Exploitation of employee or blackmail of employer? (Khobragade case)

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#71

Originally posted by: _Angie_
^^ K, how did you reach that conclusion? What made you so certain of sangeeta's innocence? It is unlikely that an average maid in India would have problems with the pay and perks that she had been offered, though it may be considered inadequate by US rates. What do you think made her suddenly demand more wages and ask for US citizenship. There have been several cases of members of some concerts or other groups disappearing in the US and the owner being charged with human trafficking. How can you be so certain that Sangeeta and her family had not pre planned the whole thing to gain access to US citizenship?

She was looking to switch jobs because she was being overworked and underpaid? Are you saying, poor people don't have the right to dream? Or the right to switch jobs?

Because her legal status in this country was tied to that of her employer's, the issue of visa came up and it was found that what was promised to her in her visa application wasn't the amount that was being paid to her. And the hours were much longer than the originally agreed upon 40 hours a week.

By the way, Sangeeta herself has brought no claim against Khobragade. Bharara did. Sangeeta by all accounts was fed up of working for her employer and decided to walk away which was later negatively painted by the bigwigs in India as "absconding". Later they upgraded that to "theft". What next? She is in cahoots with China planning on incursions into Arunachal Pradesh?

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#72

Originally posted by: souro
[What wrongdoings are we talking about exactly?

Wrongdoings that the law is looking into based on a CNN article:
1. trying to evade U.S. law intended to protect domestic employees of diplomats and consular workers from exploitation
2. causing the victim and her spouse "to attest to false documents and be a part of her scheme to lie to U.S. government officials."

Wrongdoing in my book:
3. attributing bogus charges on Sangeeta, harassing her, harassing her family, turning the nation against a poor defenseless woman

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#73

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Wrongdoing in my book:
3. attributing bogus charges on Sangeeta, harassing her, harassing her family, turning the nation against a poor defenseless woman

She went to shop for grocery and didn't return. She was supposed to work as a housekeeper of Ms.Khobragade but she disappeared without informing. So is it wrong if it's said that she is absconding?

Someone on the maid's behalf makes an anonymous call to Ms.Khobragade for huge compensation to avoid going to court. Is it then wrong if a case of blackmailing and extortion was filed?

When all this was going on, her family was taken into police custody for questioning, after which they were let go. Is it wrong to question the family members of an absconding person who is trying to blackmail someone?

It's the Indian diplomat who was harassed by the maid and the US govt. Your country took recourse to some legality overlooking ground realities and is protecting that maid. The victim of this harassment is an Indian diplomat. And you have a problem if we charge US diplomats under section 377 of IPC?

Edited by souro - 11 years ago

Quote

charminggenie

@charminggenie

Stunner

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#74

In response to a media query relating to Dr Devyani Khobragade

Washington, DC

December 18, 2013

The Embassy of India, Washington DC and the Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi have been taking up the matter of Dr. Devyani Khobragade's domestic assistant Ms. Sangeeta Richard from June 2013 with the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi.

The Embassy of India received the State Department's letter dated September 4, 2013, which requested the Embassy to enquire in to the allegations brought in by Ms. Richard disputing her terms of employment with Dr. Khobragade and seeking the findings of the Embassy. In response, the Indian side both in New Delhi and in Washington DC reiterated the requests pending with the U.S. side in this regard since June 2013 including the following:

- assistance in tracing Dr. Khobragade's domestic assistant Ms. Sangeeta Richard, an Indian citizen who entered the US with an Official Passport of the Government of India, who was found missing on June 23, 2013. This was reported immediately to the Office of the Foreign Missions in New York and NYPD.

- action against blackmailing by Ms. Richard demanding that she be permitted to change her passport, visa status and to work elsewhere, which would be in violation of U.S. regulations.

- assistance in repatriating Ms. Richard as her passport was revoked on July 8, 2013 and is since staying in the U.S. illegally.

- arresting of Ms. Richard who has taken cash, mobile phone and documents from the residence of Dr. Khobragade.

On October 8, a written response was sent by the Indian Embassy to the State Department rebutting the allegation and bringing out the facts of the case whereby Ms. Richard is seeking to subvert both Indian and US laws. The U.S. side was also requested to assist in implementing an injunction issued on September 20, 2013 by the Delhi High Court against Ms. Richard restraining from initiating any legal action against Dr. Khobragade outside India.

Separately, on July 15, 2013, Mr. Philip Richard, husband of Ms. Sangeeta Richard filed a Writ Petition against Dr. Khobragade and the Union of India alleging that Ms. Sangeeta Richard was in police custody in New York and charging Dr. Khobragade. On July 19, 2013, Mr. Richard voluntarily withdrew his Writ Petition.

In view of the above, the State Department was requested to assist in locating and repatriating Ms. Richard to India.

On November 19, the Metropolitan Magistrate of South District, New Delhi issued a non-bailable arrest warrant against Ms. Richard. On December 6, the arrest warrant was forwarded to the State Department and to the US Embassy in New Delhi requesting them to instruct the relevant authorities in the US to arrest and repatriate Ms. Richard to India through our Consulate in New York.

No response was received from the US side for any of these communications.

On December 12, 2013, Dr. Khobragade was arrested.

Quote

charminggenie

@charminggenie

Stunner

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#75

Preet's latest statement is amusing, specially when Kerry has expressed regret about the treatment handed to the diplomat. According to him sneaking in a coffee to the diplomat was a show of respect - what about strip search , Mr Attorney?

I am loving how Salman Khursid responded -" why should GOI respondto a US attorney's statement , we will go by what Kerry has expressed. I don't think US govt would ever resond to an Indian attorney".

