What's new

Khobragade to USA: You have lost a good friend. In return, you got a maid and drunken driver

So are you saying that masters and servants outside South Asia sit in each other's laps and wear the same clothes ?

P.S- I don't know why but I just don't like this woman at all.

Had it not been for her position as a representative of India, nobody would have cared about this woman.

How about average people should not have servants. Why are the labor of people worth so little in India? No wonder life and labor is so cheap in India. So many servants. And now I start to understand why there are so many white servants in India superpower video. Its because there are so many servants in India. And the producer of that movie want to be racist against white people by making white people servants. They don't think its a big deal as everyone have servants. But to Americans, so many servants existed only back in the south prior to civil rights movement. After that, only the very wealthy have servants.

Lets put it this way, grocery stores and department store would pay around $12 dollars an hour. These jobs are plentiful. So a servant should get more paid unless they want a 19 year old servant that would quit at a drop of hat. So lets say that a servant get paid 10$ an hour for the sake of argument. (In reality, you will never get a servant with that kind of paid). That comes out to $1733 per month. How much do you think an American must take home to afford a servant that cost $1733 per month.

Lets turn the question around, how much would an Indian need to take home per month to afford a servant that cost $1733 a month?

Not at all. I do not know what is it like to have servants and the majority of Americans, including those who make six figures salaries, do not as well. I live within dog walking distance of three millionaires in my neighborhood. Each family still have the man of the house drag the garbage cans out the night before garbage collection day. No servants there.

Key words search for you "i don't do windows". Then see the relationships between hired domestic help and their employers in America.

With all the liability issues, in America, if you hire a domestic help, you are actually hiring a boss over your own house.
 
How about average people should not have servants. Why are the labor of people worth so little in India? No wonder life and labor is so cheap in India. So many servants. And now I start to understand why there are so many white servants in India superpower video. Its because there are so many servants in India. And the producer of that movie want to be racist against white people by making white people servants. They don't think its a big deal as everyone have servants. But to Americans, so many servants existed only back in the south prior to civil rights movement. After that, only the very wealthy have servants.

Lets put it this way, grocery stores and department store would pay around $12 dollars an hour. These jobs are plentiful. So a servant should get more paid unless they want a 19 year old servant that would quit at a drop of hat. So lets say that a servant get paid 10$ an hour for the sake of argument. (In reality, you will never get a servant with that kind of paid). That comes out to $1733 per month. How much do you think an American must take home to afford a servant that cost $1733 per month.

Lets turn the question around, how much would an Indian need to take home per month to afford a servant that cost $1733 a month?



With all the liability issues, in America, if you hire a domestic help, you are actually hiring a boss over your own house.

Well labour is cheap in South Asia unfortunately because there is a huge population and most of them are poor. However, it's not always a bad thing. For example , even my family has a servant , a Nepali who has been working here for years. He gets to live in my house , eat here for free, sleep here for free (has his own servant quarter) , we keep giving him clothes and extra cash on festival occasions and of course we pay him his basic salary as well, all of which put together keep him and his family out of desperate poverty and afford him & his family a decent standard of living compared to other poor people of South Asia.

You can't compare South Asia and USA on this issue. There is a big difference in per capita income.
 
How about average people should not have servants. Why are the labor of people worth so little in India? No wonder life and labor is so cheap in India. So many servants. And now I start to understand why there are so many white servants in India superpower video. Its because there are so many servants in India. And the producer of that movie want to be racist against white people by making white people servants. They don't think its a big deal as everyone have servants. But to Americans, so many servants existed only back in the south prior to civil rights movement. After that, only the very wealthy have servants.

Lets put it this way, grocery stores and department store would pay around $12 dollars an hour. These jobs are plentiful. So a servant should get more paid unless they want a 19 year old servant that would quit at a drop of hat. So lets say that a servant get paid 10$ an hour for the sake of argument. (In reality, you will never get a servant with that kind of paid). That comes out to $1733 per month. How much do you think an American must take home to afford a servant that cost $1733 per month.

Lets turn the question around, how much would an Indian need to take home per month to afford a servant that cost $1733 a month?



With all the liability issues, in America, if you hire a domestic help, you are actually hiring a boss over your own house.

Hey who know maybe your daughter will be one of our servants too.
 
Off course this woman's arrest was a shock to the system of Indian society. After all, the term "rule of law" is a foreign term to Indian society. There simply isn't any rule of law in India whether it applies to their road laws or their usual day to day routine. The "upper society" of India in particular is exempt from any rule of law. Indians accordingly couldn't fathom how another country would apply the rule of law to an "untouchable" diplomat. The Yanks should have simply told India to shut it and arrested this piece of human trafficking trash.
 
