It’s a tough time for us diplomats these days. You see, we’re a cut above the rest of the population. Why else are we sent abroad – that too in the US! In India we all know that people with status get perks the rest of the population doesn’t. Red lights on cars for example. Even in jail we’re given special accommodation, are treated with respect, and given parole for all kinds of flimsy reasons that the “common criminal” can’t even dream of.
So obviously it’s my god given right to have a cheap maid. What do you mean “do my own stuff”? Do you know who I am? I’m an Indian diplomat in the US! And you want me to clean my own house and cook my own food? Don’t you know I’m superior?
These days maids are just not what they used to be. There was a time when they would be grateful for whatever they got. And here we’re taking them to the US! Is that not enough? They expect US wages also? Yes yes, I know that America has minimum wage laws and all, but come on yaar. Who the hell pays a maid $4500 a month? My own salary is barely enough to cover it!
They placed me in jail with common criminals. Don’t you know, I’m an uncommon criminal!
You see, I’m the victim here. They expect me to pay a fair wage to the housekeeper and treat her nicely and all. Now and then if we torture and abuse them, so what? We’re superior beings and they are sub human. Diplomats vs maids. Can there even be any comparison? What was I to do? I was essentially forced to fake the visa info, forced to contract a fair wage, and then forced to not pay her! It’s so obvious. Yet these irritating Americans insist on pressing charges. Talking about laws and all that.
And what then? It’s not as if they treated me in standing with my status. They placed me in jail with common criminals. Don’t you know, I am an uncommon criminal! How dare they place me with drug addicts and the like? I’m not like those guys yaar. I’m special you know. I demand VIP treatment just like in good ol’ India. These people don’t know how special I am. They strip searched me, again just like everyone else. So what if it was by a person of my own gender and there was no molestation etc. That’s not the point! I was humiliated just because I willingly broke some stupid law. And cheated some stupid maid. Who the hell is she anyway?? Does she have some contacts in the US government? If not, why are they doing this to me?
The bottom line is, I’m special and I demand to be treated that way. I demand my rights to keep a maid at low wages in defiance of the law and I demand my right to be given special treatment in standing with my uncommon criminal nature.
Otherwise what’s the point of being an Indian diplomat to the US in the first place?
People are making this to be a US vs India thing. And the Indian govt’s class-2 type ka retaliation? I couldnt believe it. And thats saying something!
Rem how the Muslims were persecuted after the 9/11 incident? I hope our politicians childish attitude wont evoke something similar by US govt towards Indians working in US.
If tht diplomat was innocent I am all for our country standing up for her risking all US_India friendship. But in this case? I dont understand.
I feel its the strip-search thing that made the people here soooo furious. As usual obsession with women’s body.
Did you hear the bizarre arguments? Like other diplomats do the same. why arent they punished? Its American arrogance bla bla bla.
I agree that govt should help Ms. DK. Yes, she did a crime. Our govt can try to get her a lighter sentence or something.
Another thing nobdy seems to bother about is – what if this maid were some spy or terrorist or something. Her stupid mistake would have resulted in something more serious.
In reply to Nidaa
I think you’re right – the usual hypocritical attitude towards women’s bodies might be at the root of the strip search thing. When in reality it’s probably a fairly boring mundane procedure performed by experts of the same gender as the prisoner. No big deal…
The issue here is one of diplomatic immunity. You are being very unfair by suggesting this is specific to India or Indians in any way. You may not like the concept of diplomatic immunity, but surely India cannot be singled out among all nations in the world.
Yes, diplomats can get away with murder. American diplomats get away with it too…the case that immediately comes to mind is that of Raymond Davis in Pakistan. Singling out India and denying our diplomat the immunity she enjoys under international law is an insult to our nation, whether or not she has committed a crime.
I am not someone who is enjoying India’s spat with America (I think it’s really sad); but this is a matter of principle. Now that John Kerry has apologized, I think India should close the matter.
In reply to Abhishek
According to the Vienna convention, diplomatic immunity is only applicable for those acts that are related to the diplomant’s official duties. Unrelated crimes are not covered. Specifically:
Article 31.1c Actions not covered by diplomatic immunity: professional activity outside diplomat’s official functions.