Quote

Bazigar

@Bazigar

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#76

The topic heading says it all . We Indian bother about labour law ,wage etc when we r employee , but when the same emloyee becomes a employer of unskilled worker then kaheka labour law-minimum wage. Divyani just implementing our own system in US with this revolution hope US will change its labour law , We will not follow system , system will follow us.

Quote

charminggenie

@charminggenie

Stunner

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#77

I would clear my stand here - Do not in anyway support Devyani for using false information to procure the visa. She should be suspended and reported to Indian court. Although I maintain Ms Richards is not a victim here, there are too many discrepancies in her behavior post her employment. The intention was to get an asylum for her entire family and she has been successful in gaining that.

My problem is with US interpretation of Vienna Convention as per their convenience. If US govt says no immunity for Indian dip arrested in NYC, how did they claim it applied to Ray Davis after he shot two people in Lahore?

Yes I understand they have a policy of defending their nationals in foreign lands even in cases of homicides. But this does mark a testimony to Preet's argument that US always have stood by it's own interpretation of Vienna Convention. You cannot have two definitions for the same law.

The ball is in US's court now, considering India has transferred Devyani to permanent seat mission in UN , based in NY itself to strengthen her immunity. The appointment needs to be cleared by US Justice. Should be interesting how US treats this line.

I am sure Beijing and Islamabad would be applauding somewhere😉

Edited by charminggenie - 11 years ago

Quote

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#78

Originally posted by: charminggenie

Rest Mr K., do go the legal timeline given by both Foreign Sec. There is more to it than just a maidgate!

You're right genie. By trying to circumvent the laws (although she may have been in a way forced to, given the financial constraints), she did compromise the country's reputation. That should be investigated and if found guilty, she should be punished for that. But it should be India who should do that.

And Sangeeta and poor and downtrodden? That's something that the Western media has invented. Her own salary, of ~$550 per month with free fooding, lodging, medical care, air fare, family support given back in India by govt., etc. she earns more and gets more perks than many fresh graduates, engineers and MBAs. Add to that the income of the other family members and you have a pretty high monthly household income by Indian standards. It's just her job profile that makes it sound like she is poor and downtrodden.

Edited by souro - 11 years ago

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 11 years ago

#79

Originally posted by: charminggenie
I would clear my stand here - Do not in anyway support Devyani for using false information to procure the visa. She should be suspended and reported to Indian court. Although I maintain Ms Richards is not a victim here, there are too many discrepancies in her behavior post her employment. The intention was to get an asylum for her entire family and she has been successful in gaining that.

I find it baffling that people are convinced that someone who has been exploited is also scheming for asylum. I feel that she was exploited, ergo she sought help. But to each their own perception,

My problem is with US interpretation of Vienna Convention as per their convenience. If US govt says no immunity for Indian dip arrested in NYC, how did they claim it applied to Ray Davis after he shot two people in Lahore?
Yes I understand they have a policy of defending their nationals in foreign lands even in cases of homicides. But this does mark a testimony to Preet's argument that US always have stood by it's own interpretation of Vienna Convention. You cannot have two definitions for the same law.

Consular employees are not covered by diplomatic immunity. USA was merely trying to defend their citizen.

That is why Pakistan arrested and tried Ray Davis under their sharia law. USA tried to get Ray Davis of the hook but couldn't. However, USA didn't retaliate, threaten or change prior diplomatic arrangements with Pakistan.

India also knows very well that consular employees are not covered. That is why they transferred her to a different position. They are right in using diplomatic immunity to get Devyani off the hook. However, they are wrong in retaliating, threatening, and continuing to accuse US of wrong doing.

The ball is in US's court now, considering India has transferred Devyani to permanent seat mission in UN , based in NY itself to strengthen her immunity. The appointment needs to be cleared by US Justice. Should be interesting how US treats this line.

India is doing everything possible to free Devyani and bring her home, which is fair enough. But I doubt that USA will and should accept an after the fact transfer.

I am sure Beijing and Islamabad would be applauding somewhere😉

Quote

_Angie_

@_Angie_

Rocker

Posted: 11 years ago

#80

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

She was looking to switch jobs because she was being overworked and underpaid? Are you saying, poor people don't have the right to dream? Or the right to switch jobs?

Because her legal status in this country was tied to that of her employer's, the issue of visa came up and it was found that what was promised to her in her visa application wasn't the amount that was being paid to her. And the hours were much longer than the originally agreed upon 40 hours a week.

By the way, Sangeeta herself has brought no claim against Khobragade. Bharara did. Sangeeta by all accounts was fed up of working for her employer and decided to walk away which was later negatively painted by the bigwigs in India as "absconding". Later they upgraded that to "theft". What next? She is in cahoots with China planning on incursions into Arunachal Pradesh?

Sangeeta was on an official passport and a dependant visa therefore not entitled to work elsewhere. She could have completed the agreed term and returned to India and applied for a fresh visa for US and fulfill whatever dreams she had. Instead she absconded and resurfaced later with a demand for a change in status of passport and visa that would enable her to obtain US citizenship. This would be in violation of both US as well as Indian laws. Sangeeta had no wish to return to her family consisting of her husband and child in Delhi but preferred rather insisted in staying back in US.

She was not being mistreated by her employers as being alleged. According to Times Now, Devyani's sister released a letter in which Sangeeta Richards wrote that the diplomat's family was very nice to her. Issue about her being underpaid has already been addressed in at length in earlier posts. Khobragade was wrong in misrepresenting facts whatever may have been the compulsions and the GOI is working towards a resolution of those compulsions. As for being overworked just how much housework or babysitting be considered as overwork?. Most people in India wouldn't mind babysitting for free though I understand that it could be seen as quite a tedious job by the Americans.

By comparison the US treatment of the Indian diplomat was atrocious.