What's new

India expels American diplomat

Just because US has not explicitly said whether request for Diplomatic immunity was received or not does not rule out it.
Agreed. For now, this is an unknown.

In any case US did grant her full diplomatic immunity despite case pending against her ....Shows US commitment to justice... US doesn't not give damn about values and principles -
If "normal" diplomatic immunity had been requested the answer would probably have been "no". However, this was U.N. immunity. It was India's duty, under the 1946 U.N. Personnel Convention, to waive Khobragade's immunity, yet India did not do so. The legal and moral failing is thus India's, not America's.
 
. .
I didn't see any American arrogance in this episode, only respect for the law.

Offcourse you won't. Especially after getting egg on the face. This is anything but respect of law. It is like saying Krittika Biswas was treated according to US laws. Because you know, US respects international laws very much. While whisking away it's diplomats and soldiers who committed grave criminal acts...

Russian diplomats a year or so ago were apparently engaged in financial fraud. Khobragade was engaged in human trafficking - classed as a "grave crime" under international law and thus, under the Consular Convention, she was subject to different treatment than the Russians.
Umm, sorry, how is it different in the eyes of the "law"? Under consular convention, she had full diplomatic immunity. Also, she was arrested and charged for "lying on visa declaration", not for human trafficking. But, hey, don't let some small details bother you...

As I've tried to explain before, the prosecuting attorney of the Southern District of New York outranks the State Dept. The only person whose "b@lls will be up for sale" will be the State Dept. employee who failed to request "special treatment" for Khobragade not to be strip-searched.
Oh, I am sure DAs is up for sale.... Man, what an episode, better than bully beatdown...
 
.
Dashing out a letter and then becoming incommunicado is not called "talking". India tried to contact US on this matter multiple times, but to no avail.
Scanning the press briefings, I could not find a U.S. acknowledgment that India responded to the Sept. 4th letter. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. I might have missed something.
 
.
Scanning the press briefings, I could not find a U.S. acknowledgment that India responded to the Sept. 4th letter. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. I might have missed something.
The link supplied by you lists multiple instances after Sep 4, and I see no reason to doubt it.
 
.
Umm, sorry, how is it different in the eyes of the "law"?
Financial fraud isn't a "grave crime" but human trafficking is. The Consular Convention treats "grave crimes" differently.

Under consular convention, she had full diplomatic immunity.
No, she only has immunity for acts performed as part of her consular duties.

Also, she was arrested and charged for "lying on visa declaration", not for human trafficking. But, hey, don't let some small details bother you...
Yes, I wonder about that, whether the "human trafficking" charge had to be specifically made. I think it's a good question, but I think the answer is "no"; that's just what the apparent pattern of the accused's acts need to indicate.

The link supplied by you lists multiple instances after Sep 4, and I see no reason to doubt it.
Can you bring up the quote of the American acknowledgment of receiving an Indian response to the Sept. 4th letter?
 
.
Financial fraud isn't a "grave crime" but human trafficking is. The Consular Convention treats "grave crimes" differently.
Nope. There have been more than 50 similar cases till now. This is the first arrest. Ergo, it is not a grave crime. Otherwise in all 50 cases arrests would have been made.

No, she only has immunity for acts performed as part of her consular duties.
Which part of deputed to UN as adviser you did not understand?

Yes, I wonder about that, whether the "human trafficking" charge had to be specifically made. I think it's a good question, but I think the answer is "no"; that's just what the apparent pattern of the accused's acts need to indicate.
You charge one with murder if he commits murder. If he did not but tried to, then it will be attempted murder. Bottom line, you need to charge exactly what one is accused of and one will be accused of what exactly he is been charged for. In this case, all Devyani had to do is to prove she did not lie on visa application (or prosecution to prove that she did).

Can you bring up the quote of the American acknowledgment of receiving an Indian response to the Sept. 4th letter?
Never said US did. Just saying there is no reason to doubt the reports.
 
.
Nope. There have been more than 50 similar cases till now. This is the first arrest. Ergo, it is not a grave crime. Otherwise in all 50 cases arrests would have been made.
U.S. law changed in 2011. All embassies and consulates were notified of the change. This wasn't the first case with an Indian dip; there was a previous one, settled out of court - but the dip absconded to India the courts there declared India didn't have to follow the Consular Convention and the dip didn't have to pay.