In reply to bhagwad
That’s not how it has worked in practice. Every single employee of the UN, for instance, has enjoyed full diplomatic immunity. UN peacekeeping troops have been accused of rape in several parts of the world, but no one has ever touched a hair on their heads because of diplomatic immunity.
As I told you, look up Raymond Davis. The American committed murder in Pakistan and the US argued that he enjoyed diplomatic immunity.
Or take this Qatari diplomat who went into the toilet of a United Airlines flight, started smoking and then joked that he was trying to set his shoes on fire to bring the plane down…caused a panic reaction involving F-16s and the FBI. Guess what: he gave everyone the finger and got away once he invoked the magic armor called diplomatic immunity…
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/qatar-diplomat-charged-bomb-scare/story?id=10317771
If you are I had tried something like this, we would be rotting in jail…
In reply to Abhishek
In my opinion, a country has every ethical and moral right to decide whether or not they want equal rule of law in their country. It’s one thing to try and give special treatment. It’s another to try and apply pressure to a local judge. Any politician who did that would be destroyed publicly.
Yes, the US has double standards. In their case, they take crimes committed on their soil extremely seriously. Like I mentioned elsewhere, Obama can use drones in Pakistan with impunity. But if he ever tried to do such a thing within the US itself, he would be annihilated. It wouldn’t have mattered if Osama Bin Laden himself was hiding out in a house in the US. Once a person enters their territory they magically receive all the rights and due process of everyone else.
Why is this Devyani woman being given a clean chit? Why is everyone so eager to gloss over the fact that she underpaid her maid and broke the law?
In reply to bhagwad
The Qatar diplomat did it on US soil. Please read carefully. If Qatari diplomats are above the law, so are ours…
In reply to Abhishek
I read the article you linked to. The facts seem to be disputed and that seems to make all the difference. I’m not even sure exactly what law was broken. It’s pretty obvious that no real crime was committed and there were no victims.
Here in this case, there is a very real victim. The maid who was underpaid. Does she not deserve justice?? Is there any dispute over the facts of the case with the Indian diplomat?
In reply to bhagwad
Which facts exactly are disputed? Is the part about him smoking in the toilet disputed? Is the part about him being let off disputed?
If its “nothing” and there is no victim, let me see if you, a brown man like me or that Qatari guy has the balls to light a matchstick inside an American plane and joke about exploding a bomb….
Its “nothing”, no? Its not a real crime, there are no victims… I am sure the FBI would let you go as well.
Please don’t argue for the sake of arguing.
In reply to Abhishek
I have no doubt that if the judge is convinced that it was a mistake and no harm was intended, I would be let off. They have better things to do than to randomly convict people for no reason.
In all of this, I’m curious as to what you think about whether or not the underpaid maid deserves justice. Everyone is so focused on whether or not this diplomat should get special treatment, no one seems to care about the injustice done to the victim. Tell me this – if the diplomat is let off, what compensation does the maid get and who gives it?
Don’t you think that’s more important? Instead of that we’re sitting here talking about Quatari diplomats making jokes on planes. When we have an actual victim in this case, how can you compare it to a completely different type of incident?
In reply to bhagwad
Even though I strongly believe that Khobragade should be brought to justice for her alleged corruption, it is no justice if the context is violation of the sovereign immunity of Indian diplomats – which if you are not aware, is based on customary laws of reciprocal diplomacy (Principles of Public International Law, Professor Ian Brownlie, Oxford).
Coming to the Vienna Conventions of Consular Affairs, section 41 states that a consular officer cannot be subject to arrest or detention by the host country’s police, pending trial – unless he/she is accused of ‘grave crime’ (which is based on an objective criteria of what a grave crime is, not subjective legal interpretation of what a serious crime is). It also calls for giving respect due to consular officers, even when they are arrested by a competent judicial authority for a ‘grave crime’. Strip search and throwing someone in a cage does not amount to ‘due respect’ in this case.
At the most, the US would have been justified to expel her for violating labour rights of a person; not arrest and cavity search an Indian diplomat over it – something it wouldn’t have dared to do were the diplomat a first world national OR even a Russian.
Understanding politics as well as I do and having delved in international businesses, this is a gross and naive exaggeration – owing no doubt, to the desi penchant of looking at US as ‘the land of milk, honey and girls gone wild’.