Off course this woman's arrest was a shock to the system of Indian society. After all, the term "rule of law" is a foreign term to Indian society. There simply isn't any rule of law in India whether it applies to their road laws or their usual day to day routine. The "upper society" of India in particular is exempt from any rule of law. Indians accordingly couldn't fathom how another country would apply the rule of law to an "untouchable" diplomat. The Yanks should have simply told India to shut it and arrested this piece of human trafficking trash.

It wasn't the arrest , it was the subsequent treatment which was the main issue as has been stated previously but your white boy loving a$$ is too blind to see and understand it.

P.S- What is your stand on America claiming diplomatic immunity for CIA contractor Raymond Davis who killed two people in Pakistan ? What about the husband and wife diplomats in India who were breaking local laws here and the husband has been expelled ? Never saw such passion for rule of law from your white boy loving a$$ in those cases.
 
It wasn't the arrest , it was the subsequent treatment which was the main issue as has been stated previously but your white boy loving a$$ is too blind to see and understand it.

P.S- What is your stand on America claiming diplomatic immunity for CIA contractor Raymond Davis who killed two people in Pakistan ? What about the husband and wife diplomats in India who were breaking local laws here and the husband has been expelled ? Never saw such passion for rule of law from your white boy loving a$$ in those cases.

White boy loving *** ? Jeez dude , I simply pointed out the lack of adherence to the rule of law in India. Who cares what happens in Pakistan ? That country can resolve its own issues in its own manner. The subject matter of this post is India. If American diplomats in India are breaking the law, then India should have acted against them immediately and not simply when one of its diplomats are accused of breaking American laws. The mere fact that India didn't do so makes its actions against those American diplomats questionable. Frankly, I do respect the American insistence on adhering to the rule of law. If it was Zimbabwe which took the same stance against India, my respect for Zimbabwe would be equal to my current respect for America. It's not a matter of white or black. It's simply a matter of respecting a state which insists that the rule of law be applied irrespective of whom the accused is
 
White boy loving *** ? Jeez dude , I simply pointed out the lack of adherence to the rule of law in India. Who cares what happens in Pakistan ? That country can resolve its own issues in its own manner. The subject matter of this post is India. If American diplomats in India are breaking the law, then India should have acted against them immediately and not simply when one of its diplomats are accused of breaking American laws. The mere fact that India didn't do so makes its actions against those American diplomats questionable. Frankly, I do respect the American insistence on adhering to the rule of law. If it was Zimbabwe which took the same stance against India, my respect for Zimbabwe would be equal to my current respect for America. It's not a matter of white or black. It's simply a matter of respecting a state which insists that the rule of law be applied irrespective of whom the accused is

Read the first line of my previous post again and get my point.

Also, when you are talking about India's lack of respect for rule of law on the basis of this incident, the conduct of American diplomats in other countries and claims of diplomatic immunity where there is none also becomes a part of the topic.
 
Should-felons-lose-the-right-to-vote:

Intergenerational poverty is Richard's status quo, neither good nor bad. Growing up in the land of MLK, it's all he's ever known. The same goes for just about everyone else he encountered growing up in the hood. "That's how Montgomery people is," he says with a shrug, trading his pawn for position.

A generation after the Montgomery bus boycotts purged the city and state of legal segregation, Richard was still riding de facto segregated buses and attending de facto segregated schools right through to senior year—schools where the best imaginable outcome for a youth of his complexion (dreams of NFL greatness aside) was to land a steady job in the trades.
;;
"Our people," in this case, refers to the quarter-million Alabamans—and millions of other impoverished people across the United States—who have lost their citizenship status because of felony convictions. Most are nonviolent offenders and some will never set foot in prison or jail. Nevertheless, their ability to influence the laws under which they live is severely restricted from the moment they are found guilty of an offense, leaving them effectively powerless to change the socio-political conditions under which most of them live.

Although the Constitution is silent on whether people convicted of felonies should have their rights curtailed, most American states have chosen to restrict the franchise in modern times. Nearly 6 million people in 48 states—2.5 percent of the adult population—are currently ineligible to vote because of a prior conviction.