Which part of deputed to UN as adviser you did not understand?
You're running in circles here: there is no evidence - nothing legible, anyway - that Khobragade was "deputed to the U.N." before she was arrested in Dec.

You charge one with murder if he commits murder. If he did not but tried to, then it will be attempted murder. Bottom line, you need to charge exactly what one is accused of and one will be accused of what exactly he is been charged for.
If the evidence didn't point to a "grave crime" having been committed, Khobragade likely would not have been arrested, just like the Russians were not arrested. We're talking about arrest here, not prosecution.

Never said US did. Just saying there is no reason to doubt the reports.
Pity it appears no reporter persisted in asking the State Dept. this question, did the U.S. ever get a response from the Indians to the Sept. 4 letter.
 
.
I always thought you to be a good analyst, but I guess you failed this time in the whole episode. ( I read some of your previous comments )

I agree that US should have conducted the arrest and other things more civilly given her statute, but that doesn't absolve her of the alleged crime.

First, the maid was employed in US under A3 visa that is subjected to US laws, and this is a clear case of US laws being violated. So naturally US has the right to take action.

Second, she was not fully immune, if that would have been the case India would not have transferred her to UN mission to get her the full immunity.

Third, why not a thought for the maid. Is it because she is less privileged? You are forgetting she too was an Indian too and was the victim in the whole episode and not Kobragade.

Fourth, if she would have been charged for alleged spying or something of those kind of charges, then I am would have supported all of India's actions.

Last, this whole affair is not of India's national interest as portrayed by media. Here we are taking side of a alleged criminal. India spent huge amount of political capital to shield an alleged criminal.

If this reaction would have been for Kalam, I would have supported India and would have even suggested to go beyond these actions, but not in this case.


I will start from your last point - what India's national interest you are talking about ?

India took side of Devyani because she is Indian diplomat and not because she is criminal or not . what do you expect india to do ? Especially after the public humiliation that was heaped on ...it was impossible for Indian leadership to act discreetly .
This episode happened because US decided to blow it out of proportion ( whatever may have been objective to do that ? )
You have seen only one side of the story . The manner in which Devyani was arrested was totally unacceptable . She was not ordinary criminal but diplomat representing our country . US as a friendly country should have demonstrated some sensitivity .

The sheer US arrogance that it demonstrated in handling this issue depicted that it does not care about Indian interest or concerns.

There is no doubt that Devyani was guilty of breaking US law ....but she is not only to be blamed . It is systematic failure ...

Our authorities should have sought diplomatic visa for IBDA so that they will have been taken off purview of US domestic laws ...

It doesn't make sense if domestic assistants get to go to US on official passport with transport ,health insurance and what not shelved from pockets Indian government only to be subjected to US domestic laws because US insists to give them A3 visas....

It shouldn't be mandatory for such domestic assistants to be paid wages at par with US laws for it creates anomaly ....imagine domestic assistants , maids getting pays that are comparable to those GOI employee like diplomats for whom they are employed in first place . This systemic anomaly has been introduced due to differences in currency and economy of local and host country . Devyani is not the only one involved in this fiasco ....and if we justify US action on Devyani many other Indian and other diplomats would be found guilty ....we simply couldn't have let this happen .

Devyani is as much a victim of this systematic failure ...

Question is not whether maid was ignored for being less privileged ...
The maid disregarded the Indian justice system ...maid tried to exploit the 'legal' loophole and therefore can't be adjudged as victim ....to rather put it straight ...maid gained more than anyone else in this fiasco .... Maid used American laws and system towards her benefit ...but in the process she put whole country in dock ....

There is no evidence of maid having raised her issues with Indian consul ...

If maid was on Indian official passport and her expenses being born by Indian consul and she being Indian she should have put forth her grievances to Indian consul first ....

Did the maid do right thing by bypassing the authority and undermining proper hierarchy ???