In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh
I’m curious as to why you think a strip search (by your own gender) is humiliating. It’s a routing boring procedure. Her rights were not violated and there is no indignity. If there was, you’re presuming that the dignity of everyone who is strip searched is also violated.
I’m willing to leave the technical legalities of this to a judge. From an ethical point of view I see no problem in how she was treated.
“owing no doubt, to the desi penchant of looking at US as ‘the land of milk, honey and girls gone wild’.”
Yeah whatever. Ad hominem and so on and so forth and hence irrelevant.
And *cough*, may I also mention that yet again there is no mention of justice for the poor maid who was promised a wage and received another.
In reply to bhagwad
In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh
Please explain to me how Article 3,5,12, and 18 can possibly be applied to a legal strip search by a person of the same gender with strict procedures, and no harassment? Even the diplomat herself has never complained that she was treated unprofessionally.
If you have a citation from any reliable source or court interpreting it in this way, that would at least be a starting point.
“Besides, one wrong does not justify another.”
I don’t think I’ve ever made that assertion (straw man). As for your claim that it’s not central to the context, please read the title of the post and the actual content and then tell me that it’s not the central point. While one wrong does not justify another, I have chosen to focus on the most obvious glaring wrong over here.
In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh
Vienna Convention’s article 41 speaks of using office of diplomat only for official purpose. Nothing in article 41 says anything about arrest. I he protections you speak of concern diplomats, hence the name –diplomatic immunity. This does not include consular staff. The woman in question was not a diplomat, but a consul. Consuls are afforded some protection, but their rights in a foreign country are only protected by the host country laws and do not fall under Vienna Convention. FYI
In reply to bhagwad
She and her father have faced no consequences for owning flats in Adarsh Housing Society. Are they both Kargil war widows?
In reply to Sraboney
Do you mean to say that the american authorities have taken it onto themselves to punish her for owning flats in Adarsh Housing Society? Please talk some sense.
In reply to Kamal
I am talking sense. Do I have to spell out everything? D is used to getting away with breaking the law. She feels that since she is an IFS officer, she is above the law. This time her arrogance took a beating. Granted there are many grey areas in this case but she did break the law. Where was the Indian government in the case of Captain Sunil James? His family had to run from pillar to post to get the government to intervene. Oh, I forgot! He’s not a bureaucrat so not worth the effort. A country like Togo has the guts to take on India.
In reply to Sraboney
So, if a person has committed an offense in India, shouldn’t they be tried in India? Just because she is used to breaking some law in India, the american law should start punishing her there in america? And just because Sunil James didn’t get government help, no other Indian should get it too? And then you say you are talking sense!
In reply to Kamal
Wasn’t this crime committed on US soil? Under US law?
In reply to bhagwad
I was referring to Sraboney’s comment which implied about how it was fine for the US to punish the diplomat because of her involvement in the scam in India. I never said that she didn’t commit any crime in the US or she shouldn’t be tried for a crime committed there. I assumed you had that much common sense.
In reply to Kamal
That’s strange – I saw no such implication saying that the US should punish Devyani because she was involved in a crime in India. Can you point out the statement from which you drew this conclusion?
In reply to bhagwad
This is the excerpt”She and her father have faced no consequences for owning flats in Adarsh Housing Society.”Bringing this up sounds oddly like a karma argument. Its an implication that she ‘had it coming because of how corrupt she is’.”Wasn’t this crime committed on US soil? Under US law?”Thats debatable. If her violation of said laws occured within the premises of the Indian consulate OR her residence, it wouldn’t be ‘US soil’, legally speaking. Diplomatic enclaves of a country or the residences of their sovereign diplomats are the ‘soil’ of that country, not the host country.
In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh
I’m perfectly willing to leave the question of the legality of her actions to a judge. As for the “karma” argument, there’s no contradiction in feeling a certain sense of justice while at the same time not advocating penal action in the US for crimes committed in India. One is an emotional response. The other is intellectual.
