allow me to dissect and attempt to put forth a few points that may have escaped attention.
Why are people even discussing about the salary of the domestic help and whether she should have been content with whatever she is getting and keep her mouth shut. On the same lines, neither is Devayani's history of scams and abuse of power and influence of any relevance to the case itself. It only establishes her character to people like us.
...probably because i think the case was raised and followed up on the grounds of paying a low wage and misrepresentation of (visa) documents pertaining to the maid and all that. nobody said that Ms. Sangeeta should've been content with whatever she was being paid and shut up. after her disappearance act, she went untraceable. the Khobragade family tried to locate her and her cellphone no., but her husband kept insisting (lying) that he wasn't in talks with her. this being a grave matter, Mr. Uttam sought the help of Delhi Police, got the no. of Ms. Sangeeta, and this is what allegedly followed --> she made a demand of a good rise in her wage (i think to be made USD 10k), which was agreed to by Mr. Uttam, there was one 2nd demand, which i can't recall now, which was also agreed to, and the third was to get visa & other formalities completed for her family, to which Mr. Uttam categorically denied, as this required intervention of the GOI and presence of the person who required visa and something of that sort, though Mr. Uttam said that he can certainly arrange to get her flown back here and then take assistance from him on all that, to which Sangeeta's reply was - "
par ek baar udhar aaye to phir waapas US nahin aa sakte na!" (this is what i think was one of the preliminary pointers that led the suspicion towards immigrant-settler lobby behind the play).
The indirect relevance of the salary is that the law will consider it has underpayment of wages if its less than the legal limit. But I think there are other offences as well that would be slapped on her like for example misrepresentation of information.
that 'misrepresentation of information' or 'misinformation' thing is what Devayani's advocate (or whatever its called in american-terms) and the GOI is contesting against the most, and which Mr. Uttam has been crying out loud the whole time even before this was taken up by that advocate - that the documents were filled and signed by Sangeeta, and that a nation that has English as its first language, misunderstands 'employee's salary' as 'employer's salary', one of the points on which the case was built up, and this being so stupid a mistake, that overlooking it seems deliberate.
Then there is also possibility of criminal intimidation of the domestic help and her husband from what I read of the case.
there might be, but as far as one could gather, it was the other way round here, except that the Delhi HC had summoned Sangeeta's husband, unless, ofcourse, the american global upholders of humanitarian values consider this as 'criminal intimidation', which they certainly indirectly put forward as an argument to 'evacuate' Sangeeta's family, through Uncle Tom Bharara.
Indians in US and diplomats in particular have been known in the past for exploitation and mistreatment of domestic help and given Devayanis own history of using influence to get what ever she wanted through out her career, I have no problem believing that Devayani did whatever she could to corner and persecute the domestic help and her family in India when she wanted to leave. It is more than likely that she is guilty.
could be. although little-to-nothing yet is out about that to make us incline in believeing so i think. as far as the supposed 'exploitation and mistreatment' in this particular case is concerned, pages from the diary of Sangeeta have enough details on those. she was also given the option of flying her back here if she was allegedly feeling so suffocated there, to which her reply is
now self-explanatory.
The question is whether she was arrested despite having diplomatic immunity or was the immunity was provided to her to protect her from any action.
not to interject, but the answer could very well be that if that 'whole world's burden' country could get its CIA operative and his cronies out of Pakistan fabricating some 'immunity' for them, why shouldn't this country also try its might to get its diplomat out of HARM's way, when here, she *actually* had/has some form of immunity?! immunity isn't
provided to selective candidates of the services i suppose; its governed by some conventions. however, its true that the whole concept of 'immunity' was invented by these western nations to keep their representatives and their self-interests safe in other nations, something like the original concept of 'free trade'. making use of just that, it was infact '
provided' to Mr. Raymond Davis, who didn't already have it as per the conventions, and not certainly his aides, and here, the immunity was already in place on account of her being from one of those services that are covered under those very conventions. diplomacy is based solely/mostly on bilateral relations, so i suppose it means fine to act tit-for-tat in such cases. what you can do, certainly i could do (and the GOI had done this against america/a lobby of american MNCs, i think sometime in 2013; ear-pinching met with arm-twisting! but that's another case)!
Lastly, I think the people in the country are just mad that the cops who arrested her went by the book and treated her the exact same way that they would treat any other visa fraudster or illegal immigrant instead of doting 5 star treatment that politicians in India get.
After all, our country men are so very particular about ones stature. A poor man who steals 100 Rs would be thrown in jail and his bones broken. The people who steal crores would be treated royally even if they go to jail.
mad & fuming? rightly so! the way she was treated isn't 'procedurally' reserved for fraudsters, but for grade 3/4 convicts (murderers, psychopaths, drug-traffickers, etc.). sam has been harping the tune that it did what it has been doing - i don't suppose it did that either to Mr. Rajat Gupta or Mr. Mitt Romney any time!
and being a
representative there of this nation, its a scathing strike on you, me, the nation if s/he is humiliated like that and framed in such a sham to score some political points over there, which am inclined to believe is what is happening. if one can understand the plight of a poor man thrashed in a jail, it shouldn't be a problem to self-identify with the harsh treatment meted out to one's representative ('
raajdoot ka apamaan, raaja/praja/raajya ka apamaan.' an age-old understanding everywhere). whatever gripe we have with that woman Ms. Devayani, it can wait & be sorted out when she comes back. but, for now, first things first! may seem a little jingoistic or whatever in reading, but you need to be so sometimes; a just & rightful unadulterated aggression against the false has the sublime and searing capacity to knock the daylights off of the crooked and the wicked! sports and war can't be engaged in without such a feeling, and this is a battle here we have at hand.
we surely have very sad issues in our homeland that need more serious than just serious thought and remedies, as you have correctly pointed out, but exercising self-introspection can be had after some respite from the issue-at-hand first, or at best, in tandem. its akin someone who has a close friend or relative who is fond of music and dancing, is walking on a road/footpath in merry, singing his tune, narrowly escapes an accident by a motorcyclist who was busy ogling at a girl passing-by, shifts the blame on our friend here, says he distracted him by his humming and waving hands, and readies himself to beat him. as a friend or relative, i think one would first try to fizzle the heat out of the situation, calm things down, get him out of there, and then sort things out in whatever way one may deem fit. would one think - "heh! that bugger, always singing and dancing here-and-there. good riddance! should first look at himself/ourselves, then blame others. now let him get some
prasaad!"?!
borrowing from a more close, day-to-day scenario, this is what is seen mostly in road-rage and road-fight incidents - at that time, no one would accept his/her folly, but try to justify his/her mistake in order to beat down the 'opponent' verbally/physically, who-so-ever may be at fault. why then here so much imploring to first check our faults and then preach and all that thing, when off the PC and on the road we go & forget all that moral science? and when infact here much indicates that there's little-to-no fault lying with the victim (being projected as the perpetrator).
i have seen some comments suggesting just this, that we should first clean our own backyard and then climb on to point the faults of others. nope! contingency measures first! cleaning and lesson-driving later. in this case, trying to get her back (and that absconding maid and her family) from that unnecessary mess should be the first priority. trying her for what she did here or did not do, second. then seriously introspecting our own faults, followed by thorough measures to terminate them, reform (labour) laws as well as our attitude, and keep everything in check as a follow-up (including keeping a stringent check on domestic helps sent to foreign soil with diplomats too, as our universal love for the gori chamadi is well-known. i had heard that the GOI is considering abolishing this practice altogether; diplomats to hire help from the locals of that land itself now!).
rarely do we see our govt. taking a tough stand on anything other than dishing out some tough criticisms'. please don't rob it of this opportunity. waise, thoda zyaada ho gaya.