If maid had done even single attempt to bring forth her grievances to Indian consul and failed in getting hearing then she would have been justified to approach American authorities !!! Did she do that ???

why did not maid trust Indian system ??? she made enemy out of whole Indian establishment by approaching American authorities ??? Indian establishment had no option but to side with its diplomat simply because the maid chose to wash dirty linen in public ...Maid's intention was not to get justice but to get mileage out of this ...

maid used Diplomat as gateway to US ...she barely worked for 6 months ...and was apparently happy for the way she was treated ....as some of the record shows ....naturally what salary she was getting as per Indian standards was not enough as far as American standards are concerned ...for this reason she wanted to get rid of Diplomat ...to work somewhere else in US ...This is classic story of greed .

Devyani wanted to exploit the system as other diplomats have been doing ... and maid also tried to do exactly samething by exploiting the legal loophole . It is for this reason I have no love for maid just as I have none for Devyani .we were forced to defend her merely because she was our diplomat and part of Devayni's problem was contributed by government. we had to defend the dignity of our country that was at stake along with Devyani ...

Given the specifics of case ....Us is guilty of treating whole Indian establishment as Oppressor ...Between 4'th September to 12'th December there were several communications from Indian consul to US state department and other authorities ....US authorities maintained tactical silence about all ...refusing to even respond to our communiques ...

US was bidding time and surreptiously whisked away family of maid ....during all this time it did not give Indian authorities any ink link as to what it indented to do with this case virtually keeping Indian establishment in darkness .

To add to this when Foreign secretary Sujatha singh and her delegation was in talks with US almost simultaneously order to arrest our diplomat and required authorization was cleared ....This was very calculated move ....
US had no courtesy to even apprise our delegation ...and what do you expect India authorities to do ???

Do you still feel defending diplomat was childish action ???

I feel sorry if some people like you feel defending representative of our country as childish action ....

I have no love for Devyani ...hell she should be booked for corruption and if convicted should be put to jail ....

But that does not mean I would justify US action to humiliate our country by making example out of Devyani ....

US is no champion of human rights or justice or equality before law or whatever they may pretend ....!!!

and we have no reason to let them play this game of charades with us ....


If we had not taken stand and stayed firm things would not have changed ...

at least now both Indian and US governments will address the issue of IBDAs and the vis awith which they will be allowed to accompany Indian consul staff will be cleared ....

I hope such nasty incidents won't happen in future again ....

as far as damage to Indo- US relations are concerned ...I am glad that myth about Indo-US friendship is broken ultimately ...
at least some policy makers will be awakened from deep slumber in which they had sweet dreams of great American savior that will lead India to her place in world .

India has to earn her rightful place in world on her own strength .... no need to bank on back stabber US for that ...!!!
 
.
If "normal" diplomatic immunity had been requested the answer would probably have been "no". However, this was U.N. immunity. It was India's duty, under the 1946 U.N. Personnel Convention, to waive Khobragade's immunity, yet India did not do so. The legal and moral failing is thus India's, not America's.


Americans are good in hair splitting besides being utter hypocrite ....

The ball was in US court ...and US had no obligation to accord UN diplomat status and related immunity on Devyani ...especially with a solid case against her ....that too regarding the most gullible and condemnable crime of Human trafficking, perjury , visa fraud , forgery and what not ...

US state department could have simply said ....hey look here is case pending against the Devyani khobragade under which she will be likely be convicted ....India has ploy to get her UN diplomat status simply because it intends to evade US justice system ....There is no question of India waiving immunity ...If that was the case it would not have made such move in first place ...

US state department , if it expected India to waive off immunity ..simply made fool of itself ....

It was indeed very very stupid of US state department to ask India to waive off immunity for which India had haggled with US for past 1 month ....The very reason US state department did that ..was not because it expected India to agree to such ludicrous demand ...but simply US state department needed that for record purpose ...to just make it appear that It did its job it was India who refused to waive off the immunity .... That's why I call repeatedly that US is the most hypocrite country in whole world ...given the sophistications with which it conducts its hypocrisy ....!!!

Now I am forced to say that US state department is not only Hypocrite of first order bur also is stupid of first order ....

Anyway your hypocrisy shows off in your attempt to shift blame to gullible India instead of 'holier than god' - state department !!!
 
