Puts US diplomats in country on tighter vigil
It is both refreshing and pleasantly surprising that the Congress-led UPA Government should have developed some spine on an external affairs issue. The major diplomatic offensive launched by New Delhi is a fitting response to the US authorities' mistreatment of an Indian diplomat. After Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh summoned the American Ambassador and issued a strong demarche over the arrest and incarceration of India's acting Consul General in New York Devyani Khobragade on Friday, the Ministry of External Affairs has now upped the ante and ordered a slew of diplomatic measures in retaliation.
It has asked all US diplomats in India to turn in their identification cards for a review of the immunities they enjoy, revoked airport privileges, removed barricades at the US Delhi embassy and demanded a review of salaries paid to the Indian staff at the American consulate as well as teachers at the American Embassy School. Additionally, politicians and bureaucrats have collectively snubbed a visiting US Congressional delegation, with Union Minister for Home Affairs Sushil Kumar Shinde, Speaker of lok Sabha Meira Kumar, Chief Minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi, National Security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon and Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi cancelling their meetings with the group. These measures have sent out the message, loud and clear, that India will not tolerate its diplomats being treated shabbily. This was necessary on two counts: First, to boost the morale of the country's diplomat corps which would otherwise have felt vulnerable serving in foreign shores. It deserved to be reassured that the Government cared for it. Second, it was imperative to make it clear to the US and the rest of the world that India is not a pushover.
The outrage in New Delhi is not as much about the charges of visa fraud and violation of US labour laws levelled against Ms Khobragade but the fact that basic diplomatic courtesies were not extended to her. Not only was she arrested and handcuffed in public, she was strip-searched and thrown behind bars with petty criminals. Yet, Article 41(1) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations states that “[c]onsular officers shall not be liable to arrest..., except in the case of a grave crime.” Article 41(2) says: “Consular officers shall not be committed to prison or be liable to any other form of restriction on their personal freedom save in execution of a judicial decision of final effect.” But the US Attorney's Office seems to have built its case against Ms Khobragade on the basis of Article 43(1), which states that the consular officers “shall not be amenable to the jurisdiction... of the receiving state in respect of acts performed in the exercise of consular functions”.
In other words, diplomats can come under the laws of the host nation for acts not performed in their official capacity. Whether the employment of a domestic help can be categorised as such, is open to interpretation. There is no clarity if US laws are even applicable in this case. Whatever, there was no justification for the US authorities to treat Ms Khobragade as if she had committed a heinous crime. It remains to be seen how the two friendly nations sort out this crisis. The issue can be contained if the US expresses deep regret over its action and frees the diplomat of the flimsy allegations.