Devyani Khobragade issue becomes messier

US says shifting Khobragarde to UN Permanent Mission not an 'automatic' thing, will have to be reviewed

US Secretary of State John Kerry last night spoke to National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon and expressed regret (the US Spokesperson was very clear: He did not issue an unconditional apology, he expressed regret) for the treatment handed out to Devyani Khobragade.

In the transcript of the briefing late last night, the US State Department said Kerry called Delhi from Honolulu where he is currently, en route a tour of some East Asian and Pacific countries, and said as a father of two daughters the same age (as Khobragade) he regretted what had happened. But he added that the law had to be enforced and victims protected. He hoped that US officials would continue to be treated with respect in India.

He was also aware that Khobragade would be arrested. But the state department is 'reviewing the intake procedure'.

The State Department, through spokesperson Marie Harf, continued to insist that on September 4, India had been informed that there were serious charges against Khobragade. (to this earlier yesterday, the Indian spokesperson just stopped short of saying that the US was lying).

The US has not received any communication about the change of status of Khobragade: which means, they have not yet officially received communication that she's been shifted to India's UN Permanent Mission. What Harf said exactly was: “If such a request is made, which we have not received any communication on such a request, it would have to be reviewed by all appropriate authorities at the UN and at the Department of State. It’s not an automatic thing by any means.”

Would her present status (as a Diplomatic Agent, as opposed to Consular officer) apply retrospectively? Khobragade's lawyer, it appears, has said publicly that it will. But Harf was not sure.

Harf evaded the answer to a question about the US helping the complainant (Sangeeta Richard, Khobragade's housekeeper) although there was a case against her in an Indian court. Did the US participate in a visa fraud by enabling Richard to stay on in the US though India had cancelled her passport? Harf wasn't sure. She said she would revert with the information.

And, see the sequence of the Q&A below:

I’m just curious about standard practice. If you have a foreign diplomat on US soil who has knowingly broken US laws and lied to the federal government about it, is there any precedent for that person continuing to serve?

Harf: That’s a good question.

And does that disqualify them somehow from, like, in terms of the agreement you have with their country or any country?

Harf: It’s a really good question to which I don't know the answer. I’m happy to check with our folks and see if there is any precedent and how that would impact anything. Again, at this point she’s only been charged. There’s a judicial process, of course, but I’m happy to check.

Does this make you wonder if the US and India are allies at all?