What started out as a relatively easy-to-resolve dispute over wages and hours between the Indian diplomat Deputy Consul-General Devyani Khobragade and her maid Sangeetha Richard has exploded into a diplomatic spat between India and the US that rivals the time when the US applied sanctions in the aftermath of India's nuclear tests in 1998. Indians appear to be deeply divided on the merits of the issue, approving of the US action on the grounds of upholding American law and ethics, or disapproving of it on the grounds that India has been disrespected. Before I voice my two cents on the issue, let me take the time to relate the sequence of events, as I understand them from various sources.
In October of 2012, Philip Richard, the husband of the maid, who worked as a driver at the Embassy of Mozambique, approaches Devyani Khobragade for a job for his wife. Possibly, he had heard through the grapevine that Ms. Khobragade was looking for a maid. In November 2012, after meeting Mrs. Sangeetha Richard, two agreements of employment are signed, differing essentially in the amount of salary agreed upon. One was for Rs. 30,000 a month to be deposited into an account in Delhi, the other, an affidavit to be filed with the visa application, agreed to pay an hourly wage of $9.75 for a 40 hour workweek. An application for an A-3 visa(personal employees, domestic workers and servants) is made, with which Ms. Khobragade assists and provides supporting documents and affidavits. The requirements for the visa, among other things, was that the wage offered be fair, sufficient for the applicant to support himself/herself, and be comparable to prevailing wages in the area. The visa is granted, and Mrs. Richard departs for New York.
At first, everything appears to go quite well between employer and employee. The sister of Ms. Khobragade has published what purports to be a letter home from Mrs. Richard in December 2012, showing that she was happy and well treated. What causes matters to deteriorate is, admittedly, speculation at this point, but this is my surmise of what possibly happened. It is a fact that Mrs. Richard was being paid far less that what Ms. Khobragade, in a sworn affidavit, committed to paying as wages. That much, I think, everyone concedes. At some point, Mrs. Richard probably talks to someone about her wages, and becomes aware of the fact that, under US law and under the contract provided to US immigration authorities in New Delhi, she is entitled to a lot more money. She probably begins pressing her employer to stand by the contract and the law, and things may have gone downhill from there. The letter she purportedly wrote home in December 2012 may not have reflected her outlook in April of 2013, by which time, I'm sure, things were not as rosy. At some point, Mrs. Richard decides, and may have been assisted in this decision, to break out, so to speak. On June 23, 2013, she leaves the home allegedly to buy groceries, and does not return.
Mrs. Richard does not approach Ms. Khobragade with an attorney until July 8, almost two weeks later. In the interim, she appears to have been given shelter by a non-profit called Safe Horizon, which works with victims of trafficking and violence. In the meanwhile, CGI-NY files a missing person report with NYPD, which declines to accept it on their determination, after interviewing Ms. Khobragade in front of the Indian mission, that Mrs. Richard has voluntarily left, and is therefore not missing. NYPD does not pursue immigration violators. Meanwhile, Philip Richard is questioned in New Delhi on the whereabouts of his wife. On July 8, Mrs. Richard's attorney contacts the Indian consulate and Ms. Khobragade, and arranges a meeting at the attorney's office. Ms. Khobragade attends with 3 or 4 consular officers. At the meeting, Mrs. Richard allegedly demands $10,000, a regular passport and conversion of her visa to a regular work visa(which would be in the H category). The other version is that she asks for back pay, better hours and more time off, according to her attorney. The consular officials attempt to persuade Mrs. Richard to continue negotiations at the Indian mission, but she refuses. In the meanwhile, Philip Richard and his son are taken into custody in New Delhi, although later released. The talks fail, and Mrs. Richard refuses to return to the consulate, citing her apprehension of what might happen to her.
Upon leaving the attorney's office, the mission officials file a felony theft charge against Mrs. Richard, claiming she stole cash, a Blackberry, and sundry official items. They revoke her passport, and request the Office of Foreign Missions to cancel her personal identification card, rendering her presence in the US essentially illegal. In mid-July, Philip Richard files a petition in New Delhi, charging Ms. Khobragade with underpaying his wife and illegally compelling her to sign a second contract. He withdraws the complaint within days, for unknown reasons. (Note: A byline in the Economic Times of December 24 says that Mr. Richard's complaint was dismissed because the court observed that jurisdiction for the matter was not in India. Rather contradictory to the stand taken by the court in the complaint later filed by Ms. Khobragade.)
