India Journal: My Riffs on The Hindu About the Vice-Consul's Arrest

This editorial in The Hindu today about the arrest of the Indian consul officer is rather sensible, and the writers raise some points that bear further consideration:

"A strip search, examination of body cavities and the possible use of restraints other than handcuffs such as waist chains and shackles, are grossly over-the-top steps to use against any detained person. These are automatic, non-discriminatory and legal post-arrest procedures, but that does not make them any better."

This raises a couple of important points. First, the standard protocols of the USMS (Marshal Service) may be too rigorous and intimidating. But if the protocols are too harsh, they are so "for any detained person." So the question isn't whether a counselor officer should have been processed in this manner, but whether anyone should have been. Drug lords? Murderers? Flight or suicide risks? Suicide attempts by persons not shocked by the experience of jailing are not that rare, and any jail must have precautions in place. Precautions must certainly include a search of the prisoner, so even persons accused of non-violent crimes such as this one will undergo an extensive search. So, either the protocols are good for everyone, or at least every class of arrestee, or they should be changed for everyone.

But all of this leads to a deeper difference between the U.S. and India perspectives. Americans are rule-oriented and egalitarian, our dramatic increase in economic inequality in the last 40 years notwithstanding. India, despite its democratic political system, is still very hierarchical and exhibits telling instances of social deference. Also, rule-governed conduct is less common here. Thus, some in India expect special treatment, while others (lower status persons) expect nothing in the way of courtesy or respect. (Not that they don't want courtesy and respect, of course.) The caste system has been officially outlawed for decades, but it's lingering effects--much like those of slavery in the U.S.--remain today, just beneath the surface. I suspect that the endemic corruption of India is exacerbated by a sense of social entitlement combined with the generic motive of greed.

Another interesting point from this article in The Hindu makes the claim that the diplomat is from a Scheduled Class (caste). (ST is scheduled tribe.) The quotes states:

The DMK’s Kanimozhi said one could not shut one’s eyes to the fact that the victim belonged to the SC and such action across the ocean would prove detrimental in the uplift of the community. Pointing out that SC and ST girls had to struggle to come up in life, Ms. Kanimozhi said Ms. Khobragade’s was an example to the community but if she was insulted it would not only instil fear in the community back home but also affect its growth.

It's against the law to criticize a SC/ST (ask Ashish Nandy). Like any betterment program for the under-privileged, it can be gamed, especially by politicians. Thus, this angle on the controversy plays a high value trump card in national politics. 

Little has been said or written about the servant whom the accused brought over and then is alleged to have failed to have properly paid. Many here have household servants, and treatment of servants isn't always good. We Americans are used to "Upstairs/Downstairs" or (for the younger crowd) "Downton Abbey" master and servant relationships, all genteel and, at least to some degree, reciprocal. I don't think that this is the norm here. As an American, I'm still ill at ease with all of the serving gestures that I receive from many locals, such as spreading a napkin in my lap (mastered that at age four) or the guard who stands when I walk by the  gate. I'm not the Pope, the president, or an important person. One doesn't encounter this type of deference among all locals; it's a much more familiar social milieu of relative equality when you're not dealing with serving persons. In India, social standing receives a lot more consideration, and higher-ups receive much greater deference when we're considering whether a person has received appropriate treatment, .

The Hindu editorial goes on:

Never known for taking on the U.S on substantive policy issues, the government’s unusually aggressive reactions — and those of political parties too — on behalf of a diplomat, smell of political considerations ahead of an election. From the Prime Minister and Ministers of Home and External Affairs to the Bahujan Samaj Party leader, everyone has weighed in on her side. In the furore, it has been all but forgotten that there are serious charges against the diplomat, and that the domestic worker is also an Indian. It is certainly odd that the domestic worker’s family was able to obtain visas to travel to the U.S even while Ms. Khobragade’s request to have her traced remained pending. Despite Indian diplomats being embroiled in similar cases in the past, each time blaming the domestic worker’s motives — in all previous cases, the complainant got long-term residency in the U.S — the government has only now started giving serious thought to managing the practice of officials taking domestic staff along on postings abroad

The Hindu's editorial stance makes a strong point here. The seriousness of the offense in U.S. eyes (see above for possible contrasts with the Indian perspective) and  the plight of the servant in questions have been mostly lost on this end of the controversy.

The Hindu editorial continues:

Both sides could have found a mutually acceptable way to defuse the controversy — often in such cases, the issue is closed by withdrawing the diplomat. That the government chose instead to transfer Ms. Khobragade to India’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York, with a view to enhancing her immunity, is questionable and casts India’s claim of a nation ruled by law in poor light.

I am surprised that all of this wasn't resolved behind the scenes to avoid this kind of stand-off, where Indian pride and dignity are staked against American ideas about the rule of law and the applicability of that law without fear or favor (albeit an ideal not always achieved). I suspect that tucking the diplomat away at the U.N. won't work. Rather than finding a speedy resolution, such a tactic could lead to a long-term stand-off. Neither nation would benefit from that.

India Journal: Diplomatic Kerfuffle

A photo of India's deputy consul general in New York, Devyani Khobragade

On December 12, U.S. Federal Marshals arrested an Indian diplomat (Devyani Khobragade) in NYC for falsifying a visa application for a servant. The gist of the complaint claims that the servant was to have been paid one amount but was in fact paid much less, even less than the minimum wage. The diplomat was arrested while dropping off her daughter at school. The arrest was processed, and the diplomat was jailed until she posted bond.

We first read about this in The Hindu, that we subscribe to and that we consider one of the better papers. When I first learned of this Monday, I searched the NYT for a report, but I couldn’t find one. Today, the headlines in The Hindu reported about the retaliatory actions of a very unhappy Indian government, while the NYT reported about the retaliation in an article as well. The Indian government is indignant about the arrest and treatment that its diplomat received. The American authorities haven’t said much, but they seem to be treating it as a relatively unremarkable matter.

When I read about this arrest initially, I wondered about diplomatic immunity, but the Americans argue that lying on the visa application for the servant (done by the diplomat) and wage and hour violations are not covered by diplomatic immunity. In fact, there is a difference between immunities provided to diplomatic as opposed to consular staff. Given the lack of much argument about this from the Indian papers, I’m inclined to believe that diplomatic (or consular) immunity does not apply in this instance (but I’m no expert).

The Indian government and political class seem more upset about the treatment of the diplomat rather than the substance of the charges. My response is that the treatment doesn’t sound like anything special. Federal law enforcement, in my limited personal experience as well as my reading, can be heavy-handed indeed, but they probably played this one by the book. U.S. Marshals can be brusque, but they don’t tend to discriminate in that regard. I suspect that the diplomat received the same treatment as anyone else arrested on a federal felony charge.  (By the way, the issuance of an arrest warrant means that a judicial magistrate found probable cause to believe that the crime alleged had been committed.) Searches and jailing, I expect, would have followed normal procedures. (I’ve seen nothing to indicate the contrary.)

To say that U.S. and Indian norms for the treatment of women differ a good deal is a titanic understatement. As Hari Kumar points out in the NYT, for airport searches in India, women go through a separate line and go behind a screen for personal searches beyond the metal detector. Thus, we have an issue of diplomatic protocol as well as a difference about how the genders are treated. As to an arrest while dropping (or picking up) a child at school, I can only say that this wouldn’t appear to be any different from what law enforcement officials would do with any other person sought for arrest. Once they have an arrest warrant, you can expect them to do whatever is required of them to apprehend the subject. Federal law enforcement officials don't operate like the constable in an Agatha Christie country house mystery.

All of this happened in NYC, which has a long history of dealing with diplomats accused of crimes, especially since the location of the U.N. there. Given that the subject is an Indian diplomat, one has to assume that the highest levels of prosecutors and State Department officials were advised of the plan and approved of it. The Hindustan Times reports: 

While the state department is reviewing if all the correct procedures were followed,[State Department spokesperson] Harf stressed that the Indian embassy in Washington had been informed of the allegations against the consular official as long ago as September.

As a consular official, Khobragade does not have full diplomatic immunity, but has consular immunity which "only applies to things done in the actual functions of one's job," Harf added.

The diplomat had been arrested by the State Department's diplomatic security bureau, and then handed over to the US Marshals Service (USMS) to be processed through the court system.

In a statement, the Marshals confirmed she had been strip-searched and "was subject to the same search procedures as other USMS arrestees held within the general prisoner population in the Southern District of New York."

Although it did not confirm reports that Khobragade was placed with drug addicts, the statement added that she was held in a cell with other female detainees.
"Absent a special risk or separation order, prisoners are typically placed in the general population," the Marshals statement said, adding she had been put in an "available and appropriate cell."

Khobragade was released on a bond the same day, and after a review of her case the US Marshals found that the service had "handled Khobragade's intake and detention in accordance with USMS policy directives and protocols."

"All indications are that appropriate procedures were followed. But nonetheless. We understand this is a very sensitive issue, and we're continuing to review exactly what transpired," Harf told journalists on Tuesday.

One interesting sidebar: the head prosecutor is an NRI. What difference, if any, did that make? I don’t know, and I’ve seen no conjecture about it. 

The main point that I’d make to any Indian readers is that I’m not aware of any sub-text to the arrest. I’ve not read anything, nor can I conjecture about, any ulterior motive for the arrest. If the diplomat had been from Pakistan, Brazil, or Canada, I don’t know why the matter would be handled any differently.  Remember that when International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested in New York City he had to do a perp walk. It's not kind, gentle, or considerate, but it does convey a powerful message about law enforcement.

American-Indian relations have been good, and one can only hope that this whole thing will pass without untoward gamesmanship on either side. I don’t know what the Americans have to gain from it.

For American readers, this should provide a glimpse of how delicate our relations with other countries can be. We’re the big boys on the global block right now, and nations will easily take offense if they perceive the U.S. as disrespectful or callous about their dignity and standing. (Most nations can tolerate, if the price is right, to have their interests thwarted, but not their honor.)

The retaliation by the Indian government seems more annoying than threatening. Taking down traffic barriers around the embassy will likely reduce the amount of business that the embassy can do, which, based upon my visits there, is quite a bit. Very many Indians want to travel to the U.S. to see family, go to school, or to emigrate, so I’m not sure that this is a wise move. The other acts I think more annoying than harmful. 

In any event, it shows how touchy the diplomatic world can be.Let's hope that the matter is soon laid to rest.