Cherokee
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 6,722
- Reaction score
- -15
- Country
- Location
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.
However, the question being asked now is whether the state department and the bureau have shot themselves in the foot by misinterpreting or misreading information furnished by housekeeper Sangeeta Richards when she applied for the A-3 dependant visa. According to Khobragade's attorney Daniel Arshack, the special agent (Mark Smith) who drew up charges against his client made "a key error" in reading a form submitted on behalf of nanny Sangeeta, mistaking Khobragade's listed base salary of $4,500 per month for what she intended to pay her housekeeper.
Here is how the flub could have occurred. Sangeeta Richard was required to submit a form DS-160, along with her visa application [see sample here (pdf file)]. The application seeks the applicant's work/education/training information. It asks for the present employer's name and then asks for month salary in local currency. Who's month salary? The obvious answer is the visa applicant's monthly salary.
But here is where Sangeeta Richard put in her employer Devyani Khobragade's monthly salary, which is approximately $ 4500 per month, whereas she should have put in $ 1560 per month — the negotiated $ 9.95 per hour for a 40-hour work-week which works out to $ 390 per week x 4 weeks = $1560.
"It's incredibly unsexy kind of information, but it does go right to the heart of what this is about," says Khobragade's attorney Daniel Arshack, adding that it became apparent as he and others closely reviewed the forms Khobragade was required to submit to arrange for the hiring of her housekeeper that the information she had submitted had been misunderstood.
"It is clear that Mark Smith, the Diplomatic Security Services agent who handled the investigation and arrest of Dr Khobragade and who drew up and swore to the accuracy of the formal complaint in this case, simply made an error in reading the DS 160 form which supported the visa application for the domestic worker, Sangeeta Richard. He erroneously and disastrously believed that the $4,500/month salary entry on the form was Ms Richard's expected salary when, in fact, it was clearly a reporting of the base salary to be earned by the employer, Dr Khobragade, in the United States," Arshack explained in an email to ToI.
On his part, the diplomat's father Uttam Khobragade had told this correspondent very early on in the fracas that there was no way his daughter could have promised the housekeeper $4500 a month when that was approximately her own salary. The agreed amount was $9.75 per hour for a 40-hour work week (amounting to $1560 for four weeks) of which Rs 30,000 was paid in Indian rupees to her family in India and the rest to the housekeeper in New York as living expenses.
"Devyani did not submit a single document or made any statement to the US authorities for the visa of Ms Sangeeta Richard," Uttam Khobragade said in an email to this correspondent soon after the controversy erupted. "The said agreement/employment contract which is being referred to, is not a statement under oath. It is a proper contract signed between two Indian citizens in Delhi, between two parties, and any violation thereof is in domain of civil law and no criminality is involved. Moreover it is an accepted principle of the law that person who submits the document is responsible."
If the case goes to trial — and it might never come to that — then the housekeeper Sangeeta Richard herself could be under the lens for misrepresenting and claiming a $4500 per month salary, which is way beyond the $9.75 per hour for 40 weeks she contracted with the diplomat. There could also be questions about how she was paid Rs 30,000 per month in India through her family, although such arrangement is said to be common among domestic staff attached to diplomats so that they bankroll their families in India and also avoid taxes, wire transfer fees etc.
But even more, as more inconsistencies come to light, the spotlight will be on the state department, its Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and the US attorney Preet Bharara for the haste with which they initiated the arrest of the Indian diplomat.
Over the past few days, the overall narrative of the story has begun to veer towards the motive and modus operandi of the housekeeper, with the Indian diplomatic corps charging that she used her contacts in the US Embassy in Delhi to trump up false charges against Khobragade to emigrate to the US with her family.
"There is simply no case here of her being underpaid, much less mistreated," one Indian official who has studied the case closely insisted on background. "This is a domestic help who planned the move to the T by abusing the diplomat's trust and naivete." As for the housekeeper's complaint that she was overworked, the official maintained that working hours was hard to compute in a live-in situation with a diplomatic household, and many domestic staff were misrepresenting this to make a case for immigration.
"The children walk into her room at 6am to play with her. Does that constitute work? Or the family is away on vacation for a week leaving the nanny at home. Is that work?" the official asked.
Beyond all that, the Indian foreign service fraternity is still in shock and outrage at the treatment meted out to Khobragade by the US Marshals Service, and the state department's insistence that it was "normal procedure" notwithstanding secretary of state John Kerry's qualified regret.
The ham-handed manner in which the state department handled the issue, as much as the heavy-handed way the cops handled Khobragade, has soured equations between the two sides in a way that will not be easily repaired for a long time, several officials who have spoken to this correspondent in recent says have said.