All of August goes by, with no apparent activity. Mrs. Richard, according to her attorney, was living on the generosity of strangers, including getting meals at a Sikh gurudwara. But clearly, the US State Department was investigating during this time, and determines that there is enough prima facie evidence to warrant further action. On September 4, 2013, they send a letter to the Indian Ambassador, seeking a meeting and clarification. There is no response for almost a week, at which time India's Ministry of External Affairs(in charge of Indian diplomatic missions) protests against "the tone and content" of the letter. No meeting is forthcoming. On September 20, the Delhi High Court issues an injunction to Mrs. Richard, restraining her from instituting any action against Ms. Khobragade outside India. On September 21, the Indian Embassy responds to State's September 4 letter, claiming that there is no US jurisdiction in the matter.
On November 19, the south district court in New Delhi issues a non-bailable arrest warrant against Mrs. Richard, on charges of extortion, cheating and conspiracy, In effect, she is boxed in, technically illegal in the US, and facing certain arrest in India if she returns. On December 10, Philip Richard and his children leave for the US on an Air India plane, two days before Ms. Khobragade's arrest in New York.
On December 12, 2013, Ms. Khobragade is served with an arrest warrant and arrested after she dropped her children off at school. Indian media has portrayed Preet Bharara, the US Attorney for Manhattan, as directing the arrest procedure, which is entirely incorrect. The arrest was made by the US Marshals Office, and according to a statement issued by Mr. Bharara, was discreet and courteous. Ms. Khobragade, according to this statement, was not handcuffed, was allowed to remain at the scene of the arrest for two hours inside an official US Marshals Service car, using her phone to make numerous calls and arrangements, and was offered coffee and food while she did so. The controversial element appears to be the strip search, which Mr. Bharara says took place in a private setting with female marshals. He and the US Marshals Service categorically deny that there was any cavity search, as alleged by Ms. Khobragade in messages, and as carried by Indian media, or that she was handcuffed at the scene, which would make it difficult to make phone calls for two hours. She is placed in a general holding cell with female prisoners while her bail is arranged.
Okay, so that was the general sequence of events, as I have gleaned them, to the point of arrest. Indian media has gone into a frenzy on several points of misinformation, centering around the manner in which she was arrested("like a common criminal", "in front of her children" "handcuffed in public"), the strip search and the alleged cavity search, and "placed in a cell with drug dealers and prostitutes". They also focus on the alleged $4500 a month payment, which is the result of an inaccuracy in the complaint by Mark Smith, a Special Agent with the Department of State. On further reading of the complaint, it is clear that the agreed wage was $9.75 an hour, which would be an astounding 460 hour work month if one accepted the $4500 figure. However, the Indian media has still not cottoned on to that, and continue their ignorant outrage that such a "demand" could be made for a "mere maid's services". I watched a program on TV hosted by Arnab Goswami, which is supposedly one of the top "news" shows, and he too kept harping on the fictitious $4500 salary. According to Goswami, he has documentation that shows that the US embassy in New Delhi pays some of their Indian employees as little as a dollar a day. I would suggest that he make the documentation available for general public scrutiny, and disclose the source. I have searched, and been unable to find a reliable source, although as a general observation, westerners in India pay and treat their servants far better than Indians, and I myself pay $1 an hour for part-time help, so frankly I think Goswami is full of hot air(which probably accounts for his incessant and annoying shouting). Both the media as well as comments from the public and politicians have proposed retaliatory measures such as arresting gay American diplomats, boycotting American products and, bizarrely, arresting American female diplomats and having them raped by the police because "In India, when a woman is arrested, she is raped by the police", apparently a counter to the US Marshals' position that a strip search is routine procedure in a felony arrest. If that last is indeed the case, I would strongly urge people like Arnab Goswami to focus their pious outrage on that.
