. Based on MEA’s advice, the diplomat also filed an anticipatory anti- suit injunction in the Delhi High Court so as to preempt Ms. Richard from filing any case in the US and to avoid litigation in that country.
Delhi High Court issued an ex- parte ad interim injunction against Philip and Sangeeta Richard on September, 20, 2013, restraining them from initiating any legal action or proceedings against Khobragade in any Court / Tribunal / Forum outside India with regard to her employment. On November, 19, 2013, Metropolitan Magistrate of South District, New Delhi, also issued a non bailable arrest warrant against Sangeeta Richard which was forwarded to the US State Department and the US Embassy in India asking them to instruct the authorities concerned to arrest and repatriate the maid to India. No action has been taken by the US. On the other hand the Indian diplomat was arrested and humiliated disregarding Delhi High Court’s injunction orders.
In the meanwhile on July, 08, 2013, Khobragade was called to an immigration lawyer’s office, to discuss terms of settlement with Richard. Accompanied by the consulate officers, Khobragade met Ms. Richard who sought a payment of $ 10,000 and grant of an ordinary Indian passport along with immigration relief required to stay on in the US on that ordinary passport. Ms. Richard was categorically informed by the Consulate officials that she cannot remain in the US under any circumstances without legal authorisation, and that she should return to India as per her contract with Khobragade. Richard was also informed that any discussions over salary or working hours could be settled in the consulate before her return to India. Ms. Richard negated the suggestion stating that she wants to remain in the US. A complaint to the NYPD on the matter was made but was not responded to, as usual. The Government of India revoked Richard’s passport and a notice for termination of her personal identity was also given to OFM with effect from June 22, 2013. Richard is now staying in the US illegally.
Despite these pleas from the Government of India, Ms. Khobragade was arrested on December, 12, 2013 for visa fraud after she had dropped her daughter to the school on the road. Her bail was posted at $ 250,000. Her passport was seized, and was directed not to leave the country or seek another travel document. She could however travel within the US after notifying authorities. Media also reported that the diplomat was permitted to make only one call after the arrest.
What was the hurry in arresting the diplomat in such circumstances? Why on a public road? Could the Indian Ambassador not have been informed in time to enable him to make arrangements for the safety and care of the diplomat’s children? How was she expected to manage her children being in jail? Mother is a vital comfort factor for minor children especially in India. Was this factor taken into account by those who arrested her? When the child came out of the school how was the child expected to cope with the news that her mother has been arrested and was in jail? A country which shouts ‘human rights’ from roof top ought to have known better about minor children’s care and rights.
At this point the Richards connection to US embassy officials would be relevant. Media reports suggest Sangeeta Richard was previously employed by a senior US diplomat (pages 6 & 7). Her parents in laws, the parents of Philip live in the house of a US diplomat at 5, Aurangzeb Lane in New Delhi and the premises used to be the residence of the US embassy's political counselor. Earlier the house was occupied by Geoff Pyatt, Ted Osius and Uzra Beya. Philip's mother worked for the Pyatts as their cook, and the father was employed there as well. The house is currently occupied by a senior US diplomat, and the Richards' continue to live there.
The treachery behind the episode is evident from the fact that on December, 10, 2013, two days before the diplomat’s arrest, Ms. Richards’s husband, Philip and two children were quietly whisked away to the US by an Air India flight. The whole world knows how difficult it is to get a US visa. How was this visa arranged? How and why did the US authorities get in direct contact with the family and flew them out of India into US? Who paid for their airfare? Who is footing their boarding and lodging charges in New York? Why was this done without any information to the Government of India even though the Indian Foreign Secretary was in US when this operation was being planned or perhaps in progress? Was this conspiracy aimed at facilitating the permanent immigration of Richard’s family to US? Who was behind the conspiracy?
Does the US do this in respect of every case of visa fraud and false statement? The only instance I remember when US had flown the family in this manner is that of Mr Ravinder Singh an officer of the R&AW, the Indian external intelligence agency. He was alleged to be a mole of CIA, the US intelligence agency. The question is why was Ms. Richard so very important for the US? Is there a similar conspiracy angle to the entire story?
As for the Indian Government, it was well aware of the manner in which Indian diplomats took their domestic help to the US and the complications involved in the process. As an institution responsible for the safety, prestige and morale of the Indian diplomatic corps, it ought to have resolved the issue with the US Government or given clear directions to Indian diplomats going to the US not to take domestic helps with them. It failed in its responsibility.
It is time India realised that diplomacy is not appeasement. US acted in this manner because it was confident that it could do this and get away with it. Could US have done this with Russia or China? Or could they have stripped and carried out a cavity search of a lady leave alone a diplomat from the Muslim world? US will respect India only if it learns to be correct and firm in its dealings.
Tshering22
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Messages
- 18,431
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
If only these bloody opportunist politicians had shown this spine when our soldiers were beheaded in our own land and how an aggressive army got into our territory and not leave it for 3 days.
Pitiful attempts to look strong before elections.
Pitiful attempts to look strong before elections.
agree . there should be consistency and measure of equivalence in our stance ...
Today Indian government is taking strong position because of riled up bureaucracy....
because one of them was insulted and humiliated ...
It is matter of shame that our government let the matter of murder of civilians and armed forces go unheard and unanswered ...
Government has already left 26/11 behind itself and so also the be-heading of our soldiers ...
Similar threads
- Article
