Their Fault and Our Anger

The country’s anger at the mistreatment the United States has meted out to Devyani Khobragade is natural. Diplomats represent their country’s sovereignty, and any kind of mistreatment toward them is a way of maligning their country’s sovereign image. The diplomat has been charged with providing incorrect information in her maid’s visa application. However, is this enough of a crime for her to be handcuffed and disrobed?

Recently, many Russian diplomats were charged with serious allegations related to the U.S. health department fraud, but they were only thrown out of America. Take the current example: Even after a report was filed with New York police about the disappearance of the maid, Sangita Richard, no action was taken. Indian court orders and the warrant without bail issued against Sangita were also ignored.

Sangita’s family, which was not ready to help in the matter of the missing person, reached New York on an American visa two days after the diplomat’s arrest! If you combine the events of the diplomat’s blackmailing, then, this matter seems to be preplanned.

The U.S. secretary of state expressing regret is proof of the high-handedness of authorities with the Indian diplomat. Despite this, the reaction we saw at the government level was more emotional than anything. Quickly, the barricades near the U.S. embassy in New Delhi were removed, although the Vienna treaty being cited says that it is our responsibility to continue safeguarding the international embassy. Making a big issue out of giving a low payment to a maid may be proof of American bullying and duality, but can it be denied that such complaints related to Indian diplomats located in the U.S. have occurred earlier too?

While these facts may not be related to the current issue, the existence of two “concessional” flats in the name of Devyani against the regulations of two Mumbai housing societies, including the Adarsh society, does not present a clean image of her however. In such a case, public anger can be understood, but the government should have been pragmatic.