Devyani Khobragade row: What India's hyper-reaction says about us
The Khobragade case has united India, even in ways unthinkable at other times. For example, both Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi, the faces of the two main competing political forces in India, decided not to meet American delegates as a protest against the way Khobragade was treated for alleged visa fraud and exploiting her babysitter-cum-housekeeper.
If a woman dies abroad because of medical complication during pregnancy or if a diplomat is held for allegedly exploiting her maid, there is a huge reaction in the Indian media and among the politicians but when similar incidents happen in our own land, they are regarded as a common phenomenon and conveniently ignored.
Why
does
our
media
need
to
over-react
to
the
incident
in
the
USA?
And
what
purpose
is
the
political
class
serving
by
refusing
to
meet
American
delegates?
If
the
US
officials
have
overlooked
any
technical
aspect
in
the
case
and
have
insulted
our
representative
in
their
land,
our
leaders
should
take
it
up
directly
with
them
instead
of
posing
for
media
attention.
Or
is
it
because
they
are
feeling
compelled
to
buy
some
fame
ahead
of
a
prestigious
battle
in
the
form
of
national
elections
due
in
some
months?
About
the
diplomatic
immunity
Have
the
US
officials
erred
in
not
acknowledging
Khobragade's
diplomatic
immunity?
According
to
experts,
Khobragade
was
unlikely
to
get
such
immunity
because
the
basis
on
which
she
was
held
had
nothing
to
do
with
her
official
status
or
action
and
rather
a
private
matter
subject
to
American
laws.
The
case
of
former
International
Monetary
Fund
chief
Dominique
Strauss-Kahn
was
also
cited
by
the
experts.
Kahn,
who
found
himself
in
the
middle
of
a
sex
scandal,
was
handcuffed
and
put
into
the
jail
before
he
could
seek
any
diplomatic
immunity.
Experts also pointed out that there are two separate international conventions, namely, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 [Read it here].
According to them, consular immunity is not as extensive as those of the diplomatic officers. They, for example, do not have absolute immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the host nation. They are immune from local jurisdiction only in cases related to their official duty. A similar incident had happened in India last year when Pascal Mazurier, a French consulate official, was arrested by the Bangalore Police for allegedly raping his four-year-old daughter.
What's the problem then?
The problem is our mindset. As we often mistreat our domestic servants at our homes, we tend to do the same when abroad as well, forgetting that they enjoy certain legal protection there and land in trouble. Khobragade isn't the first diplomat who has found herself in a legal soup after 'mistreating' their domestic help.
In June 2011, India's the then consul general in New York Prabhu Dayal was accused by his former housekeeper of forcing her into forced labour. In February last year, Neena Malhotra, an Indian Press and Culture counsellor at the New York consulate, was fined $.15 million by a New York court for abusing her maid Shanti Gurung.
These three incidents come to focus because they involve diplomats and take place abroad but when the same thing happens in several households in India because of a pathetic standard of valuing the labour, nobody cares to talk about it. Whatever we are seeing on the television and other media today about the Khobragade incident, it's nothing but a hyper-nationalism at work. It is a great but not exactly a reasonable feeling.
Take
this
According
to
the
Global
Slavery
Index
of
2013,
India
has
the
most
number
of
people
involved
in
modern
slavery
(the
number
is
between
13.3
and
14.7
million).
The
Human
Rights
Watch
also
said
that
"countries
like
India
face
horrific
abuses".
On the other hand, United States Fair Labour Standards Act sets up minimum facilities for workers, including minimum wage, overtime pay, record-keeping and also minimum standards for the child labour in all types of governments, federal, state or local.
For those who are shouting at the top of their voices against the Americans' bad treatment to the diplomat, why don't they show the same urgency to project the harsh socio-economic reality that prevails in our own country?
Why
don't
they
feel
the
same
for
those
poor
and
helpless
people
(mainly
women,
girls
and
children)
from
the
tribal
and
rural
areas
who
work
as
domestic
servants
and
maids
to
earn
a
minimum
living,
even
at
the
risk
of
compromising
with
their
dignity
and
sometimes
even
life.
India
has
a
minimum
wage
legislation
wherein
both
the
Centre
and
states
can
fix
the
wages
but
domestic
workers
don't
fall
under
it.
Only
in
the
state
of
Karnataka
does
the
domestic
help
has
a
minimum
daily
wage
(Rs
191).
What
our
behaviour
says
about
us
Nothing special. The hyper-reaction that we are putting up on the Khobragade issue proves again that we are a typical developing country at the end of the day, where the leadership needs to fuel nationalistic sentiments to improve their prospects in the national elections.
The interesting part in the entire episode is that even Rahul Gandhi decided to turn away the US delegates as a protest. After the recent defeats in four states, Gandhi gave hint that he would make the Congress work like a common man's party and has been found giving views on various issues, including gay rights, Lokpal Bill and now the diplomat row. Even Narendra Modi had to take the common route of nationalism so that Gandhi did not get an advantage. So it's all about elections and India's political leadership has learnt to make use of the ambitious middle-class and the media riding a nationalist sentiment to facilitate their own cause.
But when real action is required on foreign policy issues, like taking a strong stand vis-a-vis Maldives or fighting in favour of a fellow Indian in Togo, our leadership is found indifferent. For those countries are too inconsequential. If we take on the mighty USA, we have a better publicity to gain.
Hence, over react and stretch it too far.