Exploitation of employee or blackmail of employer? (Khobragade case) - Page 12

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

As are adherence to laws, equality and fairness to Indians?

But dual contract amounts to cheating! I understand that paying Rs. 2L (@ $9 /hr for 40 hrs a week is ludicrous amount by Indian stds and it would exceeds the topmost pay grade of a govt official in India.(6th pay commission) . The allowance given during foreign postings vary from $ 3,000 to 8000 depending on the country and seniority level of the official. Khobragade being a mid level officer could have received an allowance of around $ 5000 /m. How the heck did the US official who cleared her visa as well as her maid's visa not notice the impossibility of the $4500/m that she was supposed to pay her maid !? What prompted Khobragade to mention such an impossible amount in her agreement! A std practice of dual contracts with such impossible amounts is like playing with fire. sooner or later it is bound to backfire. The sensible practice would have been to refuse a foreign posting unless the govt came up with legal practical solutions instead of falling in line with the practice of endangering its officials on govt duty.

Nevertheless the way US have cast aside the Vienna convention on Consular relation which forbids arrest of consular officials except for grave crimes (let alone subjecting them to felon like treatment) is highly shocking and unacceptable.

Originally posted by: _Angie_

But dual contract amounts to cheating! I understand that paying Rs. 2L (@ $9 /hr for 40 hrs a week is ludicrous amount by Indian stds and it would exceeds the topmost pay grade of a govt official in India.(6th pay commission) . The allowance given during foreign postings vary from $ 3,000 to 8000 depending on the country and seniority level of the official. Khobragade being a mid level officer could have received an allowance of around $ 5000 /m. How the heck did the US official who cleared her visa as well as her maid's visa not notice the impossibility of the $4500/m that she was supposed to pay her maid !? What prompted Khobragade to mention such an impossible amount in her agreement! A std practice of dual contracts with such impossible amounts is like playing with fire. sooner or later it is bound to backfire. The sensible practice would have been to refuse a foreign posting unless the govt came up with legal practical solutions instead of falling in line with the practice of endangering its officials on govt duty.

Nevertheless the way US have cast aside the Vienna convention on Consular relation which forbids arrest of consular officials except for grave crimes (let alone subjecting them to felon like treatment) is highly shocking and unacceptable.

I am not sure about the details of the dual contract that Indian diplomats use. So can't comment whether it is cheating or not.

Looking at the case from the beginning, here is my perspective.

Devyani Khobragade committed the crime of visa fraud and misrepresentation of facts when she lied in Sangeeta Richards' visa application. She was obliged to meet certain employment standards in the United States. We all may disagree on the cost of living adjustments for USA, and income details. However, the fact remains if she was economically unable to hire a nanny within the law, she should have sought options rather than commit fraud. When she chose the route of fraud she committed crime against USA in the USA.

I see Sangeeta Richards as a target of fraud here. Her visa application was filed with one income contract, but when she came here she was told she would be working under a different contract. Dual contracts maybe standard for India, but since this was not disclosed to authorities openly, it is fraudulent. Now perhaps Sangeeta Richards is an opportunist and decided to use this discrepancy to make money and immigrate to USA. But that does not change the fact that Devyani Khobragade initiated the fraud. Had she not done so Sangeeta Richard would not have had the opportunity. Which is why the action by the Indian courts against the maid and her family appears to be attempts to silence the whistleblower.

In the timeline of events the visa fraud and misrepresentation of facts was against the USA. The second contract was signed right here in USA soil and the illegal employment took place in USA. All this happened well before Sangeeta Richards escaped/absconded. That is why due to timing and place, US jurisdiction and prosecution takes precedence. Once this case is over India can petition to USA for releasing Sangeeta Richards to be prosecuted per Indian law. USA has the right to refuse.

As a consular officer Devyani Khobragade did not have diplomatic immunity. She was arrested and detained per standard protocol. If she did receive food and cell phone privileges then she received courteous treatment. If I were arrested for a crime, I would get just one phone call, be locked in a cell and have to eat/drink prison food. I don't think a charged suspect should get privileged treatment simply because they have power, rank and position. The law ought to be equal for all. Prior to India transferring her position, she didn't have diplomatic immunity. It will be a question if retrograde immunity applies, if it does USA may need to release her and appeal to India for prosecution rights. India has the right to refuse.

Now diplomatic immunity and cross national relations in general is very tricky. I understand that on several occasions USA has tried to get their diplomats off the hook on counts of diplomatic immunity. In a few cases it did hold, but in majority of the cases it was a long shot. The actions or positions were out of the jurisdiction of diplomatic immunity. Yes, USA has tried to even extract its citizens from other countries as well. In a few cases actual criminals. It is not morally acceptable to defend those actions. Especially genuine criminals should not get free. USA was completely in the wrong and it is quite unfortunate that those events played out the way they did.