.
U.S. law changed in 2011. All embassies and consulates were notified of the change. This wasn't the first case with an Indian dip; there was a previous one, settled out of court - but the dip absconded to India the courts there declared India didn't have to follow the Consular Convention and the dip didn't have to pay.
Law changed since 2008. Still many more cases after that. See link below.
Diplomats immuned to charges of human trafficking - Washington Times
Highhandedness and flouting Vienna convention by US is not new either. See the case Kritikka Biswas, who was falsely charged of cyber bullying and arrested even though she had dip immunity. But hey, US can do no wrong....

You're running in circles here: there is no evidence - nothing legible, anyway - that Khobragade was "deputed to the U.N." before she was arrested in Dec.
Nope. It is statement by India. Until it is refuted by US, it stands that way. Each and every postings are not made public. When US was very keen to say consular immunity was limited, they are still "checking" with UN on this one.... way to go....

If the evidence didn't point to a "grave crime" having been committed, Khobragade likely would not have been arrested, just like the Russians were not arrested. We're talking about arrest here, not prosecution.
I wasn't talking about Russians only. There have been multiple instances of human trafficking allegations against diplomats of other countries, none have been arrested. In 2011, an US judge dismissed the allegation citing dip immunity and even said to the effect that victim is denied justice but it will save US dip families in other countries from abuse.

Pity it appears no reporter persisted in asking the State Dept. this question, did the U.S. ever get a response from the Indians to the Sept. 4 letter.
When did US media ask right questions anyway. US has kind of become police state recently. Who know, NSA is tracking me right now and I might be thrown to jail or deported for showing "dangerous" intent. Media would justify, as it did during illegal wars...
 
.
If you've hated him for years but you like him now, don't you think you should have second thoughts about your own convictions?


I don't like him ,I just appreciate this article. Its almost as if some other analyst wrote it.

Madhur Bhandarkar has a history of using his pessimism over his readers with some "selective" facts. He never gives a complete analysis or a practical one , just a bunch of criticisms and predictions of doom.

Odds are , he will revert back to his original style with his next article. My convictions are on firm footing , will always remain so.
 
. .
It is about the face of India.


VERY VERY WELL SAID.

No one can understand this idea better than a Chinese.

As the saying goes , A Chinese loosing his face is like a Russian loosing his soul.

and I strongly believe that this is common among a wide variety of Asian cultures --Aatm Samman , Izzat , Face , Sense of honour are common attributes across Asia.

If Sangeeta Richards was guilty or innocent , the Indian courts would have convicted or exonerated her. Preet Bharara had no business justifying the evacuation of Richard's husband and kids because as he says to " avoid pressure from elements in India " .

That is utter contempt towards the Indian Judiciary and any one part of this --Wayne May , the diplomat should be tried under Indian laws. Logically if American Laws supercede Vienna Conventions ( Keeping in Mind Devyani already had complete immunity at the time of her arrest ) for Indians and in the spirit of reciprocity , Indian laws should supercede Vienna Conventions when American Diplomatic personnel are concerned.

A question of quid pro quo arises.

However if Devyani is found to be guilty in harassing her maid / Adarsh scam etc. it is the Indian Court's job to convict her not any American's business to interfere with an Indian Legal process and impose their laws or self-perceived notions of justice and righteousness on another countries sovereignty.

Both the maid and Devyani were complicit but its not the U.S 's job to tarnish a country's image or disrespect its judicial process because of a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL's complicity . Therein lies the crux of the problem.
 
.
Bharara's office didn't deny it, they termed it as "Standard procedure", and we have no reason to believe US marshals over our own diplomat and MEA.

U.S Marshals' office spokesperson has gone on record and U.S Marshals comes under the US DOJ - Preet need not issue a statement as he does not represent USM office. So it is a question of US Marshals' spokesperson vs Devyani's claim. I did not see any official MEA statement in this regard.

Seeing how vociferous DK, her father and her attorney is in dishing out statements to media, after US Marshals' spokesperson mentioned that there was no cavity search in response to the intial claims of DK and her family, there was no further contradictions or claims from DK, her father or her attorney.

So the question is not USM office vs MEA claims. It is a question of USM office vs DK and her father's claims. And I will leave it to one's interpretation on who has more credibility.
 
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom