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:
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:
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:
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:
"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:
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.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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment