M A I N   N E W S

US acted in ‘bad faith’ in visa case
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, December 29
The US apparently acted in "bad faith" in preparing a visa fraud case against Devyani Khobragade and "evacuating" members of her maid Sangeeta Richard's family despite being aware of India's legal processes that a dispute between a diplomat and her domestic employee could only be contested in an Indian court.

The case, it now appears, was wrong on facts, reprehensible in its implementation and unacceptable in terms of the State Department's behaviour towards the Indian Government.

Reports from Washington, meanwhile, said India's strong stand on the arrest of the diplomat has forced the US to initiate an "inter-agency review" to look into the "lapses" in the case.

The National Security Council of the White House, the State Department and the Justice Department have been included in the process.

In "overzealous" enthusiasm to improve conditions of domestic workers employed by foreign diplomats in the US, the State Department has, in practice, overstepped its jurisdiction by pronouncing guidelines impinging upon sovereign functions of other countries. If this line of argument was to be accepted, then the next set of guidelines issued by the State Department might even prescribe wages and service conditions for other foreign countries to follow with regard to their diplomats and officials in the US, sources said.

Narrating the circumstances of the case, sources said the US side was fully aware that contractual arrangements reached with India-Based Domestic Assistants (IBDAs) by successive Indian diplomats posted in the US were intended to provide for domestic helpers on the basis of deemed government employment whereby US visas were issued to the IBDAs on the official passport issued in response to a government diplomatic note.

The US Embassy was also aware that the government paid for the air passages, including home leave fares, provided comprehensive medical coverage exactly on a par with the coverage provided to the diplomat as well as lodging in diplomatic premises.

New Delhi's only mistake was in believing that the US Embassy's understanding of these circumstances was also shared by the US State Department.

Sources also rejected as "incorrect" the State Department's claim that it was in regular correspondence with the Indian side on the Devyani vs her maid issue. In six months, there was only one communication from the US side in response to several from New Delhi, asking the Indian side to investigate into the IBDA's allegations, to which a response was sent by the MEA in writing.

In contrast, since the IBDA went missing in June, the Indian side repeatedly approached the State Department and the US authorities with information and evidence against the maid and her attempts to blackmail the diplomat into a monetary settlement with facilitation of her continued stay in the US, highlighting the misuse of her official passport and US visa to illegally remain in the US.

The US side was also aware of the prior legal processes in India which essentially insisted that the dispute, if any, between Devyani and her maid should be contested in an Indian court.

In spending several months in preparing a case for arresting Devyani and that of evacuating members of the IBDA's family through the US Embassy, it was clear that the State Department had no intention of consulting or informing India in the matter, including during Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh's visit. Neither did the US Embassy bother to check on the facts in the case.

Embassy, State Dept's role dubious

• The US Embassy in particular, and the State Department in general, acted in bad faith, say MEA sources
• The US side was aware of the prior legal processes in India -essentially insisting that a dispute, if any, between Devyani and her maid should be contested in an Indian court
• The US spent several months to prepare a case against Devyani and evacuated members of the maid's family through its Embassy. It was clear that the State Department had no intention of consulting or informing India in the matter, say sources