Now, here's my take on the entire sorry episode. In the previous couple of years, two Indian diplomats at the New York consulate, Neena Malhotra and Prabhu Dayal, faced similar charges. Neena Malhotra had left the country before the charges were brought, and a $1.5 million judgement is in place against her. Prabhu Dayal settled out of court. With this as the background, one would assume that the Ministry of External Affairs would have cautioned all its diplomatic staff to rigorously abide by the laws and statutes of the US governing their personal staff on A-3 visas. Ms. Khobragade, as a senior officer, was no doubt aware of this issue even if MEA did not issue a circular. It made news in the major NY papers and the Indian-American media, and would no doubt have been part of the conversation on the IFS circuit. Despite this, she chose to repeat the same violations in employing her maid. The fact of the second "contract" speaks for itself, that she intended to circumvent the US visa requirements. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I believe she is guilty of cheating, fraud and conspiracy to defraud. The Indian government's case against Mrs. Richard, alleging "illegal immigration", and "extortion, cheating and conspiracy" are a blatant example of elitist high-handedness which run counter to the facts, and misuse of government authority. This, and the earlier treatment of her husband and son, is what led the Department of State to facilitate the departure of Philip Richard and his children from India, and give them "safe harbor" prior to arresting Ms. Khobragade, because there was, let's be honest, a very real danger that the full force of the Indian government would have been brought to bear on them.
As to the sequence of events, there were numerous opportunities for India to have defused the situation, to have mitigated the arrest risk for Ms. Khobragade and rectified what was from the start a sordid affair of exploitation. Prior to Mrs. Richard's departure from the Khobragade home, when tensions were obviously building, Mrs. Richard's employment could have been terminated and she could have been sent home, even if it meant giving her the legal backpay and flying her back. After June 23, when CGI-NY filed a missing person report, there was no need to harass her husband in India. At the meeting on July 8, knowing the tenuous legal position, a compromise agreement should have been reached to pay Mrs. Richard her backpay and a measure of compensation, on condition that she returned to India with a guarantee that there would be no retaliation. Failure to do that was grossly compounded by the fact of the detention on the very same day of her husband and son(I strongly suspect that was used as leverage) and the revocation of her passport, rendering her technically illegal. Through the month of August, as State was preparing its investigation and course of action, India failed to move Ms. Khobragade out of the reach of US law, whether by enhancing her immunity or reassigning her to another country. In September, when State officially communicated its interest in the matter, it was clear that this was not a laughing matter, and yet it took a whole week for MEA to merely protest "the tone and content" of the letter and a further ten days for the Indian Embassy to claim that there was no US jurisdiction in the matter, let alone do anything concrete about it. Over the next two months, cases were filed in India against Mrs. Richard, on behalf of Ms. Khobragade, resulting in an unconstitutional injunction to Mrs. Richard to refrain from legal action overseas, and a non-bailable arrest warrant on her. Furthermore, in an act of unbelievable arrogance, knowing that State was interested in prosecuting a case against Ms. Khobragade, MEA initiated an extradition request against the maid(who was the victim under US law, and prime witness in State's case) to face charges in India. Lastly, given the intent to intimidate the family of Mrs. Richard, the fact that Philip Richard and his son both applied for renewal of their passports in September did not cross MEA 's radar nor did their flight out of India, on an Air India flight, no less. If it did, and nothing was done to prevent it, then we must consider the possibility of a deeper, more complex game that MEA is playing.
In conclusion, Ms. Khobragade is, in my opinion, guilty of deliberately flouting the US visa and employment rules, filing a false affidavit and subsequently misusing government machinery to intimidate Mrs. Richard and her family. In addition, the sense of invulnerability combined with sheer arrogance and incompetence on the part of Ms. Khobragade, the Indian consular officials, the MEA and other Indian authorities resulted in an utter failure to defuse and resolve an embarrassment to the image of India. An image which, admittedly, is more hype than reality, but an image nevertheless of a country trying to progress and uplift its poor, and remedy a long historical record of inequity and injustice. In truth, little, it seems, has changed.