However, the question being asked now is whether the state department and the bureau have shot themselves in the foot by misinterpreting or misreading information furnished by housekeeper Sangeeta Richards when she applied for the A-3 dependant visa. According to Khobragade's attorney Daniel Arshack, the special agent (Mark Smith) who drew up charges against his client made "a key error" in reading a form submitted on behalf of nanny Sangeeta, mistaking Khobragade's listed base salary of $4,500 per month for what she intended to pay her housekeeper.
Here is how the flub could have occurred. Sangeeta Richard was required to submit a form DS-160, along with her visa application [see sample here (pdf file)]. The application seeks the applicant's work/education/training information. It asks for the present employer's name and then asks for month salary in local currency. Who's month salary? The obvious answer is the visa applicant's monthly salary.
But here is where Sangeeta Richard put in her employer Devyani Khobragade's monthly salary, which is approximately $ 4500 per month, whereas she should have put in $ 1560 per month — the negotiated $ 9.95 per hour for a 40-hour work-week which works out to $ 390 per week x 4 weeks = $1560.
"It's incredibly unsexy kind of information, but it does go right to the heart of what this is about," says Khobragade's attorney Daniel Arshack, adding that it became apparent as he and others closely reviewed the forms Khobragade was required to submit to arrange for the hiring of her housekeeper that the information she had submitted had been misunderstood.
"It is clear that Mark Smith, the Diplomatic Security Services agent who handled the investigation and arrest of Dr Khobragade and who drew up and swore to the accuracy of the formal complaint in this case, simply made an error in reading the DS 160 form which supported the visa application for the domestic worker, Sangeeta Richard. He erroneously and disastrously believed that the $4,500/month salary entry on the form was Ms Richard's expected salary when, in fact, it was clearly a reporting of the base salary to be earned by the employer, Dr Khobragade, in the United States," Arshack explained in an email to ToI.
On his part, the diplomat's father Uttam Khobragade had told this correspondent very early on in the fracas that there was no way his daughter could have promised the housekeeper $4500 a month when that was approximately her own salary. The agreed amount was $9.75 per hour for a 40-hour work week (amounting to $1560 for four weeks) of which Rs 30,000 was paid in Indian rupees to her family in India and the rest to the housekeeper in New York as living expenses.
"Devyani did not submit a single document or made any statement to the US authorities for the visa of Ms Sangeeta Richard," Uttam Khobragade said in an email to this correspondent soon after the controversy erupted. "The said agreement/employment contract which is being referred to, is not a statement under oath. It is a proper contract signed between two Indian citizens in Delhi, between two parties, and any violation thereof is in domain of civil law and no criminality is involved. Moreover it is an accepted principle of the law that person who submits the document is responsible."
If the case goes to trial — and it might never come to that — then the housekeeper Sangeeta Richard herself could be under the lens for misrepresenting and claiming a $4500 per month salary, which is way beyond the $9.75 per hour for 40 weeks she contracted with the diplomat. There could also be questions about how she was paid Rs 30,000 per month in India through her family, although such arrangement is said to be common among domestic staff attached to diplomats so that they bankroll their families in India and also avoid taxes, wire transfer fees etc.
But even more, as more inconsistencies come to light, the spotlight will be on the state department, its Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and the US attorney Preet Bharara for the haste with which they initiated the arrest of the Indian diplomat.
Over the past few days, the overall narrative of the story has begun to veer towards the motive and modus operandi of the housekeeper, with the Indian diplomatic corps charging that she used her contacts in the US Embassy in Delhi to trump up false charges against Khobragade to emigrate to the US with her family.
"There is simply no case here of her being underpaid, much less mistreated," one Indian official who has studied the case closely insisted on background. "This is a domestic help who planned the move to the T by abusing the diplomat's trust and naivete." As for the housekeeper's complaint that she was overworked, the official maintained that working hours was hard to compute in a live-in situation with a diplomatic household, and many domestic staff were misrepresenting this to make a case for immigration.
"The children walk into her room at 6am to play with her. Does that constitute work? Or the family is away on vacation for a week leaving the nanny at home. Is that work?" the official asked.
Beyond all that, the Indian foreign service fraternity is still in shock and outrage at the treatment meted out to Khobragade by the US Marshals Service, and the state department's insistence that it was "normal procedure" notwithstanding secretary of state John Kerry's qualified regret.
The ham-handed manner in which the state department handled the issue, as much as the heavy-handed way the cops handled Khobragade, has soured equations between the two sides in a way that will not be easily repaired for a long time, several officials who have spoken to this correspondent in recent says have said.