In reply to Abhishek
@Abhishek
Firstly, the said Indian lady diplomat did not enjoy “full immunity” since she was not associated with a permanent mission. It is only after her arrest that the sly Indian legal minds have transferred her to a permanent mission allowing her the freedom to invoke full diplomatic immunity. Secondly, as Bhagwad pointed out diplomatic immunity does not include immunity for actions outside professional duties. And finally, we could talk of the US or some other nation’s double standards till the cows come home. But, do we not stand by the letter of the law? I do not know why it should be seen as an insult to India (whatever that means). I would think we would have covered ourselves in glory if we said that the actions of the diplomat unfortunate and regrettable and spoke in support of the law of the land taking its due course. And meanwhile, sent out a warning to all the diplomats warning them to careful about committing such acts and telling them that the government while providing legal support where necessary would not necessarily try to diplomatically arm twist the other nation into overlooking their crimes.
I heard this diplomat is (or was) a prominent women’s rights activist. As soon as I learned this it made me think of those so-called “feminists” who just want the power to oppress others. That’s who she reminds me of.
In reply to RenKiss
Oh yeah, I found that out later as well! Ridiculous.
In reply to bhagwad
Not all feminists want to have power to ‘oppress’ others. In fact, feminism is about everyone having control over one’s one life and choices, not over other people’s lives. Please do not imply that all women’s activists want to have power to oppress others and undermine their cause. That’s not what feminism is about.
In reply to freebird
“Please do not imply that all women’s activists want to have power to oppress others and undermine their cause. ”
Most people who are out and about in the real world, are not easily swayed by this argument, given that very few movements actually stick loyal to their stated causes. Too much personal motives at stake. A whole lot of vocal and influential feminists, the ones who get to dictate public policy decisions are power hungry, classist and misandrist demagogues.
Isnt it so funny how underpaying a housemaid can be a crime equal to drug-peddling? What is conveniently hushed up is how the maid in question suddenly went absconding in a foreign country. And which was immediately brought to the notice of the american authorities months ago. And how the american authorities even refused to file a case for a missing person let alone investigate. Leaving diplomatic immunity aside, even if the diplomat was at fault, what possible common sense required her to be strip searched and to give in a urine sample? What exactly were the americans expecting to find hidden under the clothes of the diplomat? Guns? Bombs? Drugs? Were the american officials suspecting her to be a drug peddler being herself under the influence of drugs that made her allegedly torture her maid by underpaying her, to make her undergo such treatment? How can being underpaid be torture?
Please care to check the actual sequence of events in the case here – http://in.news.yahoo.com/devyani-files-paint-picture-of-us-apathy-054935742.html
Its amazing to see how people can be so desperate to suck up to the big apple. It is only when they get a big kick up the backside that they cry foul and accuse the americans to be racist.
In reply to Kamal
A strip search etc is standard procedure for anyone who enters a prison to ensure that they’re not carrying contraband items inside and so on and so forth. You can’t have different laws for different people. Yes, some people carry guns, drugs and the like. But you can’t frame a law saying “Search this person only if it looks as if they’re carrying a gun!”
You have to frame laws in a non discriminatory manner. A strip search is just a routine matter. If we take offense at something so boring and mundane that is our problem not theirs.
In reply to bhagwad
Please correct your ignorance about the fact that strip searches are banned in several states of america. Something which is actually a violation of human rights is just boring and mundane to you. Great. Dont you find it ridiculous that some american states view an act as a violation of human rights while some dont? Doesnt this prove how utterly confused the law system is in america? Here are some facts about strip searches.
Though the Supreme Court ruling approved strip searches even in minor offences, the issue is still controversial in the US as some states have banned intrusive searches unless there is sufficient justification for it.
According to a brief filed by the American Bar Association, international human rights treaties too ban such procedures.
The federal appeals courts had been split on the question, though most of them prohibited strip searches unless they were based on reasonable suspicion that contraband was present.
The Supreme Court did not say that strip searches of new arrestees were required. It ruled, rather, that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches did not forbid them.
Justice Stephen G Breyer, writing for the four judges who voted against the procedure, said strip searches were “a serious affront to human dignity and to individual privacy” and should be used only when there was good reason to do so.
Breyer said the Fourth Amendment should be understood to bar strip searches of people arrested for minor offences not involving drugs or violence, unless officials had a reasonable suspicion that they were carrying contraband.
Funny how you are so vocal about the stupid law regarding section 377 as it violates human rights, but you argue for the law regarding strip searches which is also a violation of human rights. Just because it happens in america doesnt make it right.