However, in this case India is in the wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. USA being wrong in the past doesn't make India right now. That being said like any other nation India has the full right to do everything within their reach to protect Devyani Khobragade. It should be the government's mission to get the charges dropped and get her back by all means possible. If my previous posts came across that I deny India the right to protect their citizen, then I apologize. I think targeting US diplomats and singling them out would be morally and ethically wrong. But just like USA chooses to cross that line to protect their own, India also has the right of choice. And it is up to India to decide how far hard or how easy they want to go with this.

The unfortunate thing is situations like this will continue to happen. It could be between Russia and Norway, Greece and Brazil. Any two nations that host embassies and have ties. When a crime is committed - one nation will want to prosecute, one nation will want to protect. One nation will be in the right and one nation will be in the wrong. But the whole situation will be murky and grey.

I would tell an American outraged by the arrest of Raymond Davis that he shot two people, and we should be as upset with him as we would be if he shot two American citizens. Similarly I would tell Indians outraged by the arrest of Devyani Khobragade that she committed fraud against USA, and you should be as upset with her as you would be if she committed fraud against India. I would tell an American claiming that Raymond Davis was mistreated and did not get diplomatic immunity that he was arrested for a crime outside the scope of immunity, I would tell Indians the same about Devyani Khobragade. Each situation is different and I hope to side with the side that is more in the right in that specific situation. Of course with perceptions, interpretations and limited facts - it is not always accurate.

U guys do know don't u that Raymond Davis case was as as much abt d internal politics of pk as d murders?

Some glaring ommission of pertinent issues like the caduslness in which UD have handled this case, the failure orneglect of diplomatic relations betn two nations that could have long term effects, the ripple effects- some good n some bad...
but I got to leave for now..
Later

Originally posted by: souro

However, I take strong exception to the remark that Indians don't adhere to laws, equality and fairness. Some do and some don't, but that's none of USA's concern as our internal problems didn't affect US.

This is not the first time you're questioning our legal system. These are more or less the same views (albeit in different wording) which Preet Bharara expressed as an excuse for his actions. India's internal law is India's business. No one should dare to interfere in that. And by trying to interfere in Indian judicial process and making such disparaging remarks, Preet Bharara has only made matters worse, which is why US govt. is distancing itself from his views.

Well, Bharara is not a diplomat so he has no reason to sugarcoat his words. He has dealt with much bigger and more complex financial fraud cases, organized crime, cyber crime and matters pertaining to national security issues so he is not about to mince words when it comes to saying it like he sees it even if it means a few feelings are hurt in the process.

As for your blustering, you need to understand that in a debate dealing with violation of law, it is paramount to highlight the lack of accountability, corruption and abusive practices that are prevalent in a country in order to prove how and where in the rest of the world they are manifesting and rearing their ugly heads.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Well, Bharara is not a diplomat so he has no reason to sugarcoat his words. He has dealt with much bigger and more complex financial fraud cases, organized crime, cyber crime and matters pertaining to national security issues so he is not about to mince words when it comes to saying it like he sees it even if it means a few feelings are hurt in the process.

@K speaking about corruption and illigal practices then Divyani is illigal beneficiary of flat in Adarsh housing in a recent scandal Adarsh housing scam in mumbai.So also beneficiary of another govt. subsidised flat in mumbai. In fact these IAS and IFS officers twist every law and fact. We indian r habitual of different law for different section of society . May be many IAS easily escape from this housing scam in india but caught in US atlast in some manipulation :)

A person whose job is to protect US interests within USA doesn't have the same views as someone whose job is to protect US interests outside USA. As a New York attorney Preet Bharara's oath sworn duty is to prosecute crime in his jurisdiction to the full extent of the law. As diplomats the State Department's job is to preserve vital diplomatic relations irrespective of the law. Preet's job is to try Devyani, not dabble in alliances. The State department's job is to hear India out and act in a way to keep a friendly cordial relationship intact. There will always be a conflict.

Whenever lawyers charge high ranking foreign nationals, delegates and diplomats, they always face pushback. Sometimes their own governments will rebuke and rebuff them. Sometimes criminals will go scot free to preserve ties or prevent unwanted tensions. That does not mean a lawyer should slack on their duties, go easy, tread lightly or be diplomatic. It will be unethical and contrary to their oats if they placed anything else above the law.

I'm not saying he did this case out of the good of his heart. Of course he has ambitions. He picked this case because of its high profile. He knew about the risks and consequences. He hoped the risks would pay off with dividends for his career. But unless he was willing to place the law above diplomacy and prosecute like a lawyer, he shouldn't have taken it. I think his political ambitions are in the legal field not legislative or diplomatic fields.

Edit to add the cheesy line: What would Jack McCoy do?