In the four most restrictive states—Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia—all citizens who are convicted of a felony permanently forfeit the right to vote, regardless of the offense. Ten states even disenfranchise citizens convicted of misdemeanors while they are serving time.
;;
There are 2.4 million Americans currently serving time behind bars in local, state, and federal institutions—one fourth of the total prison population worldwide and seven times more than in 1972.
;;
Felon disenfranchisement is not randomly distributed across the population. The large majority of past and present felons who have lost the right to vote were raised and continue to live in poverty.
;;
In racial terms, the disparities are greater still. African Americans constitute around 38 percent of disenfranchised people—five times the rate among non-blacks—because of significantly higher rates of searching, sentencing, and detention by the police. More than one in seven black men is officially disenfranchised nationwide, with rates climbing as high as one in three in certain states. Some scholars assign the racial disparity in felon disenfranchisement to higher rates of criminal involvement among black men—a contested claim—while most agree that there is longstanding institutional bias within the criminal-justice system. Whatever the cause, the consequences for second-class citizens of color caught up in the criminal-justice system are severe.
;;
As Richard further attests, the burden of felon disenfranchisement does not stop at voting for poor and minority citizens. Even after they have finished serving their sentence, former felons in Alabama and many other states are barred from serving on juries and denied access to essential government services, like food stamps, public housing, unemployment insurance, and welfare.
;;
The result is a permanent "second-class" status—what legal scholar Michelle Alexander terms the "American under-caste"—for current and former felons, irrespective of the nonviolent nature of most offenses.
;;
"Don't let the police think you're homeless—they'll pick you up fast." Momma Donna agrees, adding that panhandling is against the law in these parts. She goes on to detail a pair of instances where homeless people she knew got locked up for weeks on end—"for no good reason"—while they awaited trial. "Once you're in, it can be real, real hard getting out," she explains. Shaken, I thank them for the warning and bid the pair goodnight.
;;
Maurice, another homeless man in his fifties whom I interview the following morning, adds a story about panhandling of his own. He says he recently made the mistake of asking a Montgomery policeman for change in front of the store—"to put some gas in my car"—and was arrested on the spot for panhandling. "You know what the policeman did?" he asks, still incredulous. "He took me to jail! Locked me in jail for 21 days for asking for 50 cent!"


90% of all criminal cases in USA never see a day in court. They are all settled by plea bargain. That is 90% of the 2.4 million prisoners in US settled for out of court settlement in favor of the state.

So much rule of law in the land of free and the brave.

Oh add in chain gang workers from prison and you can well see slavery never really went away from USA at all. It is only disguised under politically correct terms now. Once a slaver, always a slaver.
 
Last edited:
In which case, why was the case ONLY filed against the Indian diplomat wife and not her US citizen husband ? :lol:


Having zero ethics is not illegal in itself.
That's why it is put in many contracts.

She got arrested because she filled out the visa form. Everything else is small claims court stuff that they should have straightened out before it escalated to the visa thing.
 
Having zero ethics is not illegal in itself.
That's why it is put in many contracts.

She got arrested because she filled out the visa form. Everything else is small claims court stuff that they should have straightened out before it escalated to the visa thing.

LOL. So you agree that the whole 'slavery' was just propaganda. The real issue was 'lying on the visa form' which was what the nanny filled. :lol:
 
LOL. So you agree that the whole 'slavery' was just propaganda. The real issue was 'lying on the visa form' which was what the nanny filled. :lol:

If she had her passport confiscated and she could convince a judge she worked crazy hours every day she could win the slavery argument.

But if the consulate and her husband were smart she should have cleared all this up in small claims ( read the 90% negotiated before trial statistic above) before it escalated to a felony slavery or visa charge.

This how it would have gone in small claims court
Maid: I was promised $4500 month
Judge: hmm seems a little high for 8 hours a day for a maid
Maid: Well I worked 16 hour days
Judge: a little excessive but maybe possible for a live in maid
Consulate: She agreed to $3/hr
Judge: Well that's too low
Judge: My judgement is : Calculate minimum wage * hours worked * days worked - amount paid already by the consulate.
Maid: but but she took my passport away
Judge: whatever...bring in the next case
Consulate: But that's not fair
Judge: Clear the court please and bring in the next case
 
Last edited:
If she had her passport confiscated and she could convince a judge she worked crazy hours every day she could win the slavery argument.

But if the consulate and her husband were smart she should have cleared all this up in small claims ( read the 90% negotiated before trial statistic above) before it escalated to a felony slavery or visa charge.

You have not answered my question. Why dint the sanctimonious Americans file 'slavery' charges against the husband ? :angel:

The maid was on a diplomatic passport and as such is the property of GoI. Indian diplomats represent the GoI and do have the legal authority to confiscate any passport.
 
Last edited:
You have not answered my question. Why did the sanctimonious Americans file 'slavery' charges against the husband ? :angel:

The maid was on a diplomatic passport and as such is the property of GoI. Indian diplomats represent the GoI and do have the legal authority to confiscate any passport.

I'm sure he would be a co-defendent to some of the charges if it was brought to trial. Although it looks like he didn't live in that apartment in NY. But he wouldn't be able to plead ignorance.

I don't know the exact rules on passport confiscations.
 
I'm sure he would be a co-defendent to some of the charges if it was brought to trial. Although it looks like he didn't live in that apartment in NY. But he wouldn't be able to plead ignorance.

I don't know the exact rules on passport confiscations.

So far he has NOT been charged with anything. LOL.
 
Back
Top Bottom