In reply to Kamal
“some states have banned intrusive searches unless there is sufficient justification for it.”
The actual justifications are one thing. As long as it’s done to everyone the diplomat can’t claim that she was discriminated against.
“Funny how you are so vocal about the stupid law regarding section 377 as it violates human rights, but you argue for the law regarding strip searches which is also a violation of human rights. Just because it happens in america doesnt make it right.”
I’m curious as to why you think strip searches are discriminatory like Section 377. Also, please tell me exactly what human rights are being violated. My position on various subjects of this sort are based on logic, not on whether or not it “happens in America”!
In reply to bhagwad
So you are against section 377 because it is discriminatory? Arent you confusing yourself between right to equality and right to freedom? Section 377 is wrong because it prevents an individual to exercise his right to freedom of sexual preference. Not because there is discrimination. Any law that violates any freedom of a person will obviously and automatically be discriminatory. Maybe you didnt read what I wrote earlier but an american justice himself said how strip searches violate human dignity and individual privacy. Maybe that is something boring and mundane to you as these are mundane to american troops throughout the world including america. And if human dignity and individual privacy arent considered human rights in america then you should stop labelling america as the crusader for human rights.
In reply to Kamal
I object to 377 on both grounds. However, in this particular case of strip searching, the main complaint is that the diplomat was treated in an unusual manner.
I completely understand the separate issue of whether or not a strip search is violative of human rights in the first place. But that concern is a general one regardless of whether or not it happened to a diplomat. That issue needs to be raked up regardless of who is strip searched. The current furor is not about strip searching in general, but about how it was applied to Devyani.
So far I have not come across the complaint “Strip searching is bad and shouldn’t be done even to Americans”. Rather, the complaint has been “How dare you do this to an Indian diplomat!”
Two separate issues. Two different causes of outrage. In all the furor so far, Indians have only complained about the latter, not the former.
Out of all the issues I write about on my blog, I haven’t gotten around to the practice of strip searching in the US in general. Probably because I’m more interested in human rights in India than elsewhere though of course I draw inspiration from countries all around the world. As far as the specific right to freedom of expression goes, the US is probably the best in the world. That doesn’t mean it’s the best for other types of rights.
In reply to bhagwad
Before I reply to your comment, I want to go back to your previous comment once again where you wrote – As long as it’s done to everyone the diplomat can’t claim that she was discriminated against. Thats the very point. Its not even done to everyone in the american population as some states have banned strip searching while some havent. Therefore, even the american citizens are discriminated in america itself as long as strip searching is concerned. Still you talk against discrimination while being unable to understand such gross and evident discrimination in america itself. And then you say your position is based on logic? Am I missing something here?
Coming to your recent comment, exactly! As long as americans do anything to their own citizens, it is their own problem. But once they start doing things to Indians, it will be Indians who will protest. Right? Why should Indians protest about something thats happenning to Egyptians in Egypt or Greeks in Greece? Similarly, its not the business of Indians to protest against strip searching of americans in america. So if you are waiting for Indians to complain that strip searching of americans in america, thats not going to happen. But if its done to an Indian in america, there is bound to be a protest. You get the point?
In reply to Kamal
Just out of interest, which states have banned strip searching (at least for adults). Can you give me a list?
I would agree to your point if you could tell me in all honesty if the current outrage from India would have also occurred even if the person involved was not a diplomat but was say…a rapist. I am not in any way taking away or trying to short circuit the discussion of whether or not strip searching is itself abusive. That, I believe is an argument for another day.
For purposes of this post, I’m only interested in why Indians are upset over it. Like I said above, if you think that we would have had an equal reaction to an Indian rapist being strip searched then I would indeed agree with you that the problem is strip searching itself. Yet, I suspect that this is not the case.
Indeed, the very phrasing of the complaint itself gives an insight into the true nature of the outrage. Phrases like “placed along with common criminals” suggest that this has something to do with status. Implying that this particular person was “too good” to have been strip searched and placed along with “common criminals”.
Human rights are applicable to everyone – diplomat or no. I would welcome a discussion on the status of strip searches in general. I believe that such issues are important. My suspicion however is that the Indian outrage has nothing to do with the indignity of strip searching in general, but only has to do with the person it was applied to.
And my current post is directly addressed to Indian anger. I’m not denying that there could well be another legitimate cause for complaint. It’s just that it’s not the focus of this particular post.
In reply to bhagwad
You seem to be comparing apples with oranges. The person in question is an Indian government official serving the government in america and thus representing the Indian government. So any incident related to such a person is directly concerned with the government of India. How you are comparing this with a rapist is really funny. And if you have such a problem with the selective outrage in this issue, please check out about how many high profile offenders including Indians have been strip searched in america. For example, just look up how a certain Rajat Gupta received special favors inspite of the level of crime he was convicted for. Can you give any example if any other foreign officer working in america has been strip searched? The very problem with this issue is the selectively applied procedures on the Indian lady. If they were standard procedures, they should have been applied for everyone.
In reply to Kamal
An Indian diplomat’s actions are concerned with the Indian government only when they are related to his or her official duties as a diplomat. I’m sure you’ll agree that if an Indian diplomat in the US rapes someone it has nothing to do with the Indian government (It would be quite odd if it did!)
Comparing this with the strip search of a rapist is completely relevant if your argument is (as you’ve been saying so far) that the strip search itself is the cause of outrage. In which case, it is equally outrageous to a rapist as to a diplomat regardless of gender. If however, you’re drawing a distinction between a rapist and a diplomat, you’re also saying that a strip search is ok for one and not for the other. Implying that you don’t really have an objection a strip search per se – only to whom it is applied to. In short, this is not apples to oranges at all because in this case you have defined the two fruits to be in the same classification based on parameters like the shape.
Are you saying that Rajat Gupta was not strip searched when he went to jail? Do you have any reason to think this routine procedure didn’t happen? I can tell you that if any foreign officer working in America was strip searched in such a routine manner they wouldn’t have raised a hue and cry over it. It happens to everyone and no point crying that you were discriminated against.
Incidentally, did you get a chance to compile a list of US states that have banned strip search as you have so frequently mentioned? Just one or two examples would be great to support your stand that it’s discriminatory.
In reply to bhagwad
“It happens to everyone and no point crying that you were discriminated against.”
Not really. The US makes exceptions for certain countries when it comes to how its law is applied to diplomats. A Venezuelan consular officer for example, is not subject to a breathalyser test if the police suspect that he is a drunk driver. First hand observations while returning with a couple of buds from a Brighton Beach club.
It is also customary for Chinese and Russian diplomatic officials to get away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist for offences of graver nature – such as possession of fraudulently obtained US passports/SSN papers. The dignitaries of countries like Yemen are accorded a royal treatment that isn’t accorded even to our Prime Ministers during their state visits. These countries are treated exceptionally, not because they *respect* the primacy of American law BUT because they make it known to the Americans, in not-to-subtle ways, that their dignitaries ARE above the US laws. This kind of has a ‘trickle down effect’ on how their nationals are treated when they visit the United States.
I am sure if the son/daughter of…say…the Legal Attache at the US Embassy in Delhi meets a painful accident…which ‘officially’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the Indian government AND the Indian government assures its cooperation to bring the ‘culprits’ to justice, we’d have at least as much ‘diplomatic immunity’ as the Venezuelans.
The US policies on diplomatic immunity is far more subjective than you imagine. Its laws can be bent if you have the will and the drive, even if it is beyond the imagination of those who sincerely believe that the US got an airtight legal system.
In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh
I think that anyone who goes into a prison is subjected to this practice. It might be another issue that the people you mention didn’t have to face prison time in the first place. But if they did, I’m curious to know if they did or didn’t get strip searched.
Brilliant post. ABSOLUTELY brilliant! Loved the sarcasm, it was really funny.
When I read Khobragade’s statement about being “treated like a commoner” I burst out laughing!
In reply to Alexandra Madhavan
Sometimes a particular situation is so stupid that sarcasm is the only appropriate vehicle!
Brilliant. i wish people stop making this a US vs. India issue and look at it logically. I am glad US treated her like an ordinary person because they would never do that to her here. Exactly what makes her better?
In reply to Boiling
She was placed in a jail with “common criminals”. Not good enough for someone of her stature
/sarcasm